You are on page 1of 325

Sribhashya of swamy Ramanuja


The principles of the philosophy of visishtadvaita are expounded in the interpretation of
the Brahmasuthra by Ramanuja. His commentary on Brahmasuthra, otherwise known as
Vedanta suthra, is his monumental work, the Sribhaashya. Ramanuja establishes the
tenets of visishtadvaita firmly in Sribhaashya while refuting the views of other schools of
philosophy effectively.

Ramanuja opens Sribhashya his commentary on the Brahmasuthra with an
invocational verse,
Vinathavidhithabhootha vratharakshaikadheekshe
Sruthisirasi Vidheepthe brahmani sreenivaase
bhavathu mama parasmin semushee bhakthirupaa

'May my intellect, semushi, be engrossed in devotion, bhakthirupa bhavathu, on Lord
Srinivasa, the Supreme Brahman, brahmani srinivase, who is shining on the crown of
the vedas, sruthisirasi Vidheepthe, who has vowed to protect all beings who bow down
to Him and follow His path vinathavidhitha bhothavraatha rakshaika dhikshe, and for
whom the acts like creation sustenance and annihilation are mere sport,

As in vedharthasangraha here also Ramanuja uses the name Srinivasa as a synonym
for Parabrahman. Srinivasa could be taken to have reference to the Lord of Thirumala,
but considering the subject matter dealt with in this work Srinivasa can be construed as
nivasah, the abode of Sri, that is Lord Narayana, Paravasudeva, the Brahman of

Bhavathu mama semushi bhakthirupa implies that bhakthi is the sole means of
salvation. Jnana as a result of bhakthi is stressed in visishtadvaita. Srinivasa or
Brahman crowns the sruthi, Veda, as its chief import Srutisirasividheepte. Veda is the
only source of knowledge about Brahman and Brahman is the only purport of the Veda.
Brahman or Narayana is described as having taken the diksha, vow of protecting His
bhakthas, vinatha vidhitha bhoothavraatharakshaikadheekshe. Bhootha, all beings,
who are Vinatha, surrender to Him and vidhitha, follow the path of devotion. May it be
man bird or beast, as can be seen in the case of Vibheeshana, Gajendhra and Jatayu?
It is His only vow as Rama says when Vibheeshana surrenders to Him,
Sakrdheva prapannaanaam thavaasmi ithi vadhinaam abhayam
sarvabhoothaanaam dhadhaami ithi vratham mama
'It is my vow to give protection to all beings whoever surrenders to me saying, "I am
yours." ‘As SudharsanaSuri puts it His vow to protect is, to give them Mukthi ultimately.
The reason for this vow is denoted by akhila bhuvanjanmasthemabhangaadhileele.
The creation, janma, the sustenance, sthema and the annihilation, bhanga all are His
leela, done without effort, and hence He feels responsible for the beings He Himself
created when they turn to Him for protection. He not only creates sustains and
annihilates but also enters into the beings as their Self. This is implied by aadhi padha,
bhangaadhi, and annihilation and so on. The word akhila is used instead of any other
word of the same meaning, like sarva or nikhila because the letter 'a,' akaara denotes
auspiciousness and represents the Lord Himself. Khila means sesha, remnant, while
akhila is asesha, all inclusive.

Sribhashya- paadha 1-adhikaraNa-1


Suthra-1 ' aTHaatho brahma jijnaasaa’--- Then, therefore the inquiry of Brahman

Sri Ramanuja starts his SribhAshya with the words

'athra ayam aTHa shabdhah AnanthyaaryE bhavathi.'

Before we examine the meaning of these words we have to understand a little of the
structure of the vedas, each of which basically consists of two parts.
The purva bhaga, deals with the Ritualistic portion while
The uttarabhaga, known as Vedanta consists of upanishads.
The interpretation of the ritualistic texts and clarification of the doubts therein is called
PurvamimAmsa or karmamimamsa and it was prepounded by Jaimini in the form of
While the study of the nature of Brahman and other concepts of Vedanta are called
UttharamimAmsa consisting of the Brahmasuthras of BAdharAyaNa. Brahmasuthras
have been interpreted by Sankara and Madhwa according to their siddhanatha while tha
commentary of Ramanuja is based on Bhodhaayana vritthi and is in accordance with

Now coming to the sentence' athra ayam aTHa sabdhah AnanthryE bhavathi,'
means that the word 'aTHa' is used here in the sense of 'then', that is, 'after something.'
The cryptic suthra should be understood as follows.

Then, aTHa-after the study of purvamimamsa, therefore, athah-knowing that the result of
the rituals done for specific purpose are finite and transitory,inquiry of Brahman,
brahmajijnAsA-to be taken up because the knowledge of the real nature of Brahman
secures infinite and eternal
result, that is moksha. So the Ananthrya referred to ihere is after the study of

Then ramanuja explains the word 'athah' thus:

'Atha sabdhah vrtthasyahethubhAve'

Vrttha refers to the meaning of 'aTHA' which is 'then' and the word 'atha' explains the
reason for the previous word-meaning. If the aword 'atha' is removed,the suthra would
mean that the inquiry of Brahman is to be taken then, but it would not justify the action of
taking up the inquiry without the word athah, meaning 'therefore', which implies the need
of the knowledge of Brahman because the knowledge rituals alone will not secure the
release from bondage.
Ramanuja explains as to why the study of Brahman comes after that of karmakanda of
the vedas. When the vedas are learned along with their angas, the karmajnana aquired
thereby produces results which areof alpa, trivial and asthira, transitory. So to one who is
desirous of
attaining moksha, sanjAtha mokshAbhilAshah, the inquiry of Brahman,brahmajijnAsa,
is anantharabhAvinee, subsequent to vedhAdhyayana.

Next Ramanuja analyses the word ' brahmajijnAsA.' It is jijnAsA, desire to know
Brahman, 'brahmaNah jijnAsA.' he word brahmaNah is in genitive case denoting
sambandha, connection or relationship as in 'rAjnah puthrah,' the son of the king. But
here the rule 'karmaNi shashati' is applied and the word brahmaNah is used in the
sense of an object. It is because the act of knowing requires an object and by knowing
what is Brahman includes knowing about Brahman also.

A bhashya must have five requisites, namely,

PadhacchEdha, splitting the words like separating the suthra as aTHa, atha, etc.
PadhArthkthivigrahah, etymological meaning of the words as in brahmNah jijnAsA,
vAkyayojanA, it must consist of full sentences,
Akshepasya samAdhAnam, reply to any possible objection and vyAkhyAnam,
on the text.
In Sribhashya also we see that according to the abovelakshana Ramanuja presupposes
the possible objection from the opponentand answers them after explaining about the
word 'brahma.'

The adjectives anavadhika and asankhyeya with reference to His wonderful, athisaya
and infinite, anantha kalyANa gunagana, auspicious qualities, show that they are
inconceivable by vAk and manas. Avadhi is limit and Sankhya is number. His qualities
are anavadhika, not limited
by words or thiught and asankhyEya , countless, as Desika says in YadhvAbhyudhaya,

Ramanuja outlines the basic concept of visishtadvaita by his explanation of the word
'brahma.' He says
BrahmasabdhEnacha svabhAvathah nirasthanikhiladhoshah anavadhika athisaya
asankhyEya kalyANagunaganah Purushotthamah abhidheeyathE
The word 'brahma' refers to the supreme Purusha, NArAyaNa, who is naturally devoid
all defects, (this eliminates other relalised,muktha, everfree, nitya, souls), and
possesses infinite,wonderful, inconceivable auspicious qualities. These words serve to
deny the concept of
nirguNabrahman. By this statement he declares without any ambiguity that the word
brahma is synonymous with NArAyaNa, removing any doubt to the contrary.

The adjectives anavadhika and asankhyeya with reference to His wonderful, athisaya
and infinite, anantha kalyANa gunagana, auspicious qualities, show that they are
inconceivable by vAk and manas. Avadhi is limit and Sankhya is number. His
qualities are anavadhika, not limited by words or thought and asankhyEya, countless, as
Desika says in YadhvAbhyudhaya, 'yadhEkaikaguNaprAnthE shrAnthAh
nigamavandhinah yathAvath VarNanE asya,' the vedas
Proceeding to describe Him as He is, become exhausted by the time they finish relating
about even one of His qualities.

Ramanuja then proceeds to show that the word Brahman can only mean nothing but
sarvesvara. Brahma sabda is derived from the root 'brh' to mean greatness and though
it can be applied to anything which is great, the mukhyArTha of the word can only be
that which is by nature possesses the greatness to an infinite degree, as in the case of
the word 'bhagavat' which denotes only the Lord. The implication here is that the word,
great being, brahma, is not
meant in the adjectival sense but as the mukhyArTHa, in its denotation of something
which is great by nature.

Another reason for the word 'brahma' denoting sarvesvara is given by Ramanuja as
'thApathrayAthuraih amrthathvAya sa Eva jijnAsyah.'
As the Lord is the sole resort for those who are affected by thApathraya, the three
afflictions of samsara, namely Adhibhouthika, Adhidhaivika and AdhyaAthmika, He
alone becomes the
object of jijnAsA. The ills of samsara are due to the three thApaas,
Suffering due to fate due to no reason, Adhidhaivika,
Due to other beings and natural elements, Adhiboutika and
Due to our own physical and mental conflicts for which our own actions are responsible,
Even though these may be remedied by other means they are not permanent and
permanent remedy is possible only by the grace of the Lord, who alone can release us
from the samsara. So 'sa EvA JIJNaSYAH,' He alone has to be inquired.

After examining the implications of the word 'brahma' and explaining it to mean
Narayana the last word of the suthra jijnAsA is examined. The word is a compound
meaning jnAthum icchA, desire to know. The one who has studied the
PurvamimaAmsA comes to know of its alpa asTHira phalathva and turns to Utthara
mimAmsA with the desire to attain the permanent bliss of moksha.

The PurvamimAmsa sastram discusses the purusharthas beginning with the suthra
'aTHatho dharmajijnasa,' and it is precedent to the UttharamimAmsa in as much as, in
order to understand the asthiraphalathva one has to study the sastra and follow the
injunctions. So the UttharamimAmsa forms the latter part of study of vedas and hence
forms one whole with the purvamimAmsa.

Ramanuja elaborates on the krama, the order of study of the vedas by saying, ' thaTHA
hi-praTHamam thaavath “svaaDHyaayo adhyEthavyah" ithi
SabdhavAchyavedhAkyAkshararAsEh grahaNamviDHeeyathE' First the vedas are
learnt after upanayanam by word of mouth, that is chanting with svaras. The proper time
of aDHyayana is denoted by “ashtavarsham brAhmaNam upanayeetha; tham
aDhyApayEth." A brahmin should be sanctified with upanayana at eight years of age and
should start the
aDHyayana. So aDHyayana means learning the chanting of the vedas from the acharya.
The result of the vedaDHyayana is self evident as given by the manthras japas etc. The
meanings of the Vedic texts are learnt in due course along with the vedaAngas.
The next step is to realise that the results of the ritualistic karma are transient and the
aspirant turns to the Upanishads for attaining permanent well-being through the enquiry
of UttaramimAmsA, also known as sAreerakamimAmsa

The Vedanta texts such as
“thadyathEha karmachitho lokah ksheeyathE EvamEva amuthra punyachithah
lokah ksheeyathe"(chandogya-8-1-6),
Just as this world entered through one's karma is transitory so also are the worlds
attained through punyaphala, affirm the transient and finite nature of the karmaphala. In
the Baghavatgita the Lord says, 'ksheenE punyE martyalokam visanthi,' when the
acquired merit through karma enjoined in the vedas is exausted the jiva returns to the
earth, the karmaloka. Only by brahmajnana the cycle of birth and death can be got rid
off. The texts
"brahmavid aApnothi param", (Taitt.Ana.1)"napunarmrthyavE thdhEkam pasyathi"
and the like are asserting that one who knows brahman reaches the ultimate and
afterthe perception of the one ultimate reality never resorts back to mortality.

Here the objection of the advaitin that since the study of the vedas makes one realise
that the result of karma is transient and finite, the study of UttharamimAmsA could be
pursued straight away without following the course of karmakanda. Ramanuja answers
that it is not so.The mere knowledge of brahman by study of vedanta is not enough to
secure liberation. The inquiry into the nature of brahman, after clearing the doubts and
misconceptions through deep study and practice and contemplation alone can result in
brahmajnana. So too mere study of the karmakanda of the vedas will not result in the
knowledge of the ephemeral and limited nature of the karmaphala. That is, one has to
learn through experience as otherwise mere teaching will make one realise the
impermanence of the world. But we see that it is not so in practice. To know whether
something is conducive to welfare or not, one has to know what it is in order to get
convinced beyond doubt

Laghupurvapakshah- the arguments of Advaitin

Advaitin argues further that the word aTha explained in the meaning of
Anantharya,'after that' thus referring to the study of purvamimAmsa being the forerunner
to the study of UttaramimAmsA is not tenable. One can attain the knowledge of
Brahman through the study of UttharamimAmsA which alone can destroy the avidya, the
cause of the perception of manifoldness of the universe. Hence the study of
PurvamimAmsA helps in no way towards enlightenment, on the contrary is detrimental
to it because the study of PurvamimAmsA
makes one get involved in the manifold world and may as a consequence turn him away
from brahmajijnaAsA. The study of the vedas itself can give the idea of the transitory
nature of karmaphala and there is no necessity for the inquiry into purvamimAmsA.

But it remains to be explained as to what does the word aTHa means if it is not used
with the implication of Anantharya to purvamimAmsA. Advaitin comes with the answer
that though the word is used in the sense of Anantharya, 'after something,' it really
means that the brahmajijnaAsA follows after the saDHana chathushtaya, namely
nithyAnithyavasthuvivekah, discrimination between what is permanent and what is not,
samadhamAdhi sAdhanasampath, the acquirement of inner and outer control,
ihAmuthraphalabhogaviraAgah, detachment towards the karmaphala in this world and
the next and mumukshuthvam, an intense deire for moksha. If one is endowed with
these as a result of his merits in purvajanma he has no need of enquiry into the

Advaitin presupposes the counter argument that the injunctions about Udgita etc found
in UttharamimAmsA with reference to upasanA requires the knowledge of
purvamimAmsA and says’ anabhijno bhavAn
sAreerakasasthravijnaAnasya.'Sudarsana suri explains this as,'sasthre
pradhAnathayA prathipAdhyam jnAnam idham ithi thvayaA na jnAtham
ithyarthah'. This means "You do not seem to understand the main idea explicit in the

We should remember when reading the arguments of the opponents that it is
Ramanuja's words and not that of the opponent as it is the practice to supply the counter
arguments and establish one's own siddhAntha by answering them

The upasana texts in Utthara mimAmsa though connected with karamkanda are not
actually so, because, the karma expounded in purvamimAmsA has no connection
whatsoever with the subjectmatter of UttharmimAmsA, namely, Brahman.

Besides the sruti texts like
'thath yatTHEha karmachithah lokah ksheeyathE EvameEva amuthra
puNyachithah lokah ksheeyathe' (ch.8-1-6)
also denote karma as an obstacle to the attainment of brahmajnana. Even the texrs like
'yajnEna dhAnEna thapasA anAsanEna brAhmaNAh vividhishanthi' (Brhad.-6-4-
22) enjoin only anthahkaraNa nairmalya, puriity of inner equipment, and not for the sake
of result or moksha.

Work done without desire for fruit purifies anthahkaraNa and creates desire for
knowledge.when the anthahkaraNa is pure then knowledge is acquired through
sravaNa, manana and niidhiDhyAsana.
Sravana consists in hearing or learning the meaning of the vedantavakyas affirming
the unity of Atman with Brahman, such as 'satyam jnanam anantham brahma,'
(tait.ana.1), Brahman is existence, knowledge and infinity, 'ayam Athma brahma ,
(brhd.6.4.5), this atman is brahman, 'thathvamasi'(chan.6.8.7), 'that thou art,' from an
Assimilating the teaching of the acharya and making its one's own is manana.
Continous contemplation of the same in order to get rid of the beginningless vAsana is
nidhiDhyAsana. Therefore the prerequisite of brahmajijnAsaA is only the sADHana
chthushtayam and not the inquiry into work.

LaghusiddhAnthah - Answer to laghupurvapaksha

Brahmavijnana may arise when avidhya is dispelled, 'avidhyA nivrtthirEva mokshah
sA cha brhmavijanAdhEva bhavathi,' as professed by the advatin, but the concept of
avidhya, brahman and vijnana are different in every system of philosophy. Avidhya is
bhAvarrupa or
existent independent entity in advaita and anAdhi, beginningless. In VisishtaAdhvaita
however, it is the result of karma in the form of puNya and pApa. To the advaitin
Brahman is nirguNa, without attributes while for visishtadvaitin Brahman, synonymous
with NArAyaNa is saguna, possessing of innumerable, infinite auspicious qualities,
ananthakalyANguNa visishta. The difference in the concept of vijAna will be examined

Ramanuja here questions the concept of jnAna saying,
'jnAnam kim rupam ithi vivechaneeyam-kim vAkyAth vAkyArTHa
utha thanmoolamupAsanAthmakam jnAnam ithi.'
Does it arises by the mere study of vedantavakyas or through meditation on the
obtained by that study? If the knowledge of Brahman can be had by the mere study of
the texts like 'thathvamasi', 'ayam AthmA brahma,' there would be no sense in the words
like 'brahma vidhyAth, know brahman,' and 'upAseetha, meditate.' Experience also
disproves this. On the other hand as in the case Suka, Sanakaa and others it is seen
that the meditation on Brahman has given the brahmajnAna with which the
sruthivakhyas are easily comprehended.

Advaitin may contend that even after acquiring the jnAna the bhedhavAsanA, the
experience of duality due to avidhya may remain though avidhya does not, as in the
case of one who sees two moons due to some defect in the eyes, the knowledge that
there is only one moon does not make the illusion disappear. But even if it remains it
does not cause bondage because the root cause of the illusion of duality, namely,
avdhya is removed by brahmajnAna. Sudarsana suri gives two more examples and says
that a cloth burnt, though retains its shape, will not serve the purpose of covering and
will be destroyed in due course. Similarly the wheel of a potter may keep revolving for
some tiime even after the operation of making the pot is over.

Ramanuja says ‘sathyAmapi sAmagryAm jnAna anuthpattthi anupapatthEh.' When
there is the necessary requisite of the rise of jnAna, the absence of it is not acceptable.
Avidhya is like darkness which should immediately vanish when the light of jnAna dawns
and when there is no avidhya, the cause, its effect, namely, the perception of duality
should also vanish.

Sudarsanasuri explains this further that the darkness of a cave vanishes the moment a
bright lamp is brought inside and when one is frightened that there is a snake, learns
from a reliable Wellwisher that there is no snake there but only a rope, the bhramajnAna,
illusory notion of a snake vanishes. Similarly if the brahamajnAna should result from the
vedavakyas about brahman being the only reality there should be no more perception of
duality. But it is not so.

Ramanuja disagrees with the statement of the advaitin that inspite of the knowledge that
has risen from the study of the vedantavakyas the perception of duality will remain due
to the beginningless vAsana, mental impressions, by saying 'bhedhajnAna sAmagryA
api vAsanAyAh miTHyA rupathvena jnAnothptthyA Eva nivrtthathvAth, ' the
bhedhajnAna , perception of duality itself is miTHya, illusory according to the advaitin to
whom everything other than brahman is unreal.So being illusory the rise of brahmajnana
should remove it as otherwise there is nothing else that can cause its destruction.If it is
claimed that it vanishes by itself, it is absurd as a thing cannot destroy itself. To say that
the cause of vAsana, which is avidhya, is destroyed by jnAna and hence the illusion will
remain for sometime and then vanish is a statement of ignorance, says Ramanuja,
'vAsanAkAryam bhedhajnAnam cchinnamoolam aTHa cha anuvarthathE' ithi

Ramanuja explains the perception of two moons which continues even though there is
the knowledge to the contrary, thus: The illusion is due to defect in the eye which is real
and not illusory and hence will cease to exist only when the defect is removed and not
by the knowledge that there is only one moon. But in the case of a man being frightened
of the illusory snake, the fear vanishes by the knowledge that it is only a
rope.'PrabalapramANA bhAdhithathvENA BhayAdhi kAryam thu nivarthathe.' By
valid means of cognition, namely ApthavAkyam, words of a reliable person or
prathyaksha, by own perception, the fear of snake which is the effect
of illusion is removed.The avidhyA, nescience, being anAdhi, beginningless and
powerful according to the advaitin, the perception of duality cannot be removed by the
mere knowledge of Brahman through the vedantavAkyas.

Therefore besides the study of the vedantavakyas dhyAna and upaAsanA have been
prescribed by the vedntavakyas themselves which can be seen in the texts like '
omithyEva AtmAnam dhyAyaTHa, meditate on the Self as OM,'(Mund. 2-2-6)
'AthmAnamEva lokam upAseetha, one should meditate on the Self alone,'(Brhd.3-4-15)
'AthmA vA are drashtavyah manthavyah nidhiDHyAsithavyah, the Self is to be seen,
thought and meditated'(Brhd.6-5-6). The word 'knowing, vinjAna’ is also to be taken in
the sense of meditation

Now what is meditation? Ramanuja defines it as 'dhyAnam cha thailadhArAvath
avicchinna smrthisanthAna roopam,' continous flow of remembrance like the stream of
continously dripping of oil. 'DhruvA smrthih; smrthilambhe sarvagranTheenAm
vipramokshah,'(Chan.7-26-2) when the constant, (dhruva) remembrance, (smrthih) is
attained all knots are rent asunder. Thus DHruvAsmrthi is prescribed as the means of
liberation. Here remembering is synonymous with seeing. As shown by the text,
'bhidhyathE hrdhayagrantTHih cchidhyanthE sarvasamsayAh ksheeyanthe asya
karmANi thasmin dhrshte parAvarE,'(Mund.2-2-9)
when that, (Brahman) is seen all knots are broken, all doubts vanish and all karma are
destroyed. Similarly the word nidhiDHyAsithavyah also refers to BrahamasAlshAtkAra

Remembrance when become intent, Dhruvasmrthih, is the same as seeing. Sruthi
says, 'nAyamAthmA pravachanena labhyah na meDhayA na bahunA sruthEna
yamaivEsha vrnuthE theEna labBhyah thasyaisha AthmA vivrNuthE thanoom
the self cannot be attained through talk or contemplation or by hearing . Only to him
whom the Self chooses to manifest, the Self reveals itself.' From this statement of the
sruthi, says Ramanuja, it is obvious that self cannot be realised by sravaNa, manana
and nidhiDhyAsana, as professed by the advaitin. 'YamaivEsha vrnuthE THeNA
labhyah,' means the one whom the Athman chooses to reveal itself must be priyathama,
most loved, implying, to him also the Athman is priyathama, most dear,
‘priyathama Eva varaNeeyo bhavathi, yasya ayam nirathisayapriyah sa Eva asya
priyathamo bhavathi.'

This has been proclaimed by the Lord Himself in Bhagavatgita,
'nAyam vedair na thapasA na dhAnEna na chEjyayA sakya Evam vidho dhrashtum
dhrstavAnasi mAm yathA bhakthyAthvananyayA sakyah,'(BG11-53-54).
Iam not to be seen as you see me now, through knowledge of the vedas nor penance
nor gifts nor by sacrifice except through singleminded devotion.' And
'purushah sa parah pArtha bhakthyA labhyasthvananyayA', the Supreme being can
be attained only by devotion.

The Lord says that He will give jnaAna only to those who ever united with Him through
avicchinnasmaranNa, unbroken flow of meditation and love,
'thEshAm sathathayukthANam bhajathAm preethi purvakam dhadhAmi
buddhiyogam tham yEna mAm upayAnthi thE,
thus enabling them to attain liberation. This constant remembranca with love is bhakthi.

Let the meditation with bhakthi be instrumental for the true knowledge of Brahman, that
is, brahmasAkshAtkAra, perception of Brahman, but where is the necessity for the
karma enjoined in the karmakAnda of the vedas?

Ramanuja answers that the karmas like yajna are the sAdhana or means for such
dhruvasmrthi, constant remembrance with love.The efficacy of karma in securing
brahmajnana has been stressed by the suthrakara himself in the third pAdha by the
'yajnAdhisrutheh asvavath,'(BS3-4-26)
There is need for all karma, because the scriptures prescribe yajna etc,
‘ThamEtham vedhAnuvachanEna brAhmaNA vividhishanthi yajnEna dhAnena
thapasA anAsakEna,'(Brhd.4-4-22)
The seekers of Brahman wish to realise it (Brahman) by study of the vedas, by
sacrifices, by charity, by austerity which does not cause destruction, meaning, when
done in moderation, thus asserting the instrumentality of vaidika karma for dhruvasmrthi.
As the constant remembrance, dhruvasmtrthi which continues till death, is the only
means of realisation, the various karma prescribed for the varnAsrama have to be
followed throughout life.

Nevertheless the samadhamAdhi are enjoined as subsidiaries to meditation and have to
be practised by the householder while doing his duties. The view that performance of
work and practice of samadhamAdhi are mutually contradicting is refuted by the
suthrakAra himself.
'SamadhAdhyupethahsyAth thaTHApi thu thadviDHeh
thadhangathayA theshaAm avasyAnushTHE yathvAth,' (BS3-4-27)
they have to be practised because they are enjoined as subsidiaries to meditation.

Ramanuja then explains what are viveka and other spiritual disciplines

1. Viveka-

Discrimination between what is right and what is wrong is needed for physical
purity. There are three kinds of food to be avoided, as enjoined in the sruthi. They are
known as jAthidhushtam, that belonging to prohibited class of food, like eating garlic,
Asrayadhushtam, prohibited on account of asraya, source like chAndAlAdhidhravya,
coming from impure houses and Nimittha dhushtam, contaminated food like remains of
food eaten by someone else, ucchishtam, or polluted by hair etc.
Omitting these kinds of
Food is viveka with reference to body, resulting in kAyasuddhi, physical purity.The
purity observed in eating helps one to attain satthvasuddhi which in its turn helps to
attain dhruvasmrthi,
'AhArasuddhou satthvasuddhih satthva suddhou dhruvA smrthih' (Chand.7-26)

2. Vimoka

Vimoka is to be free from desire, kAma. As shown in the Gita,
dhyAyatho vihsayAn pumsah sangasthEshoopajAyathe
sangAth sanjAyathe kAmah kAmAth krodhOpajAyathe,'
When one thinks about the sense objects longingly there comes attachment which gives
rise to desire which, when thwarted, becomes krOdha thus leading him to ruin. The text
'shAntha upAseetha,'(Chand.3-14-1) implies the control of kAma krOdhAdhi, resulting in
mental purity.

3. AbhyAsah
Gita defines abhyAsa as
'sadhA thadbhAvabhAvithah,'(BG8-6)
Being ever absorbed in the thought of Brahman

4. KriyA

“PanchamahAyajnAdhyanushthAnam shakthithah kriyA”
The observance of the five mahayajnas, namely
Brahmayajna, study and teaching of scriptural texts,
Devayajna, worship and other ritualistic offerings
Pitryajna, srAddha, tarpaNa etc. to pitrs,
Manushya yajna, service to humanity like charity, hospitality etc.,
Bhoothayajna, service to all creatures through kindness and ahimsa
Mundaka Upanishad says,
'KriyAvAnEsha brahmavidhAm varishtah,' (Mund.3-1-4)
The performer of the devotional practices is the foremost among the knowers of the Self.

5. KalyANAni

Possession of good qualities which are specified as follows:
Satya, truthfulness, Arjavam, uprightness of thought word and deed,
DayA, unselfish attitude of kindness, dhAnam, generosity,
AnabhidhyA, devoid of desire to possess what belongs to others or to take revenge.

6.AnavasAdhah, without sorrow for the past and fear for the future, in short, dhainyam,
diffidence, which stands in the way of Self realisation, as made out by the sruthi
'nAyam AthmA balaheenEna labhyah,' The Self cannot be attained by weakminded,

7.Anuddharshah, absence of uddharsha, feeling of elation, which is the opposite of
avasAdha, despair.

Ramanuja further illustrates his point by taking another sruti text, namely
'vidhyAm cha avidhyAm cha yah thath vedha uBHayam
saha avidhyayA mrthyum theerthvaa vidhyayA amrtham asnuthe,'( Isa.11)
He who knows both vidhyA and avidhyA, having conquered death by avidhyA attains
immortality through vidhyA. Here the word avidhyA, says Ramanuja, means the duties of
the varnAsrama laid out in the vedas. If it is ignorance that is meant, one could not
conquer death with it.
'karmaNA mrthyum jnAnothpatthiviroDhi prAcheenam karma
TheerthvA apohya vidhyayAamrtham brahma asnuthE ithyarThah'
By performing karma without attachment the past karma which is obstructing the rise of
jnAna i is exausted and then by jnAna Brahman is attained.

The karma which is jnAna virodhi, opposed to jnAna denotes both merit and demerit,
puNyapApa rupa. PuNya is also termed as jnAna virodhi as it results in birth in order to
enjoy the fruit of puNya. Rajas and thamas conceal the knowledge of Reality,
yaThArTha jnAna
Avarana while the satthva is yaTHArThajnAna hethu causes the rise of the knowledge of
Reality. 'sAtthvAth sanjAyathE jnAnam,'(BG.14-17)

So to attain Brahman the activities of the respective Varna and Asrama are to be
undertaken in order to understand the nature of karmA and the transitoriness of the fruits
of karma. So the study of purvamimAmsA is precedent to that of

MahApurvapksha- The voluminous arguments of the opponent

The main tenet of advaita, namely 'brahma sathyam jaganmiTHyA jeevO brahmaiva
nAparah is taken up next for examination and the argument of the opponent, that is,
advaitin , is given. ‘AsEsha visEsha prathyaneeka chinmathra brahmaiva
paramArThah; thadhathireki nAnAviDHa jnAthr-jnEya-thathkrthajnAnabhEdhAdhi
sarvam thasminnEva parikalpitham miThyAbhootham,'
Brahman, which is devoid of differences and which is pure consciousness alone is real
and the
diversities like knower, known and the knowledge of the known are all superimposed on
Brahman and therefore unreal. They quote the sruthi,
'sadhEva soumya idhamagra Aseeth EkamEva advitheeyam.(chan.6-2-1)

Asesha visesha, all differences, refer to sajAtheeya vijAtheeya svagatha bheEdhAh.
Sajaatheeya bhEdha is the difference within a class, jAthi, of objects, like the difference
between one cow and another.
VijAtheeya, on the other hand, is the difference between classes, like that between a
cow and a horse.
Svagatha bhedha is the diifference within the object like the different limbs of the cow.
As per the text 'sadhEva---addvitheeyam, ' Brahman alone existed in the beginning one
only and without a second, there could not be any difference of the three kinds since
Brahman alone existed,(hence no vijAtheeya bhedha), one only,( so no sajAtheeya
bhEdha) and advitheeyam, without a second ,meaning one whole. (So no svagatha

There are several texts like
'YaththadhrEsyam agrAhyam agothram avarNam achakshussrothram
thadhapANipAdham nithyam vibhum sarvagatham susookshmam thadhavyayam
yathbhoothayonim paripasyanthi DHeerAh,' (Mund.1-1-5),
What is invisible ungraspable unoriginated and attributeless, what has neither eyes nor
ears nor hands nor feet, what is eternal, all pervading, and most subtle, that
imperishable being is what the wise perceive as a source of creation 'Sathyam jnAnam
anantham brahma,' (Tait. Ana, 1) Brahman is existence, knowledge and infinity, 'neha
nAnasthi kimchana',(Brhd.6-4-19) there is no diversity, etc.

Advaitin may even quote from VishNupurana to support his view.
'ParmArthasthvamEvaiko nAnyoasthi jagathah pathE,
you are the only reality there is none else, oh Lord of the world,(VP. 1-4-38),
yathEthaddhrsyathE moortham Ethath jnAnAthmanasthava bhrAnthijnAnEna pasyanthi
jagadroopam ayOginah,(VP. 1-4-39) those who are devoid of yoga see the illusory world
which is only the form of You, who is jnAnasvaroopa.'

To prove that only the undifferentiated Brahman is real and everything else is unreal
they may even quote smrthi like Bhagavatgita where we find statements like
'ahamAthmAgudakesa sarvabhoohAsayasthithah,(BG19-20)
I am the Self in all beings, and 'na thadhasthivinA yath syAth mayAbhootham
charAcharam,'(BG.10-39) there is nothing that exists without me.'

What is miThyAthvam, illusion? It is that knowledge which is sublated later by real
perception like the perception of snake in a rope due to some fault in vision which
vanishes later when the defective vision is removed by the real knowledge of the rope.
Similarly this world of beings from devas to plants is an illusory perception which is
removed by the knowledge of Brahman.

Now what is the defect that produces this illusory perception of the world? It is the
sadhasatanirvachaneeyA anAdhi avidhyA, according to the advaitin. The term sadasat
anirvachaniyam must be understood in order to comprehend the advaItic point of view.
Sat is that which exists, like the rope and asat is that which does not exist, like the horn
of a hare. Now if a thing is asat it would not be seen llike the horn of the hare. The
illusory perception of the snake in a rope appears to exist and is seen by one who is
under the illusion. So it cannot be defined, anirvachaneeyam, as either sat or asat,
because the snake exists till the knowledge of the rope dawns which sublates the
previous knowledge. So also the illusory perception of the world of diversities persists till
it is sublated by the knowledge of Brahman. Hence it is sadasadvilakshaNa, neither sat
nor asat. This is the basis of the concept of adhyaAsa, superimposition of advaita.The
world is superimposed on Brahman by anAdhi avidhya.

How can there be an illusion when the Brahman which is self-illumined is always
present like the Sun? Advaitin contends that avidhya has two functions, through its
AvaraNashakthi and vikshepashakthi.
Avarana is concealing what is real and vikshepa is showing it as something else.The
nonapprehension of the Absolute reality, ie. Brahman, is due to the aAvaraNashakthi
and the misapprehension, the illusion of Brahman as the world, is due to
vikshepashakthi. One sees the rope as some object, the real characterestics being
obscured due to some defect like dim light etc. and the observer, not knowing what it is,
imagines it to be a snake. Similarly the awareness of Brahman or Athman as a
permanent entity is there for everyone but it is not known as such due to ignorance,
anaAdhi avidhyA, and hence it is wrongly perceived as the world.

There are various sruti texts quoted by the advaitin to substantiate this like 'mAyAm thu
prakrthim vidhyAth mAyinam thu mahesvaram,'(svet.4-10), the prkrthi, primordial nature
is the mAya which is weilded by Isvara,' indro mAyAbhihi pururoopa eeyathE,' the Lord
on account of His mAyA is perceived manifold,(Brhd.4-5-19)'anrthEna hi
prathyoodaah,'(Chan.8-3-2) these are covered with falsehood. 'JnAna svarupO
bhagavAn yahO asou aseshamurthih na thu
vasthubhoothah,' Isvara is jnAnsvarupa and all beings of all forms are He alone and not
different.(VP.2-12-39), thasmAth na vijnAnmrthE asthi kimchith kvachith kadhAchith
dhvija vasthujAtham,' (VP.2-12-43) therefore there is no entity other than the
consciousness ever anywhere.This avidhyA will become extinct only through the
knowledge of Self as Brahman, the undifferentiated consciousness.

How could this avidhya be eradicated? '
AsyAscha avidhyAyAh irviseshachinmAthrabrahmAthmaikathva vijAnEna
nivrtthim vadhanthi,'says Ramanuja. The nivrtthi, removal of avidhya has been
postulated by the advaithin to be caused by the knowledge of the identity of the Atman
with the Brahman, the undifferentiated consciousness.Sruthi texts like 'na
punarmrthyavE thadhEkam pasyathi,'(Chan.7-26-2),he who sees the One is not subject
to death , meaning that he attains immortality,
'brahma vedha brahmaiva bhavathi,'(Mund.3-2-9 )
One who knows Brahman becomes Brahman, 'thameEva vidhithvA athimrthyum Ethi,'
Knowing Brahman thus one transcends death. Here the word mrthyu means refers to
avidhyA. The knowledge that Brahman is nirvisEsha chinmAthra is attained by the texts
like' sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma,'(tait.Ana.1-1) Brahman is existence, knowledge
and infinity,'vijnAnam Anandham brahma,' Brahman is consciousness and bliss. The
identity of Atman with Brahman is declared by the texts like 'thathvamasi.'
The suthrakAra also says 'AtmEthithoopagacchanthigrAhayanthicha,'
the texts acknowledge Brahman as the self and teach others also to realise it as such.

After citing the testimony of the vedas the advaitin can establish the destruction of
avidhya by the knowledge of the identity of the individual self with Brahman through
yukthi argument .It may be argued that the direct perception of the diversity of the world
cannot be sublated by the scriptural texts. In the illusion of the rope as a snake mere
knowledge that it is only a snake is enough to destroy the illusion. But it is a case of one
perception being sublated by another whereas here perception is said to be sublated by
sasthra which is a different pramANa, means of knowledge, altogether.

One pramANa can be sublated by another if the latter is stronger. For instance when you
hear that there is a fire this knowledge through inference may be sublated by perception
that there is no fire which becomes the stronger means of knowledge. But here it could
be objected that sruthi is weaker than perception because it needs to be validitated by

Advaitin in answer to this argument says that the flame of the lamp appears to be
one through perception but by inference it is understood to be not so.The flame is
continously produced and hence gives the appearence of one single flame.So here the
prathyaksha which is stronger is sublated by the weaker pramANa. The criterion is not
whether the pramANa is weak or strong but only whether it is contaminated by defect. In
the case of the flame perception is affected by the defect of the eye in being unable to
see the different flames.Similarly when there is conflicting evidence thriough different
means of knowledge the one which can be explained otherwise, anyathA siddham, that
it is due to some defect, is sublated by the one which cannot be explained away like that,
ananyathA siddham. Hence the perception of diversity of the universe which is due to
dosha of avidhya is sublated by the knowledge arising
out of sasthra, of the undifferentiated Brahman.

An objection may be raised against this stand of the advaitin that if the sasthras
were free of defects how can the injunctions on karma like 'jyothishtomEna
svargakAmo yajEtha,' one who wishes to attain svarga should perform jyothishtoma
sacrifice, can be dismissed by those prescribing the spiritual practices for Moksha?
Advaitin says that the texts about karma are sublated by those about Brahman not
because they are defective but because they are anyathAsiddha, that is, they can be
shown to have results that are transitory while the latter are not so, ananyathAsiddha.
Even among the vedantavakyas, those about SaguNabrahman are sublated by those
about Nirgunabrahman.The saguNa texts serve the purpose of attributing qualities to
Brahman so that it could be sublated by the nirguNa texts, which are stronger. The
argument given for proving that the NirguNa texts are stronger is that, if they are not,
then after
attributing qualities to Brahman there will not be any meaning for the NirguNa texts.
Therfore Brahman is in reality undifferentiated consciousness.

.Granted that the injunctive texts are sublated by the Vedanta texts but how can the
texts like "parAsya shakthir viviDhaiva srooyathE svAbhAvikee
His supreme power is heard of as being diverse and His knowledge, power and action
svAbhAvikee, His nature, He is 'sathyakAmah, sathya sankalpah,'(Chan.8-1-5) He is of
true wish and true will, which means that whatever is His wish or will, it comes to be true,
be sublated ?

Advaitin replies 'nirguNavAkya sAmarthyAth,' on the strength of the nirguNa texts like
'asthoolam anaNu, ahrasvam adheerGHam,' (Brhd.5-8-8)
Brahman is described as neither gross nor atomic, neither short nor long etc. by which
the Brahman is denied having any qualities, which are affirmed by the epithets
'nirguNam, niranjanam,' attributeless and colourless(formless). By the rule of sublation
the stronger texts sublate the weaker ones. In order to deny the existence first, that
which is denied is postulated as the prathiyogi, countercorrelate to its abhAva,
nonexistence. That is, only something shown as existent can be denied and not
something never been existent likes the horn of the hare.

But the texts, ‘Sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma,’ quoted by the advatin to
substantiate his view that Brahman is nirvisesha chinmAthra do attribute the qualities of
truth, existence and infinity to Brahman and how can these be explained to mean
nirgunathva of Brahman?

Advaitin explains this by means of the precept of sAmAnADHikaraNya.sathyam,
jnAnam, and anantham are not attributes of brahman because these terms stand in co-
ordination and have oneness of meaning.that is, they all mean the same thing and not
used as adjectives.The
principle of sAmAnADHIkaraNya is defined as as 'BHinnapravrtthinimitthAnAm
sabdhAnAm Ekasmin arTHe vrtthih,' when words of different meaning when put in
apposition, denote the same object, so that there is EkArTHathvam, oneness of

To say that attributes having different meanings can still denote EkArTHathva is, says
advaitin, an ignorant statement of one who does not understand what is meant by
denotation, 'anaBhiDHAnajnO devANAmpriyah.' Oneness of meaning is identity of
meaning of different words. Here the different words satyam etc. mean Brahman only
and not the qualities as in the case of 'neelothpalam,'blue lotus 'syAmo yuvA
lohithAkshah dEvadatthah,' the darkyoung red-eyed Devadattha etc., where the different
epithets mean the same thing, namely, lotus and Devadattha. For this, they would not be
symonyms because they refer to one thing.

Advaitin explains this as follows.The sruti says ‘brahmavidhApnothi param’, the
one who knows Brahman attains the supreme reality. This gives rise to the enquiry
'which is Brahman'? Brahman is defined, distinguishing it from what is not Brahman and
for this purpose only the texts like 'sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma are given. The
terms are not taken in their denotative meaning, mukhyArTha but in their connotative
meaning, lakshyArtha. Thus the term sathyam is not the quality of Brahman but its
svarupa, as being the opposite of all that is not real, asathyam. Similarly jnAnam is to
differentiate Brahman from ajnAna and anantham is used to distinguish Brahman from
what is finite.Thus truth, knowledge and infinity are its nature and not attributes
even as whiteness as distinguished from blackness. Therefore the texts like
'sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma' describe Brahman only as a self-illumined
attributeless consciousness.This interpretation only justifies the purport of the
'SadhEva soumya idham agra Aseeth EkamEva adhvitheeyam'

Abandoning the direct meaning and resorting to the implied meaning is no defect
because the purport of the sentence is to be given preference to the direct meaning of
the words. For instance to prevent one from eating food in the house of an enemy
another says.'visham bhunkshva, eat poison.' Here the muKHYarTha is not what is
meant but the lakshanArTHa, that to eat in enemy's house is like eating poison. In the
present context the purport of the
sAmAnaDHikaranya of the words sathyam oneness and hence direct meanings of
the terms cannot be taken.

Advaitin claims that the implied meaning can be seen in both injunctive and imperative
sentences. In the injunction ‘jyothishtomEna svargakAmO yajEtha', one who aspires for
heaven should perform jyothishtoma sacrifice, the sacrifice does not give the result of
svarga but the apoorva, unseen power created by the sacrifice. So here the lakshyArTha
is adopted. Similarly in the imperative sentence 'gAm Anaya, bring the cow,’ the words
have meaning only connected with the action. So in order to arrive at the import of the
sentence all the words can be taken in the implied sense.

When there is a contradiction, virodha, between perception and sruthi, the latter
is claimed to be stronger. But here there is no virodha and hence there is no need to
prove that one is stronger than the other, says the advaitin. Even through in perception
only attributeless Brahman is perceived, according to Advaita it is only the unity through
the existence, satthA, that is perceived and not difference.

But how can the perception that 'this is a pot, this is a cloth etc.,' be shown as
sanmAthragrAhi, that of the existence alone? Only when the knowledge is continously of
one object, like that of a pot alone, this can be true. Advaitn says, 'Yes it is true and we
wish to prove only that here, namely the perception of all objects is that of one only.

If the difference is perceived it cannot be simultaneous with the object at hand. That is,
when we see a pot its difference from a cloth is not seen because the knowledge of the
cloth is in the
memory. Probably what is meant here is that even if we see the pot and the cloth at the
same place when we look at the pot we do not see the cloth. In the perception that the
pot exists the 'isness' of the pot does not give the knowledge of its difference from the
cloth because the knowledge of difference belongs to a different time other than that of
perception, which belongs to that moment only.

So as in the case of seeing nacre as silver, sukthirajatham, what is perceived is only the
attributeless Brahman which appears as a different object because of bhrAnthi, illusion
due to anAdhi avidhya.

Moreover the difference, bhedhah, cannot be defined, says the Advaitin. The
difference is not of the nature of the object in which case only the difference will be
perceived.That when we see the pot we would also see its difference from the cloth
which is not the case.This sounds a bit confusing but it is not so. If ghata, pot and its
bhedha, difference from other objects, say, pata,cloth, is its svsrupa then the two terms
ghata and bhedha will be synonymous like hastha and kara, both of which mean hand.
So the object and its difference are not the same.

On the other hand if it is said that the difference is the attribute of the object, it must be
assumed to be different from the object. That is, the difference will be different from the
essential nature
of the thing. Then the difference of the difference will be its attribute and the same
argument follows leading to anavasThA. Also this difference of the object from others will
be observed only when the object belonging to the particular class as distinct from
others is observed. But the distinctness to be perceived requires the knowledge of its
difference from the others. So there is the defect of anyonya AsrayaNam, mutual
dependence and hence becomes
untenable.Therefore advaitn concludes that since the difference cannot be proved
the perception is of sanmmAthra, existence only.

Even in the perception of 'the pot exists, the cloth exists' etc what persists is the
existence alone and not the forms which are perceived to disaappear after a while. In the
perception this is pot
etc. the 'this' element persists in all and the forms change.So the exitence signified by
'this' alone is paramArTHa, real, and the others are unreal like rajjusarpa, snake in the
rope. In the illusion of the rope as snake, crack in the ground, stream of water etc., the
rope is the substratum of the illusion and hence is real whereas the other illusory objects
are unreal being separate, vyAvrtthi, from the rope. So too the existence, 'sat,' alone is
the substratum and is
therefore real.

But the reality of the rope is not due to persistence but due to the fact that it is not
sublated by any other knowledge as in the case of snake etc. which again not unreal due
to their being separate from the rope but because they are sublated by the subsequent
knowledge. To this advaitin answers that in the perception that this is a pot there is
sublation of the perception of other objects like cloth and vice versa. So there is
sublation as a result of distinctness, vyAvrtthi. Thus everything else than satthA,
existence is apparamArTha, unreal. Advaitin clinches the argument by a syllogism-

sath paramArThah, anuvarthmAnatyhvAth, rajjusarpAdhou rajjvAdhivath;
ghatAdhayah aparamArThAh, vyAvarthamANathvAth,rajjvAdgyaDHishthAna

The existence is real because it persists (in all perceptions) like the rope in the illusion of
snake in a rope and the objects like pot etc. are unreal because they are separate,
vyAvartha, like the snake in the substratum of the rope. Thus consciousness is identical
with existence because it is real and persists in all cognitions. But the sanmAthra,
existence, being perceived becomes an object of consciousness and hence cannot be
identical with it and only different from it. Advaitin meets this objection by saying that it
has already been shown that the difference cannot be the object of perception nor can it
be defined by any pramANa. Hence existence cannot be proved as an object of
consciousness as it is not expereinced through any pramANa and hence it is identical
with it.

Existence is svathassiddha, self-proved, being consciousness. If it depends on any other
proof it will become an object of experience like a pot. It is always manifest while it exists
and does not need any other consciousness to reveal it except itself. A thing by which
everything else is illumined does not require an external agent for its own manifestation,
like a lamp.

But at the time of perception of a pot, there is only the knowledge that this is a pot. The
cognition of the pot, anubhuthi, comes later. The pot is illumined by the indriyARthA
sannikarsha, the contact of the indriya, eye, with the object, pot.The anubhuthi, 'I know
the pot,' follows later and according to the school of MimAmsakas, the BhAttAs, (
followers of KumArila Bhatta) this cognition is not through perception but by anumAna,
inference. Thus the anubhuthi, being the object of anumaAna, becomes jada, insentient
and not self illuminating, and ajada, as claimed by the advaitin.

Advaitin contends that this ajadatvam pointed out by the opponent is not in any way
a violation, vyabhichAra, of the self-illumination of the sattha.That is, the cognition 'I
know the pot,' is also illumined by the consciousness which is identical with the
sattha.Hence its jadathva is not the criterion. For instance the experience of sukha is
also not cognised at the first moment but only when the consciousness that ' I am
experiencing sukha' arises. Moreover the sattha, consciousness is the cause of all
jnAna, cognition, it cannot cognize itself as the tip of the finger cannot touch
itself.Therefore anubhuthi cannot be known through inference or through any other
cognition. Hence anubhuthi, conscousness which is the cause of all cognitions is self-

Consciousness is eternal and so has neither beginning nor end. There can be no prior or
posterior nonexistence as that could be cognized only by conscousness which would
have been nonexistentat that time. Consciousness is devoid of all plurality, being
unoriginated. That which is eternal must be one only and not many. All that is non-self is
excluded from the self and hence the Self, that is consciusness, cannot have any other
knower but itself.

Neither the concept of knower as 'aham jAnAmi, I know,' can said to be the attribute of
consciousness because knower is an object of consciousness, in the form of awareness
that 'I know.' The concept of knower, jnAtrthA is bhraAnthimoola, illusory like the silver in
nacre.Every cognition like 'I am a man' etc. is the product of the ego, which itself is
unreal and hence cannot be the attribute of consciousness. In sushupthi,deep sleep or
murcchA, swoon when the ego is absent, the consciusness is present,as otherwise there
would not have been the awareness 'maamapi aham na jnAthavAn, I did not know even
myself, and hence the ego functions only through body, mind and intellect. Therefore the
witness-self, sAkshi is different from the ego. Even though it is jada, insentient, the
ahamkara, ego, reflects the consciousness which is changeless, and creates an
appearance as though it is the ego. This is just like the moon being
reflected in the water, miiror etc. and creates an illusion that it is in them. It may be
doubted as to how the self illumined consciousness can be illumined by insentient
objects like ego. In
actual practice we see that the rays of the Sun or of a gem falling on the hand manifest
the light which is not existent there.

The MahApurvapaksha is concluded with the words,

‘thasmAth paramArTHathah nirasthasamasthabhedhavikalpa-
nirviseshachinmAthraikarasakutasTHanithyasamvid Eva bhrAnthyA
jnAthrjnEyajnAnarupaviviDHavichithrabhedhA vivarthatha ithi
thanmoolabhoothAvidhyAnibarhaNAya nithya
suddhabuddhamukthasvabhAvabrahmAthmaikathvavidhyAprathipatthayE sarve
vEdaAnthAh Arabhyantha.'

Therefore in reality, only the consciousness which is devoid of all differences, changes
and attributes, which is the permanent Reality, appears as the manifold differences of
knower, known and knowledge. So to remove the avidhya which is the cause of the
appearence of diversity the study of vedantha should be started to get the knowledge of
Brahman which is by nature suddha, purity itself,buddha, intelligence and muktha,

MahAsiddhAntha- The Great Final decision

1. The argument that Brahman is nirvisesha is criticised.

Ramanuja dismisses the whole purvapaksha argument as 'anAdharaneeyam,
unsupported by any pramaANa. Brahman, NarAyaNA, is the
oupanishadhaparamapurusha, the Supreme being, described by the upanishads, which
say 'yamaivEsha vrNuthE thEna labhyathE, the Self is attained only by those who are
chosen by Him. The arguments of those who are devoid of the guNavisesha, that is,
bhakthi, by which they become qualified to be chosen, who lack the knowledge of the
purport of the sruthivaAkyas and the implication of the means of knowledge, pramANas,
is kutharka, illogical and hence to be dismissed.

All pramAnas have saviseshavasthu, something with attributes only as their object. So
there can be no valid means of cognition for perception without attributes,
nirviseshaprathyaksham. Visesha is what separates a thing from other things. In the
example of blue lotus, blueness is what separates the lotus from red lotus for instance.
Similarly the lotus separates its blueness from others like that of the sea or sky. So when
a thing is perceived, it is the attribute which causes its perception as distinct from other
things and which is exclusive to that object. Actually attributelessness itself becomes
an attribute because there can be no valid knowledge otherwise. All perceptions are in
the form 'I saw this ' which necessitates a perceiver and an object perceived. Both being
viseshas the perception is savisesha only

If the perception which is savisesha is to be proved to be nirvisesha by any syllogism,
the hetu must be something which is found only in brahman. As in the syllogism 'the
mountain is fiery because it has smoke,' the smoke is the hethu which is associated with
fire only and always. In Brahman therefore there must be some hetu which is present in
Brahman only and always. If the advaitin can supply such a hethu it becomes an
attribute and not identical with Brahman.

It cannot be said that when the Brahman is proved with this attribute to be nirvisesha,
this visesha ceases to exist along with the other viseshas as it is not tenable. If this
attribute disappears Brahman cannot be proved to be nirvisesha. Hence the existence
of an attributeless entiity cannot be proved.

Perception cannot be separated from the perceiver and the perceived.It shines only
by making the thing perceived by the perceiver.Anubhuthi as maintained by the advaitin
to be self illumined not dependent on anyhting else, is thus disproved. Ramanuja says
that he will prove that even in sleep and swoon there is only savisesha anubhuthi. When
it is said that the anubhuthi is eternal, it becomes savisesha having eternity as its
attribute. Thus it is proved that anumana or inference through arguments, cannot
be the pranANa to prove nirviseshathva of Brahman.It remains however to examine
the other pramANas, namely sabda and prathyaksha to prove that all perception is only

Sabda, verbal testimony likewise cannot be the pramANa for nirvisesha
brahman.Verbal testimony here means sruthi texts quoted by the advaitin to prove his
point. Verbal testimony consists of words and sentences. Words have two parts,
prakrthi, root and prathyaya,
termination which, having different meanings join to denote only a savisesha object.n\
(All named things,abhidheya, are savisesha only as a nirvisesha vasthu cannot be
denoted by words or sentences without giving it a definition in which case it becomes
Therefore nirvisesha Brahman cannot be proved by sabda.

Ramanuja dismisses prathyaksham also as a means of knowledge of nirvisesha
vasthu. All perception reveals only an object which is savisesha.Advaitin may say that
this is so only in savikalpakaprathyaksham, determinate perception, but in
nirvikalpaprakathyaksham, indeterminate perception show only the object as nirvisesha.
Ramanuja disagrees and says that even that can show only object with visesha. The
opposite has never been experienced. Any perception is only of the nature 'idham
ittham, this is such and such.' When a cow is perceived it is perceived with its form,
dewlap etc. to differntiate it from other objects like horse.No perception is experienced

Then, advaitin may question, what is the meaning of the term nirvikalpaka

Ramnuja answers thus: Nirvikalpakaprathyaksham occurs when there is the first
perception of the object, say, cow. When another cow is seen the knowledge of jati,class
is known with a knowledge that any object belonging to the 'Go' jati will look like this and
then the form of a cow, having triangular face, dewlap etc. are known to belong to the
class of cows. Even though the form is perceived at first it is not known to be common to
all objects of that class and hence it is called nirvikalpaka, indeterminate perception.
With the perception of the jati and viseshas like triangular face, dewlap etc it becomes
savisesha. Hence only the subsequent perceptions are savisesha and the first one is
nirvisesha.Therefore attributelessness can never be the object of perception.

Ramnuja here proceeds to show that even the bhedhAbhedhavAdha of Bhaskara
is untenable.The latter professes that the jati and other attributes are both separate and
not separate. When the cow is seen as belonging to the class of cows, the jati is not
viewed as separate from the vyakthi, cow, but is different when the cow is seen as an
object by itself. Ramanuja refutes this saying
'Sarvathra viseshaNviseshyabhAva prathipatthou thayoh athyanthabhEhdhah
prtheethyaiva suvyakthah'

The viseshaNaviseshyabhAva, the relation of attribute and substance makes it clear
that there is absolute difference between the two, which is explicit from their perception
itself. When an object is perceived as ' idham ittham,' this is such and such, the idham
aspect denotes the object and the ittham aspect exhibits its attributes. So the two are
undoubtedly different and cannot BE claimed to be identical.

The followers of BhAskara may argue that in which case there will not be any
difference between the attributes denoting possession like dhandee, one with a staff,
kundalee, one wearing kundala and those denoting jati etc. Ramanuja replies that the
attributes adhering through possession have a separate existence whereas the dewlap
etc. do not exist separately from the entity, cow.

Hence nirvisesha cannot be proved by perception, inference or verbal testimony.
Trying to prove nirvisesha through proving that all viseshas are not perceived, is like the
statement that one's mother is a barren woman.

The argument that sense perception shows only'sat' is criticised.

Sense perception does not show mere existence in which case all perceptions will be of
the same thing. But we see things differently as 'this is a pot,'this is a cloth,' etc. When a
thing is perceived its jati is also perceived so that there is no doubt about either the entity
or its jati. If only the existence is perceived how can one proceeding to buy a buffalo
returns empty handed on seeing only a cow there, asks Ramanuja. Moreover, seeing a
horse the cognition that this is not an elephant arises out of the memory of having seen
an elephant to be different from a horse. Besides if all perceptions see only the
existence then a man who is blind can see with his ear and the deaf can hear with his
eye etc.Because the sense preception is the same and there is no bhedha between that
of the eye and the ear.

Then Ramanuja proceeds to show that 'sat,' that is, existence alone does not
become the object of any sense organ. The eye sees an object possessing colour,
rupa, the ear hears the sound as being the attribute of the object heard, the skin
cognises the particular touch of the object.

If Brahman, nirvisesha chinmathra, can be perceived as 'sat,' it becomes an object of
perception that belies the declaration of the vedas that Brahman is athindhriya, beyond
cognition by senses. Sruthi says,

'YathO vAchO nivarthanthE aprApya mansA saha,' (Kena.)
Brahman will then cease to be self-proved and will become prameya, known, which
makes it jada, insentient and nAsya, perishable as according to advaitin that which is
prameya, object of cognition, is so.
Therefore, says Ramanuja:
That is, the perception is of a thing distinguished by the attributes like jati, form, colour
etc. only.

Advaitin's contention that since 'sat' alone is perceived as being common to all objects,
the visesha, difference,being not perceived as we go from one object to another and
hence apAramArthya, not real, is criticised by Ramanuja. We say that one knowledge is
sublated by the subsequent knowledge when there is conflict between the two as in the
case of rope and the snake. But in seeing one object after another there is no
conflict.The bheda, difference between the rope and the snake vanishes when the
knowledge of the rope arises because both cannot
exist at the same place and time. But when we see a pot and a cloth subsequently the
presence of one does not exclude that of the other. So the difference of a pot from a
cloth and vice versa still persists. If 'sat' is said to be real because it is found in every
perception, and by 'sat' the advaitin means the sattha, existence in general, such
inference requires no proof as in the case 'I exist because I live.' If 'sat refers to the
existence of the particular thing perceived then the hetu, reason given,that it is found in
all perceptions is not tenable because the existence found in a pot is not that of a cloth.

The advaitin says that the perception, anubhuthi is real because it is found in all
experiences and hence there can be no vishayavishyibhava, object-subject relatinship
between anubhuthi and 'sat'. Therefore anubhuthi is 'sat.' Here it should be remembered
that the term 'sat' and Brahman,are synonymous and denote attributeless
consciousness in advaita.The two terms, 'sat' and perception are used by the
advaitin in the absract sense, meaning the absolute existence and absolute perception
and not that of objects in general.Since both are real because of their persistence they
should be identical as there cannot be two reals in advaita philosophy. But Ramanuja
summarily dismisses this saying that' sat' is the object of anubhuthi and hence
cannot be identical
Anubhuthi as self proved

Advaitin say that anubhuthi is svayamprakasa, self-proved. The reason given for
this is that if anubhuthi is not self proved it has to depend on another to prove its
existence, like a pot. This means, as perceptions reveal an object like pot it does not
need any othermeans to reveal itself. If it is not self-proved it ceases to be perception.

Ramanuja disagrees with this argument saying that in that case past perceptions
known through memory and the perceptions of others known through inference will not
be termed as perceptions. Unless the perception of others are admitted to be known the
meaning of words and their connections will not be perceived and one will not be able to
infer the knowledge of the acharya and approach him for learning.
'Anubhuthithvam nAma,' says Ramanuja,'varthamAnadhasAyAm svasatthayA Eva
svAsrayam prathi prakAsamAnathvam,
‘Perception is that which illumines its object by its very existence when it is present. The
objects like pot lack this attribute hence they are not perceptions.So to say that, if
perception depends on another to prove its existence, it will not be different from objects
of perception like pot, is not correct. Even if the perception needs no proof for its
existence it’s ceasing to be perception could result as in the case of skyflower of which
there is no perception, ananubhuthithva, the nonexistence of it does not need any other
proof. If it is said that in the case of skyflower the ananubhuthithva, nonperception, is
due to its being 'asat', nonexistent, whereas in the case of pot the nonperception is due
to ajnAnaavirodhithvam,not inimical to ignorance, which means that the lack of
knowledge about the pot, is the cause. But Ramanuja says that it is not agreeable to cite
two different causes for the two nonperceptions and the same reason
ajnAnaavirodhithva is the cause in both cases.

The view that anubhuti is eternal is criticised.

The argument of the advaitin that there is no prior nonexistence, prAgabhAva of
anubhuthi and hence it is anaAdhi, has no beginning, is refuted by Ramanuja saying,
'yatthu svthassisddhAyAh samvidhah prAgabhAvAdhyabhAvAth uthpatthih
nirasyathE – thaddhandhasya jAthyandhEnayashtih pradheeyathE,'
It is like one blind man giving staffs to one who is born-blind, that is blind leading the
blind.Just because there is no one to perceive the prior nonexistence it cannot be
negated. The prior nonexistence of anubhuthi is perceived by anubhuthi itself because
perception is not restricted to the present but extends to the past and future, except
when the perception is caused by the contact of sense organs with the sense objects,
that is, when we see a pot, the perception of it is with reference to that particular object
at that particular time and place. In the case of memory, inference, Vedic and yogic
perception, what belongs to the times other than the present is perceived.

Advaitin says that prAgabhAva, prior nonexistence of anubhuthi cannot be proved
by any pramANa since it cannot be cognised by sense perception being nonexistent,
nor by inference because the hetu, like the smoke which is the reason for the inference
of fire, is
not there. And there is no vedic text can be quoted in this matter.So on the basis of the
absence of any pramANa the prior nonexistence of perception cannot be proved.

Ramanuja says,
'YadhyEvam svathssiddhathva vibhavam parithyajya
pramANAbhAve avaroodascheth yOgyAnupalabdhyA Eva abhAvah samarTHithah
ithi upasAmyathu bhavAn'
If the advaitin strives to prove that perception is eternal having recourse to the absence
of pramAna rather than on the ground that perception is self-proved, the reply would be
in reference to yOgyAnupalabDHi. That is, if a thing exists it must be capable, yOgya, of
cognition. So anubhuthi if ever existed prior to its cognition it would have been cognised.
Hence it did notexist.

The perception of a pot for instance shows its existence only at the time of perception
and not always. So perception is limited by time. If it is eternal the object of cognition will
also become eternal.which is not the case. Similar is the case of cognition through any
other means of knowledge like anumAna, inference.

Advaitin may argue that what is meant by perception being eternal has no reference to
that of objects but anubhuthi in general, nirvishaya samvid. (samvid and anubhuthi are

Advaitin says that an objectless perception is found in deep sleep, intoxication and
swoon but this is refuted by Ramanuja on the basis of yOgyAnupalabDHi. If there is
such perception it would have been remembered when awakened from such states.
Since it is not the case
there is no such thing as objectless perception, nirvishayasamvid.

It cannot be argued that just because it is not remembered you cannot say that there
was no perception because we do not remember everything previously experienced
even in the waking state. Ramanuja replies that only when there is a strong reason like
leaving this body, all experience is forgotten. So when there was no remembrance of
any experience whatsoever denotes only the absence of it.

Advaitin might argue that the reason for the lapse of memory of the experience of
perception is sleep is due to the absence of objects and the 'I' factor in sleep. Presence
of objects and the notion of 'I' is necessary for the remembrance and they are also
necessary for having an experience in the absence of which there can be no perception.
It will be explained later that even in the state of sleep the 'I'continues to exist. But that
experience is of the Self which will be shown to be savisesha. Here the absolute
perception devoid of all objects is only refuted. If it is said that the experience of the Self
is the absolute perception it is not acceptable because even that is an attribute of the
Self as will be shown later.

So the argument that since anubhuthi cannot prove its own prAgabhAva it should be
eternal is wrong.Moreover what is eternal must have no end. Advaitin says that since
anubhuthi is not originated it suffers no change and hence it has no end. This is not
tenable says Ramanuja,
because there is vyabhichAra in prior nonexistence, prAgabhAva, of things produced,
like pot, their prior non existence has no beginning but it ends when the thing is

To evade this difficulty advaitin may define the term change as being that of a
bhAvapadhArTha, a positive entity. That is, the changes that occur in positive object like
pot is denied to be present in anubhuthi. The changes which result in the destruction or
end of the
positive entity like pot is not present in prior nonexistence, which, though having no
beginning, has an end. Ramanuja overrules this by saying that avidhya according
to advita is a bhAva padharTHa which has no origination being anAdhi but it ends
when the knowledge of
Brahman arises.But to the argument that the changes in avidhya are said to be
mitThyAbhootha, unreal, Ramanuja says that even the changes in objects like pot are
unreal according to advaita.Hence anubhuthi cannot be proved to be eternal.

Criticism of the claim that anubhuthi is atman

Anubhuthi being devoid of all differences it has no separate perceiver and hence it is the
atman, says the advaitin.

Ramanuja asks him whether the perception, samvith shines or not. If it does there will
only be sadharmathA, that is, shining itself will be a dharma, attribute, of the
perception.If it does not, it will be nonexistent like a skyflower. Here the word prakasa,
shining, is used in the sense of being available for practical purposes, vyavahAra
anuguNyam. A thing shines for someone on something. That is, the cognition of
puthrathva, having a son, is the cognition of the son for the father. Advaitin may say that
samvideva athma, perception is nothing bur the self because they do not accept a
viewer apart from the samvid, but Ramanuja asks him 'who is this AthmA? Has there
been any perception ever experienced apart from that of an object to a knower? In
reality perception is the attribute of the Athma because of the nature of perception such
as, 'ghatamaham jAnAmi,' I know the pot, 'idham artTHam avagacchAmi,' I comprehend
this,'patam aham samvedhmi' I cognise the cloth etc.This is because any action like
knowing which has an object must necessarily have a subject too.

Now the recollection in the form of 'I have experienced this already' proves the
sthirathva, permanency of the knower and also theorigination, sustenance and the
disappearance of the object experienced, as in the case of sukha and duhkha, says

ThaTHAhyasyakarthuh sTHirathvam karthrdharmasya
samvEdhanAkhyasyasukhaduhkhAdhiriva utpatthi sTHithanirOdhAtcha

That samvid is not permanent is shown from the cognitions like 'I know, I do not know,
'this knowledge known before by me is lost now' etc. If this samvid is identified with
Athman the memory of having seen a thing before will not arise. Therefore anbhuthi is
anubhuthi only and not the Self as claimed by the advaitin.

Advaitin tries to prove that in the perception 'Iknow' the 'I' element is not athma but the
ego because it is not proved by itself, does not shine by itself and requires another proof
for its
existence. Since anubhuthi is self proved, shines by itself and does not depend on
another for proving its existence it is the AthmA.What is meant here is that the 'I' element
in perception is also the object of perception since in the perception 'Iknow this,' aham' ,
'I', is perceived to have the perception of 'this.'But Ramnuja does not agree with this and
says that in the perception 'Iknow,' anubhuthi appears as an attribute, dharma, and the 'I'
is the ownerof the attribute, dharmi. This is the prathyaksha, sense perception and any
anumAna, inference to prove the contrary cannot be accepted, prathyaksha being a
more valid pramANa than inference.

The 'I' in the cognition 'I know' is the self, says Ramanuja, because it is prathyak, internal
apart from everything else, which becomes the object of perception and hence external,
parAk, of
the 'I. 'The one who is mOkshArThee, desirous of mOksha, expects the unalloyed bliss
devoid of duhkha and hence tries for mOksha. If mOksha is said to result in the
destruction of the ‘I’, no one will try for it. There can be no knowledge without a
knower. When the cutter and the axe are absent there can be no cutting
operation.Therefore the 'I' who is the knower is the Athma.It is said in Bhagavatgita

'EthadyovEtthi tham prAhuh kshEtrajna ithi thadvidha,' (BG-13-1)

The Athman is said to be the knower of the field which consists of all that is not Athma.
This idea will be made clear later by the suthras 'nAthmA sruthEh' the self is not born (2-
3-17) and 'jnO atha Eva', (2-3-18) therefore he is an eternal knower.Hence Anubhuthi is
not Athma.

Ramanuja quotes the sruthi texts to prove this point.

'Sa yaThA sainDHavaghanah anantharah abAhyah krtsnah rasaghana Eva, Evam
vA arE
ayam AthmA anantharh abAhyah krtsnah prajnAna ghana Eva,

as a piece of salt has no inner parts and outer parts but the whole of it is of salt only
,similarly this Athma has no inner and outer parts but the whole of it is pure intelligence,
meaning a sentient principle only. 'Athra ayam purushah svayamjyothirbhavathi,' The
Self, Purusha is self illuminated. Suthrakara also shows that AthmA is the knower by the
suthra 'jnOatha Eva.' Therefore the AthmA who is svayamprakAsa is the knower.
Perception cannot be AthmA. The words samvid, anubhuthi and jnAnam are relative
terms and there can be no perception without an object which is proved by experience.

Advaitin then says that anubhuthi is AthmA because it is ajada, sentient. Ajadathva
means it is cognised by its own existence and does not need another to illuminate it as
in the case of things which are jada, insentient like a pot. This lumonosity being the
substance itself and not an attribute is found even in a lamp which is not the AthmA. If
on the other hand an ajadthva mean that which is always manifest, this characterestic is
found in mental impressions like sukha and duhkha because when the feeling of
happiness or sorrow arises it is always manifest. That is, one cannot say "I did not know
that I am happy."

It may be argued that the sukha and duhkha do not manifest to themselves but to the
Self only, and hence they are jada, but Ramanuja asks,

' jnAnam vA kim svasmai prakAsathE? Thadhapi hyanyasaiva ahamarTHasya
jnAtyuh avabhAsathE, aham sukhee ithivath, jAnAmyaham ithi.'

Even the knowledge does not manifest to itself but onlyto the knower and the perception
that 'I know' is similar to that which is of the form 'I am happy.' Therefore ajadathvam
does not imply svasmai prakAsamAnathvam, shining for it. If ajada means what shines
by itself by its mere existence it refers only to AthmA which is not mere knowledge as
claimed by the advaitin but is
the knower.

Presence of 'I' in deep sleep and release

The advaitin says that the knowership belongs to the ego and not the self and this is
proved by the fact that in deep sleep and in realisation the ahamkAra, ego, is absent.

But Ramanuja refutes this view and says that

'thamO guna abhibhavAthparAgarTHa anubhavaabhAvAccha ahamarTHasya
vivikthasphutaprathibhAsa abhAvE api AprabhOdhAth ahamithyEkAkArENA
Athmanh sphuraNAth sushupthou api nAhambhAvigamah.'

In sleep one is pervaded by thamas in the form of ignorance and hence there is no
distinct experience of anything because there is no external manifestation to the ego.
But when
awakened one remembers his identity and therefore the concept of 'I' must have been
present in sleep. On rising from sleep one does not remember having been only a
witness of a perception with no experience but always recollects that he has slept well.
So there has been a knower who experienced the sukha of deep sleep. Also because
one has a recollection of his actions done before he went to sleep.To the objection that
when awakened from sleep one also has the feeling 'I did not know anything during the
time of sleep,' Ramanuja replies that it is not a denial of all experiences as otherwise
even the anubhuthi will be denied in sleep. The words 'I did not know' proves the
existence of 'I ' who did not know by which the perception alone was denied. Sensible
persons will not accept that the 'I' also was absent at the time of sleep. Even the
expression 'I' did not know myself implies only the absence of the awareness of the
identity of oneself as so and so as in wakeful state but does not denote the absence of 'I'
Moreover the advatin proclaims that the Self continues to exist as a sAkshi, the
witness consciousness. SAkshitva is not possible without being a knower. It cannot be
pure consciousness. One who knows can only be a sAkshi according to the great
grammarian PANini who defines the word sAkshi as 'sAkshAth dhrashtari samjnAyAm,'
the one, who sees, that is, one who knows, is the sAkshi. The Self by its very existence
shines for itself and as the’I.'Hence the Atma that shines even in deep sleep does so as
the real 'I.' similarly it can be shown that the 'I' shines even in release.Otherwise it will
result in AthmanAsa, says Ramanuja. It cannot be said that ahamarThah, the concept
of 'I' is only an attribute wrongly superimposed on the athman which alone disappears in
release while the athman remains. On the contrary the ahamarTha is not a mere
attribute but the very substance of the Self. Only the jnana is the attribute of the Self.
One aspires for moksha, relief, in order to get rid of the thapathraya, the three kinds of
sufferings due to samsara, which are AdhyAthmika, caused by one's own body and
mind, Adhidhaivika, due to destiny and Adhibhouthika caused by other by the elements
of nature, respectively. If there is the destruction of the 'I,' the experiencer in release no
one will strive for it. Hence the 'I’, who shines as a knower, is the inner self,
prathyagathma This can be proved through inference also.The syllologism is stated
‘Sa cha prathyagAthma mukthou api ahamithyeva prakAsathE svasmai
prakasamanathvath; Yo yah svasmai prakasathE sah sarvo aham ithyeva
prakasathe; YaTHA thaTHA avabhasathvena ubhayavAdhi sammathah
The Self shines only as the real 'I' even in release because it shines for its own benefit.
Whatever shines for its own benefit shines as the 'I' as the samsAryAthma, the
transmigratory self.
"Yah punah ahamithi na chakAsthi, nAsou svasmai prakAsathE yaTHA
That which is not shining as aham,'I,' does not shines for itself but requires another to
manifest it, like the pot.
Advaitin objects to this saying that if the Self shines as 'I' in mukthi it will not be
different from the ego which is the product of ignorance. Ramanuja replies that
ignorance could be of three kinds. It could be svrupaajnana, ignorance of the real nature,
or anyaTHAjnAna, misapprehension or viprithajnAna, wrong apprehension. To
understand the real nature of Athma as the real 'I' is not ignorance.
Next Ramanuja proves his point by citing the example of seers like Vamadeva who
have had the brahmasAkshAthkAra, by removal of avidhya, perceived themselves as
'I' only, and not as pure consciousness.
'Thdvaithathpasyan rshirvAmabEvah prathipEdhe aham manurabhavam
suryascha ithi'(Brhd.3-4-10)

The seer VAmadEva seeing that (Brahman) observed 'I was Manu and the Sun.
'Ahmekah praTHamam Asam varthAmi cha bhavishyAmicha.' "I alone existed, exist and
will exist."
Such is the mode of expression even about Brahman, 'hanthAham imAh thisrAh
devathah' (Chan.6-3-2), 'I will enter these three devathas,' 'bahusyAm prajAyEya,' 'I will
become many' 'sa eekshatha lokAnnusrjA ithi,' ' He willed; I will create the worlds.' In
bhagavatgita the lOrd says,iam the Self of all ,' and several similar expressions are
found in Gita.The svarupa of the Self is the only real 'I' and the ahamkAra normally
understood as'aham' is only a product of matter as mentioned by the Lord Himself
'MahAbhoothAnyahamkArO buddhiravyakthamEvacha,'
The elements, buddhi and ahamkAra are the products of the unmanifest prakrthi. The
word ahamkAra means that it makes one regard as 'I' that which is not 'I'. The word is
used in gita to denote pride; 'ahamkAram balam dharpam'(BG18-53) and hence
ahamkAra is only the product of ignorance, which gives the impression of 'aham' in
body, mind and intellect.
ParAsara has mentioned this in vishnupurana :
'srooyathAm chApyavidhyAyAh svarupam kulanandana; anAthmani
AthmabuddhiryA' (VP.6- 7-10)
"Hear the nature of avidhyA;it is the notion of athma in anAthma."`

Ramanuja says :
'yadhi jnapthimAthramEva AthmA thadhAanAthmani AthmAbhimAne
jnapthimAthraprathibhAsah syAth; na jnAthrthvaprathibhasah.'
If anubhuthi is the self then in the perception of 'I' in the body etc. will be mere anubhuthi
and not as a knower.Therefore 'I', the knower alone is Athma.
To quote YAmunAchArya
'athah prathyaksha siddhathvAthukthanyAyAgamAnvayAth
avidhyA yogathaschAthmA jnAthAham ithi bhAsathE.(Athmasiddhi)
The Athma, knower, shines as 'I' and this is proved by perception inference and
sruthi and the effect of ignorance as pointed out.
'Dehendhriya manafprAnadheebhyOanyOanayasAdhanah nithyO vyApee
prathikshethramAthmA bhinnah svathah sukhee'(Athmasiddhi)
The Athma is other than body, senses, mind, prAna and intellect and is self- proved,
eternal all pervading, separate in each body and happy by nature.Here vyApee means
the most subtle nature capable of entering into all beings.

Criticism of the view that sense perception is nullified by the sruthi Advaitin says that
the sense perception which shows diversity is due to a defect and can be explained
otherwise, anyaTHAsiddha, because it is sublated by the testimony of the veda.
Ramanuja asks him to explain what this defect is. If this defect is due to
anAdhibedhavAsana, the beginningless avidhya, causing the perception of difference,
by the reason that it is anAdhi there could not have been any experience to the contrary.
So one cannot be sure that it is a defect. If it is argued that the bhedhavAsana is
sublated by the sruthi texts denying all differences, Ramanuja says that it is a case of
anyOnya AsrayaNA, and therefore cannot be valid proof. That is, the sruthi texts deny
difference because the perception is defective
and the perception is defective because the sruthi denies it.Moreover if sense perception
is wrong because of anAdhi vAsana, the sasthra is also affected by the same defect
because it is made up of words which are in their turn made up of root and prefixes etc.
which denote bhedha only.Advaitin may come up with the reply that sruthi sublates
prathyaksha, sense perception, as it is later. That is, at first one sees the difference and
then by reading the sruthi text, understands that it is unreal. But merely because it is
later, knowledge cannot be taken as defectless. A person experiencing fear on mistaking
a rope as a snake will not become fearless by mere words unless he experiences that it
is only a rope. So too mere sravaNa of sruthi texts is not enough to sublate the
experience of the difference as the texts themselves are contaminated by the same
defect, being based on difference. That is why manana and nidhidhyAsana is
Then Ramanuja questions the basis for the conclusion that sasthra is not afflicted by
any defect but sense perception has a defect.He says that there can be no proof for this
statement. Anubhuthi which is self-proved and devoid of differences cannot cognise this
because it is said to be unconnected with any object of perception and hence not
connected with sastra either. Sense perception proving the point is of course ruled out
as claimed to be defective and for this reason no other pramAna can provide proof as
they all depend on prathyaksha.
Advaitin accepts that the sasthra is also under the realm of ignorance based on
difference, but the bhedha cognised in prathyakshais sublated by the veda while the
Brahman, the 'sat' and
adhvitheeya,' without a second, is not found to be sublated. Hence the difference is
unreal and Brahman alone is real.
But Ramanuja says 'abhAdhithasyApi doshamoolasya apaAramArthyanischayAth.' Just
because knowledge is not sublated it cannot be assumed as real. One who is affected
by eye defect and sees two moons and has never encountered another without defect
will continue to have the defective vision. Just because his knowledge is not sublated it
cannot be taken as real.
Ramanuja says that it could be argued thus: brahmajnAna arising from the sasthra,
which is itself unreal, being under the influence of avidhya must also be unreal Hence it
is possible to forward a syllogism in the form
‘Brahma miThyA asathyahethujanyajnAnavishayathvAth, prapanchavath,'
Brahman is unreal being the subject of the knowledge rising out of unreal cause.Advaitin
gives a reply that as in the example of elephant seen in the dream, even though the
knowledge may be unreal being under the realm of avidhya, it may lead to the real
knowledge of Brahman as the
dream elephant signifies some real event that is going to happen.Ramanuja refutes this
saying that the knowledge in the dream is not unreal but only the object experienced is.
No one denies their experience and the knowledge of the dream but only that 'darsanam
thu vidhyahtE arthA na santhi,' the perception was real but only the objects seen were
unreal. The experience of fear or joy on seeing a magic show is real though the objects
that caused the feelings are unreal. So are the effects experienced in the illusion of a
serpent in a rope real, such as being bitten and the possible death due to suspected
venom. Similarly the face reflected on water is seen as being in it though it is not.In all
these instances the perception is real because it originates and does the work expected
but the objects are not real for the same reason. Moreover the objects are only sublated
by subsequent perception but not the experiences.
Advaitin comes up with yet another example of unreal giving rise to real knowledge. The
symbols denoting letters give rise to the knowledge of the sound eventhough the
symbols are not real. That is, the symbol 'ka' represents the letter 'ka' and gives rise to
the respective sound. Advaitin says that the symbol representing the particular sound is
not real but it gives rise to a real sound.
But Ramanuja says that the symbol is real, which gives rise to real sound and hence
the cause of the sound is the symbol only and hence real. In the case of a word say,
gavaya giving rise to the knowledge of the entity called gavaya is due to its similarity to
the cow and hence it is the sAdrsya, likeness that produces the knowledge and not the
word and the sadrsya is real. Here it needs explanation as to what is meant by the
reference to gavaya. It is usually found in the work on epistemology. One sees an animal
in the forest similar to a cow and he has heard that such an animal is called gavaya and
that it is similar to a cow So on the basis of the sadrsya the knowledge about gavaya
arises through the perception of that entity.This is what is referred to here and upamAna
which depends on sadrsya is a valid means of knowledge in advaita but in visishtadvaita
there are only three pramANas, namely, perception, inference and verbal testimony, that
is, prathyaksha, anumana and sabda.Therefore if the unreality of the scriptures is
accepted, as it is under the realm of avidhya as claimed by the advaitin, it cannot
produce real knowledge of Brahman.

Sruthi texts quoted to prove that Brahman is nirvisesha examined

1.'Sadheva soumya idham agra aseeth, ekameva adhvitheeyam'(Chan.6-2-
Before, my dear, this was 'sat' only, one only without a second. This is taken as implying
that the ‘sat’, Brahman is alone real, denying the existence of anything else other than
But Ramanuja gives a different interpretation. The context in which this sentence is
found contains the promissory statement about that knowledge, by which everything else
will be known, ekavijAnena sarvavijnAnam, because the father asks the son whether he
has learnt that, by knowing which everything else becomes known. Therefore the word
'Sat' denotes Brahman, the material and efficient cause of the world, who is omniscient
and omnipotent, whose will never fails, who is within everything and supports everything
and possesses innumerable auspicious qualities,
'EkavijnAnEna sarvavijnanaprathipadhanamukhenasacchabdavAchyasya
Parasya brahmaNah jagadhupAdhAnathvam jagannimitthathvam sarvajnatha
arvashakthiyogahsathyasankalpathvam sarvAntharathvam sarvAdhArathvam
sarvaniyamanam ithyAdhyaneka kalyANa guNa visishtathAm krthsnasyajagathah
thadhatmakatham cha prathipAdhya evambhoothabrahmAthmakasthvamasi ithi
svEthakethum prathi upadhesAya pravrtthathvAth prakaraNasya'
The Import of the sentence is to show to Svethakethu, the son by the father that
Brahman dsescribed as such is the innerself of all by the statement ‘thatthvamasi that
thou art.'

2.'Sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma'
Brahman is existence, knowledge and infinity. This is explained by advaitin that
sathya etc are not attributes because Brahman is attributeless consciousness. He says
that the different epithets mean the same entity and not its different attributes. Satyam
differentiates Brahman from all that is unreal, jnAnam from ignorance and anantham
from all that is finite.

Ramanuja refutes this explanation. By the rule of sAmAnADHikaraNya set out by the
grammarian PANini
'bhinnapravrtthi nimitthAnAm sabdhAnAmEkasminnarTHE vrtthih sAmAnADHi
which means that when different words of different connotations are placed in a position
to denote the same entity it is coordination,sAmAnADHikaraNya.For instance in the
sentence 'syamO yuvA devadattah,' the words syama, dark and yuva, young both
denote one entity Devadattha who is having these attributes. Similarly the words satyam
etc denote the attributes of Brahman, which is savisEsha only and not nirvisEsha, as
claimed by the advaitin.The argument that many adjectives will make the entity qualified
to appear as many is not correct. Only when the attributes are inconsistent with one
anotheras in the sentence ' brokenhorned, hornless and full horned is the ox ' it indicates
more than one animal because the attributes cannot be found in one ox.
Advaitin says that the text 'ekameva advitheeyam' cannot suffer a
second even in the form of an attribute because Brhaman is changeless being sathyam,
pure existence, which can have no attribute. Hence other texts such as 'satyam jnAnanm
anantham brahma' should be interpreted to mean only a nirvisEsha vasthu, attributeless
entity. Otherwise other texts defining Brahman as 'nirguNam, niranjanam' etc will not be
Ramanuja replies that the word adhvitheeyam only implies that there is no material
cause other than Brahman. That Brahman has unique power, being both the material
and efficient cause is denoted by the text 'thadhaikshatha bahu syAm prajAyEya,
thatthEjO asrjatha, it
willed to become many and created fire.' Sadheva sowmya idham agra Aseeth
EkamEva' dentes that there can be no material cause other than Brahman and the word
'adhitheeyam' shows that it is the efficient cause as well.(note: material cause is
upAdhAna KAraNam , like the
mud in the creation of pot and efficient cause is the nimittha kAranam like the potter) It
cannot be argued that this interpretation will conflict with the texts denying attributes to
brahman such as 'nirguNam ,nishkalam, nishkriyam, shAntham etc. , says Ramanuja,
because these deny only
the undesirable attitudes, as found in the world of beings,in Brahman. Therfore there is
no conflict between the saguNa and nirguNa texts so that neither of them need be
ignored. Even the texts that describe Brahman as jnAna, state jnaNa as his svarupa He
is jnAthA, knower and jnAnasvarupa. Ramanuja quotes the texts such as 'yah sarvajnah
sarvavith,' (Mund.1-1-10) who knows everything and about everything,
‘na thasya kAryam karaNam cha vidhyathE na thatsamschAbhyadDHikascha
dhrsyathE parAscha shakthirviviDHaiva srooyathE svAbhavikee jnanabalakriya
cha,' (Svet.6-8.)
He has neither a body nor any organ; there is no one superior or equal to Him; His
power is supreme and many and His knowledge, power and action is spontaneous.
There is evidence in the sruthi itself that Brahman is free from undesirable qualities and
possesses auspicious qualities, says Ramanuja.
'Esha AthmA apahathapApma vijarO vimrthyuh vishOkO
vijiGhathso apipAsah sathyakamah sathya sankalpah,'(Chan.8-1-5)
AtmA is free from karma, old age, death, sorrow, hunger and thirst; He has infallible
desire and unfailing will.' Thus sruthi itself shows that there is no conflict between
nirguNa and saguNa texts. The texts like 'bheeshAsmAth vAthah
pavathE,'(Tait.anand.8) the wind blows out of fear from Him,(because He is the ruler of
the elements) show his divine attributes and describe the bliss of brahman,
brahmananda, experienced in mukthi, 'thE ye satham,' begin from the wordly joy and
mutiplies hundredfold each kind of bliss in different worlds to indicate the extreme joy of
Brahman and emphasises the infinite nature of the auspicious qualitiesof Brahman by
'yathO vAchO nivarthanthE aprApya manasA saha Anandam brahmanO vidvAn,'
he who knows the bliss of Brahman from where all speech turn away witout reaching it
along with the mind.That Brahman has attributes is also known from the texts like
'so asnuthe sarvAn kAmAn saha brahmaNA vipascithA,'
he realises all his wishes along with the omniscient Brahman. Ramanuja interprets the
word kamAh as desire for the kalyAnagunAh which are enjoyed in mukthi along
with Brahman implying that one has to meditate on the auspicious attrributes of

Brahman can be known and is also a knower.
Brahman is said to be jnAna avishaya, not an object of knowledge by citing the sruthi
text, 'yasya amatham thasya matham yasya na veda
sah;avijnAtham vijnAnathAm vijnAtham avijnAnathAm.'(Kena.2-3)
This means that he understands it(Brahman) who comprehends it not;and he who who
feels that he has comprehended it understands it not because it is beyond the
instruments of cognition, namely indhriyas, manas and buddhi. Ramanuja objects that
this interpretation would
contradict the texts like ' brahmavidhApOthi param,'(Taitt.2- 1)'brahmavedha brahmaiva
bhavathi,' (Mund.3-2-9) the knower of Brahman attains the highest, he who knows
Brahman becomes Brahman, which shows that Brahman is realised as an object of
knowledge. All sruthis mention the apavarga, release, to be the result of brahmajnAna,
the knowledge of brahman.Ramanuja clinches the argument by saying ' jnAnam cha
upAsanAthmakam, upAsyam cha brahma saguNam ithyuktham,' it is said in the sruthi
that brahman with attributes is the object of meditation in the form of knowledge.Further
Ramanuja points out that the text 'yathO vAchO nivarthanthE 'implies that brahman
possessing innumerable auspicious qualities
cannot be fully described by words or thought of by the mind both of which have their
limitations, 'brahmaNah ananthasya aparicchinna guNasya vAngmansayOh
EthAvath ithi paricchedhya ayogyathva sravaNEna brahma EthAvath ithi
brahmaparicchEdha jnAnavathAm brahma avijnAtham amatham ithyuktham.'
So in view of this the Kena text 'yasya amatham matham' means that Brahman cannot
be known by those who try to limit it as 'this much.'
Desika expresses the same idea in his YadhavAbhyudhayam thus:
Desika portrays the Vedas as the bards trying to sing about His merits and he says that
when they start extolling even one of His infinite auspicious attributes, they become
Ekaika gunapraanthe sranthaah nigamavandhinah
The text
'na dhrshtEh dhrashtAram pasyeh;na sruthEh srOthAram srnuyAth; na mathEh
manthAram manveeTHAh;na vijnAthEh vijnAthAram vijaneeyAh,'
Meaning 'you cannot see the seer of sight, hear the hearer of hearing, thinker of thought
and knower of knowledge,' does not deny the seer, knower etc says Ramanuja. It
only refutes the view of the vaiseshikas that knowledge is the attribute of the Self and
stresses that knowing and thinking etc. are the essential nature of the Self. It dismisses
the individual self as the knower etc. and shows the Brahman, the real Self as the
knower. Similarly 'AnandO brahma,’ (Tait.brg.) does not denote Brahman as purely bliss
but also as the Anandee, possessor of bliss, says Ramanuja. 'VijnAnam Anandam
brahma,' consciousness, bliss is Brahman (Brhd.3-9-28) shows that the knowledge and
bliss is Brahman. Bliss is the nature of knowledge that is Brahman, who is knower as
well. 'AnandambrahmanO vidvAn,' the knower of the bliss of Brahman (Tait.2-9) and the
text that says that hundredfold bliss of prajApathi is a unit measure of Brahman, clearly
indicate that Brahman is not only Ananda but Anandee as well and knowership,
jnAthrthvam is itself blissfulness, Anandithvam. Ramanuja then proceeds to the denial
texts that deny plurality of the world as being unreal, toshow that they do not actually
negate the manifoldness of the world.They are, 'yathra hi dvaithamiva bhavathi,'(Brrhd.2-
4-14) when there is duality as it were,
'Neha nAnAsthi kimchana; mrthyOhO sa mrthyumApnothi ya iha nAnEva
Here there is no separateness whatever; he attains mortality successively who sees
separateness. Since the manifoldness is established by texts such as
'Thadhaikshatha bahusyam prajayeya,' (Brhad.4-4-19)
It willed to become many, what is denied is the separate existence of the world apart
from Brahman, who is its real Self and inner ruler.
The last text taken by Ramanuja to refute the denial of plurality is
'yadhA hyEvasha Ethasmin udharam antharam kurutheatha thasya bhayam
bhavathi,' (Tait.2-7)
There is fear for him who makes the least differentiation in it, that is, Brahman. This is
interpreted as there would be fear for one who sees diversity in the world which is
nothing but Brahman.Ramanuja says that this interpretation would contradict the
Chandogya text
‘Sarvam khalu idham brahma thajjalAn ithi shAntha upAseetha,'(Chan.3-14-1)
All this is Brahman as it originates from, sustained by and absorbed in Brahman and
thus one
should meditate to attain calmness of mind. The word 'tajjalAn' is made up of 'thath, ja,la,
an.' 'ja stands for janana,origination, 'la' for laya or annihilation and 'an' means to live,
that is sustenance. So what the Taittiriya text means is that there is no fear for one who
sees Brahman as the Self of all and meditates on Brahman as such and the fear comes
only when he does not. If there is a break in this steady meditation there is fear which
has been also mentioned by the great rshis.
'yanmuhurthamkshaNam vApi vAsudevO na chinthyathe sA hanih than mahath
chidhram sa brAnthih sa cha vikriya,'
In that duration of time or a moment when there is no thought on Vasudeva there is
harm created by a great opening to let all illusions and wrong actions.The suthras
quoted by advaitin to prove that Brahman is nirvisesha,namely,
'na sthAnathO api parasya ubhayalingam sarvathra hi,'(BS.3-2- 11) and
'mAyAmAthram thu kArthsnyEnaanabhivyaktha svarupahvAth,'(BS.3- 2-3)
are in fact prove only the saviseshathva of Brahman, says, Ramanuja.The first one is
translated as 'not even accrding to place can Brahman have a twofold characterestic, for
everywhere (it is
taught to be without attributes.)' by the advaitin which means that Brahman cannot be
with and without attributes and even when connected with the body etc. it does not
therefore has attributes. But Ramanuja interprets this differently. He gives the following
explanation. Not even on account of place, being in the body,for instance, can there be
imperfection in Brahman because through out (the scripture it is described) as having a
twofold characterestics, namely, being free from all imperfections and having auspiciuos
qualities.The second suthra is translated as 'but the dream creation is mere maya
because of its nature of not being a complete manifestation'by the advaitin.
Ramanuja on the other hand explains it thus: but it is mere maya on account of its
true nature not being manifest fully. It is called maya because the dream world is
something wonderful but it is not illusion. Brahman who is awake in us even in our sleep
creates the experience in the dream and He is pure.So this establishes Brahman only as
savisesha.Next Ramanuja quotes profusely from the smrithis like Gita and
vishnupurANa to prove that Brahman is not a nondual consciousnessbut possesses
infinite auspicious attributes. Brahman is savisesha and the world of sentient and
insentient beings is also real and forms the body of Brahman who is its inner Self.The
Ramanuja proceeds with his criticism of the main tenet of advaita, namely the avidhya-

Avidhya, nescience, cannot be proved.
As stated in Mahapurvapaksha the absolute reality, Brahman is nirvisesha and self -
illumined and the world is a superimposittion on Brahman due to avidhya according to
the theory of advaita philosophy.This avidhya has two fold functions, namely,
avaraNa, and vikshepa. The first causes nonapprehension which leads to the second,
namely misapprehension. As in the case of rope-snake illusion when the ignorance
conceals (AvarANa) the real object,rope, and projects (vikshepa) a different object,
snake to the view,the avidhya acts as an AvaraNa to conceal brahman and produces an
illusion, vikshepa, of the world of diversities. This avidhya is said to be beginningless.It is
described as sadasat anirvachaneeya, cannot be termed as either
sat or asat and hence inexplicable, anirvachaneeya. This avidhya can be removed by
the knowledge of certain vedic texts such as 'anrthEna hi prathyooDaah,'(chan.8-3-2)
which means that eventhough they are constantly in contact with Brahman no one
understands it because they are covered with untruth. The knowledge of Brahman can
also be acquired by comprehending the unity of Brahman and the individual self through
the mahAvAkyas like 'thatthvamasi.'
Ramanuja proceeds to prove that this theory is untenable on grounds of
inapplicability, anupapathi, of seven kinds.
1. Asraya anupapatthi- Brahman cannot be the substratum of avidhya.
2. TirODHAna anuppatthi- tirODHAna or concealment of Brahman means
its destruction.
3. Svrupa anupapatthi- avidhya cannot be real.
4. Anirvachniya anupapatthi- avidhya is not inexplicable.
5. PramANa anupapatthi- There is no pramANa for avidhya.
6. nivarthaka anupapaytthi- Sruthi texts cited as capable of removing
avidhya are not so.
7. nivrtthyanupapatthi- avidhya cannot be completely removedby mere

The seven anupaptthis

1.Asraya anupapatthi
It is said that avidhya creates illusion. Ramanuja asks, 'sA hi kimAsrithya bhramam
janayathi? na thAvath jeevamAsrithya, avidhyAparikalpithathvAth jeevabhAvasya; nApi
brahmAsrithya; thasya svayamprakAsajnanasvarupathvena avidhyAvirODHithvAth; sA
hi jnanabhAdhya
What is the substratum of avidhya? It cannot be the jeeva, individual self which itself is
the product of avidhya. Neither could it abide in Brahman which is jnAna svarupa and
self-illumined nor hence contrary to avidhya which is said to be removed by jnAna.'

Advaitin contends that it is the knowledge of brahman as jnAna svarupa which
removes avidhya and not the jnAna which is svarupa of Brahman.That is, avidhya exists
in the absence of the jnAna that Brahman is jnAnasvarupa.At the rise of this jnAna
avidhya is removed and hence the jnAna which is the svarupa of Brahman can coexist
with avidhya as it is not opposed to avidhya, not being the subject of knowledge. The
subject of jnAna is Brahman as the jnAnasvarupa and not the jnAna, which is His

But Ramanuja refutes this saying 'jnAnasvarupam brahma ithyanEna
jnanEnabrahmNi yah svabhAvah avagamyathE sa brhmaNah svayamprakAsathvena
svaymEva prakAsatha ithi avidhyAvirOdhithve na
kaschithviseshahsvarupathadvishayajnAnayoh ithi,'
As Brahman is svayamprakAsa, selfproved, the knowledge of Brahman as He is
appears by itself.That is it does not require another to reveal it like a pot. Hence the
knowledge that is the nature of Brahman, svabhAva and the knowledge of Brahman are
of the same nature and it cannot be said that while one is opposed to avidhya the other
is not.

Further this knowledge of Brahman as jnAnasvarupa cannot be experienced as
Brahman is anubhuthi according to the theory of advaita and does not need another
anaubhuthi,perception, as in the case of shell-silver, to reveal itself. So the jnAna which
is the svarupa of Brahman is opposed to avidhya and hence avidhya cannot rest on

Advaitin next comes up with the argument that the knowledge which is opposed to
avidhya has not Brahman as its subject but the unreality of everything other than
Ramanuja asks whether the avidhya to which this knowledge is opposed is about the
real knowledge of Brahman or about the reality of the universe. It cannot be the former,
says Ramanuja, 'na thAvath brahmayATHAthmyajnAna virodhi athadvishayathvAth,'
because it is said that Brahman is not the subject of the knowledge which removes
avidhya. 'PrapanchamithyAthvajnAnam thatsathyathva rupa ajnanEna vrudhyathE,'
The knowledge that the world is unreal is opposed to the ignorance that the world is real
in which case the ajnAna about the nature of Brahman will persist.

It may be argued that the ignorance of Brahman is due to the non-perception of
Brahman as adhvitheeya, one without a second and when the knowledge that everything
else except Brahman is unreal arises, avidhya being removed, the svarupa of Brahman
shines itself. Ramanuja says that if this svarupa refers to the svarupajnAna then its
being ever present, the notion that Brahman has a second, sadhvitheeya, will not arise
at all and there is no need for its being removed. If on the other hand being adhvitheeya
is not the svarupa of Brahman but its
attribute which is not known due to avidhya it goes against the advaidic contention that
Brahman is attributeless. Therefore Brahman being jnAna, is opposed to avidhya which
cannot abide in Him.

2. Thirodhaana anupapatthi
even assuming that avidhya rests on Brahman asks Ramanuja, what will be its action?
Advaitin says that it obscures Brahman who is svayamprakAsa or of nature of light.
ThirodhAna, obscuration must be of two kinds. Either it should prevent the light from
appearing or it should destroy the light that appeared. The first is not possible because
the light that is Brahman does not appear but always present. So avidhya must destroy
the light But Brahman is not a substance with light as its attribute, in which case it can
remain even after its light is
destroyed. As Brahman is Himself the prakAsa, the thirOdhAna can only mean the
destruction of Brahman.

3. Svarupa anupapatthi
According to advaita theory Brahman is pure perception, anubhuthimAthra, not
connected with any perceiver or thing perceived.As such if avidhya comceals Brahman,
assuming that it rests in Brahman, that is, svAsrayadosha,
Ramanuja asks whether it is real or unreal. It cannot be real as everything other than
Brahman is unreal in advaita. If it is unreal, it should be identified with seer, seen or
another perception. It cannot be identical with anubhuthi, perception, for Brahman alone
is the perception unconnected with things and as avidhya is unreal Brahman will also be
unreal which will land advaita in the portals of mAdhyamika, nihilism. If it is identified with
seer or seen, both of which are unreal, avidhya itself being unreal, and another dosha
must be found for the appearance of the avidhya. That is, as the avidhya is said to be
the cause of the unreal perception of things and the unreal seer, there should be a
cause for the unreal avidhya which in its turn will
require another and so on, resulting in ad infinitum, and anavastha. If on the other hand
avidhya is identified with Brahman it becomes real and there can be no removal of it.

4. Anirvachneeya anupapatthi

avidhya can be proved as positive entity by perception.
Anirvachneeyatva is explained as being neither sat, existent, nor asath, nonexistent, but
different from both, sadasatvilakshaNam.This uniqueness, says Ramanuja, is itself
unique, because it cannot be proved by any pramANa. All cognitions are of things either
existing or not

But advaitin contends that avidhya is perceptible as a positive entity and not as a mere
absence of knowledge, or mere antecedent non existence of knowledge, that is, the
ignorance before the rise of knowledge. In the cognition 'I do not know' it is the
perception of ajnAna whereas the cognition ' I do not know myself or another,' as in deep
sleep, denotes the function of avidhya.

Avidhya conceals the true nature of Brahman as being self-proved, undifferented, and
unchanging entity with jnAna as his svarupa. This is the thirodhAna shakthi of avidhya.
The other function of avidhya is that it makes Brahman appear as the manifold universe
by its vikshepa shakthi.Hence this is sense perception only, though unreal because it is
caused by avidhya which is also not real. But since it is a positive entity it cannot be
unreal like the horn of a rabbit or a sky flower and hence it is classified as neither real
nor unreal.

Avidhya is not the antecedent nonexistence of knowledge jnAna prAgabhAva vishayah,
which can be cognised by anupalabdhi, non-perception, which is the sixth pramANa of in

[The means of cognition are six in advaita, namely, perception, prathyaksha,
inference, anumAna, sabdha,verbal testimony, arThApatthi,presumption, and
anupalabDhi, non-percepion. The non-existence of a thing as in the knowledge that
'bhoothale ghato nAsthi,' there is no pot on the ground, is cognised by
anupalabDHi.Other schools do not accept the last two pramANas of advaita which
aresaid to be included under inference and perception respectively.]
The reason for saying that avidhya is not the absence of knowledge is that it is cognised
while being experienced like that of 'aham sukhee, Iam happy.' In the cognition 'I do not
know,' there is a perception of ajnAna which requires the knowledge of 'myself' and the
jnAna which is absent.So the cognition is that of ajnAna and therefore it is positive and
not opposed to knowledge of 'myself' or its knowledge.

Ramanuja here interrupts and says that avidhya may be a positive thing, that,is , not a
mere absence, but even if so, it conflicts with Brahman who has jnAna as his nature,
'bhAvarupamapi ajnAnamvasthu yATHAthmya avabhAsa rupENa
sAkshichaithanyEna viruDHyathE.'

Advaitin replies that
avidhya is not oppsed to Brahman but only to the knowledge of Brahman which removes
it. In the case of nacre perceived as silver, the ajnAna is not opposed to nacre but only
to the knowledge of it.

If ajnAna is perceived by sense perception then on its removal Brahman must be
perceived by sense perception which is denied by the advaitin. Reply to this is that all
things, sentient and insentient are perceived by Brahman, the witness- self,
sAkshichaithanya, as being existent or
nonexistent. So when the ajnAna is removed by jnana Brahman shines of its own accord
but before that the witness- self manifests itself as the world, due to ajnAna.

Next the advaitin shows that the avidhya is positive through inference
avidhya a positive entity is argued through inference.
Next the advaitin shows that the avidhya is positive through inference.The knowledge
that is valid is preceded by a substance. This substance is other than the previous non-
existence of the knowledge and covers the subject of the knowledge. This substance
which is in the same
place as the knowledge is removable by the knowledge. This is the positive ajnana.
Hence avidhya is a positive substance removed by jnAna rising from vedanthavAkyas
such as 'thathvamasi' like the darkness is removed when a brilliant light is brought in.

The advaitin proceeds to show that darkness, thamas, is a positive substance to counter
the objection
AlokaabhAva mAthram cA rupadarsana abhAvamathram va thamah;na
dravyAntharam, thath katHam bhAvarupa ajnAna sADHanE nidarsanathayA
The darkness is the absence of light or non-perception of rupa and how can that be cited
as an example to prove the positive avidhya. Thamas is a substance which is sometimes
thin and sometimes thick and it is perceived and lends itself to expressions like 'thamah
chalathi, the darkness moves and neelam thamah,darkness is blue'etc. Also because it
cannot be included among other substances, namely, the five elements, time soul, mind
and direction. [This has been refuted by the school of logicians already].
Ramanuja objects that positive ajnAna is not perceived by sense perception in the
experience 'aham ajnah, mam anyamcha na janami,' nor it can be proved by
argument. AjnAna must be of someone or some thing.If 'I ' is known then the knowledge
of svarupa of 'I' will remove the ajnAna 'I do not know myself and others.' If the 'I' is not
known, then it cannot be perceived because it will not be known as to whom or of whom
or what it is about. Advaitin may reply that only the vivid knowledge is opposed to
avidhya but the knowledge of the person to whom and of whom the avidhya exists is not
vivid and hence it can co exist with such knowledge.

This can be understood as follows: In the perception 'aham ajnah, mAm anyam cha
na AnAmi' there is a knowledge of 'I' but it is not vivid. In the case of rajjusarpa, the rope
seen as a snake,the rope is vivid knowledge but it is seen as 'idham,this' which can
coexist with ignorance of the rope.This ignorance projects an illusory perception of a
snake. The knowledge of the serpent or 'this' is not opposed to ignorance, avidhya, of
the knowledge of the rope.

Ramanuja says that this explanation applies to jnanapragabhAva, prior non-
existence of knowledge also. Before the knowledge arises there is the absence of
knowledge which is jnAnaprAgabhAva.Only the vivid knowledge of the real nature is
opposed to it and not the knowledge of that where it abides and the subject of the

To explain this we can again resort to the rope-snake example.Before the rope is known
there is the absence of the knowledge that it is rope,which is removed when the
knowledge or the rope dawns.So the prAgabhAva of the jnAna that it is rope is opposed
to the jnAna of the rope.But the knowledge of the abode of jnana ,namely the rope, is not
vivid but seen as 'this, which is the subject of the knowledge which has not yet
arisen.So,says Ramanuja, ajnAna is not a positive entity but only the absence of jnAna.

AjnAna must mean either the absence of jnAna or other than jnAna or opposed to jnAna.
In all these cases it requires that the nature if jnAna should be known, says Ramanuja.
'ajnAnamithi jnAnAbhAvah;thadhanyah;thadvirOdhi vA,
thrayANAm api thatsvarupajnAnApekshA avasyAsrayaNeeyA.'
Advaitin contends citing the example of darkness that it can be seen even without
knowing about light at all. But Ramanuja insists that when thamas, darkness is known as
the absence of light the knowledge of light is a prerequisite. Moreover ajnAna is
acknowledged as the absence of knowledge by advaitin also when it is said to be
removed by jnAna. Hence avidhya is not a positive entity.

AjnAna cannot prevent the svrupa of Brahman from appearing.

Nescience, that is, ajnAna is said to prevent Brahman form appearing and it is
experienced, being positive entity. Ramanuja asks whether ajnAna is first experienced,
anubhutham and then prevents the appearance of Brahman, thirODHAnam or first it
prevents the appearance
and then is experienced. This is subjected to anyOnyAsraya dosha, interdependence,
that is, thirODHAnam occurs because avidhya is experienced and vice versa. It should
be remembered here that all the arguments are forwarded under the assumption that
avidhya abides in Brahamn as it could not abide in the individual self which is also a
product of avidhya.

Brahman perceives His own svarupa as He is. If that is prevented from appearing by
ajnAna Brahman should experience ajnAna. If the svarupa is prevented from
appearance by something other than Him then avidhya being anadhi there will always be
thirOdhaAna. If avidhya is not
different from Brahman it becomes His nature and no removal of it will be possible, in
which case Brahman Himself will disappear like the silver in the illusion of nacre
perceived as silver.

Ramnuja asks, 'avidhyayA brahma thirOhithE thath brahma na kimchidhapi
prakAsathe utha kimchith prakAsathE,' when Brahman is prevented from appearing
does He not shine at all or shine a little?If He does not shine, being the nature of light,
prakAsasvrupa, Brahman will cease to exist. Brahman mUst be consisted of parts to
enable shining and not shining at the same time. Or He must have attributes some of
which shine while others do not. Both alternatives are unacceptable to the
advaitin.Brahman cannot be said to shine dimly because the parts that shine cannot be
dim while those that do not are not seen. Brahman being vivid
in His svarupa, dimness caused by ajnAna cannot result and there is no need for its

Avidhya itself is unreal and the misapprehension is thus due to an unreal cause. If
Brahman is not the base of avidhya it means that the misapprehension comes about in
the absence of real base which will make advaita non-different from nihilism of

Avidhya cannot be proved positive by inference.

In the argument to show that ajnana is a positive entity the sAdhya or the thing to be
proved is given as 'jnAna should be preceded by a substance which prevents it from
appearing and which is removable by jnAna.' The hethu or reason for such an inference
is that the jnAna shows what is not seen earlier.The example given is that of light which
removes the darkness and shows the objects which were not seen before.Now,
Ramanuja says that this inference is faulty.The hethu viz. showing something not
previously seen, is sAdhana vikala, absent in the example because the light does not
show an object without the rise of knowledge about the object.That is, when a pot , not
previously seen due to darkness is made visible by the light, the knowledge of the pot is
necessary to cognise it as such. Similarly indriyas are also not capable of showing the
objects but only aid the knowledge that does it.For instance the light only helps the eye
that helps the knowledge by removing the darkness that prevents perception. The
removal of that alone which obscures, does not bring perception but it is only the
showing of the object as such.

Brahman is jnAnamAthra, pure knowledge and cannot be the abode of avidhya. The
ignorance of the shell in the shell-silver illusion does not reside in the shell but only in the
perceiver.For the same reason the avidhya cannot conceal Brahman. And it cannot be
removed by jnAna because it does not conceal Brahman. Only when the ignorance
conceals the subject of knowledge as in the case of shell-silver, it could be sublated by
that knowledge.

Brahman is not the knower as per advaita and hence it could not be the abode of
avidhya which can exist only in the knower.Avidhya cannot cover brahman who is of the
nature of knowledge as it can cover only an object that is seen and not the knowledge.
Brahman is not the subject of
knowledge either because He is not known or if Brahman can be covered by avidhya He
ceases to be mere knowledge but becomes a known subject.Since avidhya does not
conceals what can be known, as in shell-silver, it cannot be removed by knowledge.
Lastly knowledge cannot destroy an existing thing like the positive avidhya.Further
avidhya being thus not positive entity its definition needs not exclude its previous non-
existence. Thus positive avidhya is not proved even by inference.

There is no authority for a thing being perceived as anirvachniya

Advaitin explains anirvachniya as follows: When shell-silver is perceived as silver
there is no presence of silver even at the time of the perception in the shell. So what
appears as silver is not real and as one thing cannot appear as another, it is neither 'sat'
nor 'asat.'Owing to the defect in the vision a new thing is created which is not there.

Ramanuja says that even then one thing appearing as another cannot be ruled out. It
cannot be assumed that a new thing which is not seen before that moment has come
into existence. The thing is not perceived as neither 'sat' or 'asat' but only as real silver.
If it is perceived as anirvachaniya there will not be any misapprehension. It is to be
accepted that it is shell-silver appeared in the form of real silver, that is, one thing is
perceived as another thing.

Here it is relevant to examine the different theories on erroneous perception as in shell-
silver. MADHyamika Buddhists are of the view that it is asatkhyAthi where nonexisting
silver appears in the nonexisting shell.
YogAchara Buddhists hold the view that there is nothing but streams of perceptions
where the silver in the shell is the result of past impression mixed up with the external
object perceived and they call it AthmakhyAthi.
According to MimAmsakas the memory of silver existing elsewhere and the perception
of shell as 'this' are two cognitions the difference between the two being not perceived
and hence
appears as one.They call it akhyAthi.
Nyayavaiseshikas uphold the theory of anyaTHaAkhyAthi according to which the
object in front is seen as 'this' and the mind, not satisfied with the vagueness of
perception, sees the silver in the shell due to the similarity of appearance.
Now in all these views, says Ramanuja, The object (silver) is seen as existing only.

Before accepting the creation of an object which is inexplicable, anirvachaniya, the
cause of the origination of a new substance should be stated, says Ramanuja. It could
not be the perception because it is not possible to perceive a thing before it comes into
existence. Nor can the sense organs be the cause as they generate only knowledge and
not objects. Nor the defect in the sense organs can be the cause because they only
affect the knowledge of the person and not create anything. The unreal avidhya also
cannot create a thing.

When a unique thing is created why is it perceived as silver and not anything else like a
pot. If similarity is the reason then the object will only be seen as being similar to silver
and not as silver. If it is perceived as real silver it is only anyathAkhyAthi or one thing
appearing as another and not anirvachaniya khyAthi. It cannot also be argued that it is
the silver jati, genus which is present in both unique silver created and the real silver
because if the jati that is seen is real it cannot exist in shell-silver and if unreal it cannot
exist in the real silver.So all knowledge is real.


It is affirmed by the sruthi itself that all knowledge is real. Chandhogya text begins with
'bahusyAm prajayEya',(Chan.6-2-3)
Brahman willed to become many and created the three elements, tejas, fire, Apah,water
and annam,earth.Then it further says
' thAsAm thrvrtham thevrthamekaikam karavaNi,(chan.6-3-3)
Of them I will make each a compound of three elements.' Ramanuja says that this fact
can be
verified by perception. For instance the red colour of the fire is due to tejas, the
white colour due to water and the black colour is due to earth. This has been shown
by sruthi itself,
'yadhgnE rOhitham rupam thejasah yacchuklam thadhapAm yathkrshnam
Further it is given that the the quality of fire vanishes from fire for, all modifications is but
a name based upon words, only the three forms are real
'apAgAdhagnEh agnithvam vacharambhaNam vikArah nAmadhEyam threeNi
rupAneethyEva sathyam.' (Chan.6-4-1)
The same is found in vishnupurana which describes creation as the products of prakrthi
being unable to create the world until they combined with each other. The suthrakAra
also substantiates this by the suthra '
thryathmakathvAtthubhooyasthvAth, (BS 3-1-2)
Because water consists of the three elements and because in the compound
water predominates.'
Thus it is shown by the sruthi itself that every object contains every other object that
substance which contains a part of another substance only bears resemblance to the
other. Hence the shell contains silver which is why it is similar and when there is defect
in perception the silver part alone is seen and when the defect is removed the shell
which is predominant is perceived. Hence all knowledge is real.

Ramanuja next examines the dream perceptions and says that they are created by
Isvara Himself according to the past deeds of the individual.This is why dreams are
different for different individuals. It is not the creation of jiva because in dreams there are
perceptions never
experienced or known to the individual.

Other examples given by advaitin to explain illusion are examined by Ramanuja to
establish that all experiences are real.
The white conch seen as yellow by a jaundiced eye is similar to that of shell-silver in as
much as the whitenss of the conch is predominant and hence perceived by others
whereas the yellow colour which is the part of whiteness is differentiated by the
jaundiced eye..
In the case of a crystal appearing as red due to the nearness of red flower because the
natural colour of the crystal is overpowered by that of the flower.
In the perception of a mirage the water element present in the fire and earth is present
and not the others due to the defect of the eye. In the firebrand being swirled the interval
between the sparks are not seen due to the inability of the eye to grasp it because of the
rapid motion.
The face seen in the mirror appears to be in it because the distance between the face
and the mirror is not perceived.
Even the perception of two moons is real, says Ramanuja. The eye is not able to see the
moon as present in one place due to defect and lack of coordination of both the eyes
and each eye has a separate vision which is real as long as the defect lasts.
Therefore all knowledge is real only.
5. Pramana anupapatthi.

Scriptures do not prove avidhya
Advaitin quotes the text 'anrthena hi prthyoodAh, (chan.8-3-2) these which are true are
covered by what is untrue,' to prove the existence of avidhya.
But Ramanuja refutes the view that the word anrtha means what is unreal or
undefinable, that is avidhya. He says that the word only denotes what is opposite of rtha
which means such actions which are done to attain the supreme, without a desire for
fruit. This is made clear by the text 'rtham pibanthou sukrthasyalokE, two enjoyers of the
inevitable results of work,
'(katO. 1-3-1) and hence the opposite karma which results in samsara is anrtham,
'rtham-karmaphalAbhisanDhirahithamparamapurusha aradhanavesham
thathprapthiphalam; athra thadvyathiriktham samsarika phalam anrtham,
This is the meaning of the chandogya text quoted, says Ramanuja, viz.
'sarvAh prajAh aharahrgacchanthyah Etham brahmalokam na vindhanthi anrthEna
hi prathyoodAh,
All these beings here, though they go daily into the world of brahman,(brahman in the
form of the world) yet do not find Him, for they are carried away by the untrue.' (chan.8-

The next text from Yajurveda
'nAsadhAseeth no sadhAseeh'(yajur. 2-8-9)
asath did not exist ; sath did not exist,' goes on to say that thamas existed and by
thamas it (brahman) was concealed before and could not be well known. Advaitin takes
the word thamas to mean avidhya which was neither sath nor asath but Ramanuja
questions it saying that if this
were accepted then the word 'before ' would be meaningless as Brahman is concealed
even now. Moreover the neither expression neither sath existed nor asath could very
well refer to Brahman also. So, says Ramanuja, the text actually describes the cosmic
rest, apyaya. The word 'before ' means before creation when thamas is the state when
the sath that is jiva and
asath, the matter were in subtle condition and did not exist as such.

This is proved by another text
'avyaktham akshare leeyathE; aksharam thamasi leeyathe,( subAla up.2)
The unmanifest is dissolved in the immutable, akshara and the akshara dissolves in
thamas.'Hence the word thamas denotes 'achithsamashtirupAyAh prakrtheh
sukshmAvastha uchyathE', the subtle matter in the form of prakrthi from which the world

The text
'mAyAm thu prakrthim vdhyAth mAyinam thu mahesvaram,'(svet.4-10)
does not refer to anirvachniya avidhya but the prakrthi is referred to as mAyA from which
this wonderful world has come out. The owner of mAya is isvara who controls it but is
not under its influence.this is evident from the previous sentence of the sametext
'asmAnmAyee srjathE visvamEthath, from this the owner of mAya creates this world.

It is the jiva who is bound by mAyA as proved by the text
'anAdhi mAyayA supthah yadhA jivah prabudhyathE,(MAnd.11-29)
When the jiva who sleeps due to beginningless mAyA wakes up.' The Lord Himself says
in the
Gita'mama mAya dhurathyayA, my mAyA is difficult to transcend. Thus there is no
support for the anirvachneeya avidhya from the sruthi texts nor for its being a positive

The text 'thathvamasi ' is explained by the advaitin to mean the identity of the jiva
with Brahman and due to the incongruity between the two, namely, the limited
knowledge and power of a jiva , who is in bondage as compered with the infinite,
omniscient and omnipresent and
omnipotent Brahman, it is necessary to postulate the existence of avidhya which
conceals Brahman so that the identity is not seen. Ramanuja refutes this and says
'aikya upadesasthu"thvam" sabdEnApi jivasarirakasya bramaNa Eva
abhiDHAnAth uppannathara.'
The expression of identity between jiva and Brahman suffers no inconsistency
the word 'thou' also implies Brahman only who is the inner controller of the jiva being the
inner self of the jiva who forms the saria of Brahman. This is denoted by the text
'anEna jivena AthmanA anupravisya namarupe vyakaravani,(can.6-3-2)
I will enter this jiva as its Athma and make name and form.'

Advaitin cites passages from VishnupuraNa which claim that Brahman alone is the
reality and the world is only empirically real.
But Ramanuja says that the real import of the passage is that in the world made up of
sentient and insentient beings, the jivas are not affected by the changes in the insentient
and they are eternal and hence they are termed as existent while the insentient which is
different and
destructible are said to be nonexistent. But both have Vasudeva as their inner self. It is
shown to be thus in the passage
'thAnisarvANi thdvapuh; thatsarvam vai harervapuh,; (VP.1-22-86-38)
all that is His sarira,' and by the words
'sa Eva sarvabhoothAthmA visvarupO yathO avyayah, (VP1-2-69)
He alone is the Self of all beings, with cosmic for and immutable.'

In all the passages in the VishnupurANa, says Ramanuja, there is no evidence of
Brahman being nirvisesha or for the avidhya which is neither Sath nor asath abiding in
Brahman. The terms nAsthi and asathya indicate nonexistence but not anirvachniya.
These two words denote
insentient objects not because they are nonexistent, tuccha or unreal, mithya but only
because they are perishable.

To sum up, Athma is adhimadhyAntharahitha, without beginning, middle and end and
always of the same nature and hence it is referred to as existent. The insentient,
achethanam is the object of enjoyment for the jiva and is transformed according to the
karma of the jiva and perishable. Therefore it is termed as nonexistent.The objects which
are existent or nonexistent with reference to time, place or action are aparamArTHa,
unreal and the Athma alone is fit to be cognised as asthi,existent and hence
paramArTHA, real. The same view is expressed in
vishnupurANa by MattrEya-
'VishNvADHAram yaThA chaithath thrailoOkyam samavasTHinam;
paramArTHascha me prOktho yaTHAjnAna praDHAnathah,
You have taught me how these worlds are supported by vishNu and how Athma
,jnana as his svarupa is paramArTha, real, being important.'
6. Nivarthaka anupapatthi

Ramanuja says
‘ThathvamasyAdhi vAkyEshu sAmAnAdhi karaNyam na nirvisesha
The texts like 'that thou art' do not denote attributeless Brahman. As already pointed out
by Ramanuja in explaining the principle of sAmAnAdhikaraNya referring to the purport of
the vedic text 'satyam jnAnam anantham brahma,' there is no need of dismissing the
attributes in explaining the identity. According to him the words 'that' and ' thou' both
denote Brahman only that too as savisesha. The contention that the removal of avidhya
is effected by the knowledge of Brahman as nirvisesha is not tenable.

Advaitin cites the statement 'sOayam devadatthah, this is that Devadattha,' to prove
his point that the primary meaning of the terms cannot be taken as the person qualified
by different time and place is being spoken of as one. So the identity will be established
only if the reference to time and place are given up. So too as 'that' denotes Brahman
who is infinite and attributeless and 'thou' refers to jiva who is finite with limited
knowledge and power the identity can be
established only by not considering the limitations of the jiva and the infinite nature etc.
of Brahman in which case both will be identical in essence. This can be accomplished
only by the removal of avidhya through the real knowledge of the Brahman as
attributeless which serves as the nivarthaka of avidhya

Ramanuja refutes this saying
'thathpadham hi sarvajnam sathyasankalpam jajagathkArNam brahma
parAmrsathi; thdhaikshatha bahusyAm ithi thasyaivaprakrthathvAth,'
the word 'that' in 'that thou art' refers only to Brahman omniscient and omnipotent, who is
the cause of te world as denoted by the sentence 'it willed to become many.'
Even in the example 'sO ayam devadatthah' there is no necessity for adopting
meaning, lakshaNA of the words because the person connected with the past and the
present times is one only. If the word 'that' is taken to mean pure attributeless Brahman
then it will conflict with the sentence ‘it willed to become many and the promissory
statement EkavijnAnEna sarvavijnAnam, by knowing the one, everything becomes
known. Hence the
word 'that' denotes Brahman who is savisesha and the word 'thou' refers to the Brahman
who is the real self of the jiva which alone is meant by 'that thou art.'

Ramanuja further proceeds to show that there is no sublation here as in the case of
shell-silver. The word 'that' does not bring up any attribute that sublates the first
perception of 'thou' as in the case of shell-silver as according to advaita Brahman is
attributeless. What is meant here is this.When the shell is seen as silver the attribute of
silver, that is silverness, is seen in the shell which is sublated when the shell becomes
known as such due to the perception of the attribute
shellness. In the explanation of 'thatthvamasi' by the advaitin there can be no attribute of
Brahman which becomes known to cause the sublation of the perception of the jiva as
such, because Brahman is said to be attributeless.

Advaitin may contend that it is not necessary to perceive some attribute in the
substantive entity in order to remove the first erroneous impression.It is enough to show
that svarupa, the real nature of the substance is hidden from view by some defect,
comes to view when the
defect is removed.

Ramanuja says that if svarupa of Brahman is concealed, there can be no
misapprehension and if not concealed there is no need for removal of misconception.
Unless an attribute which is real and hidden is admitted there can be no
sublation.Ramanuja explains this by the analogy of a prince, getting lost while very
young, did not know his identity on account of being brought up by hunters.His
misconception will not be removed by merely stating that he is not a hunter but only buy
the knowledge that he is a prince.

Ramanuja interprets the text 'thatthvamasi,' in such a manner that both the words 'thath'
and 'thvam' retain their primary meaning and need no recourse to lakshanA, secondary
meaning, as the advatin claims.The sAmAnAdhikaraNya, apposition, is achieved by the
two words meaning the same Brahman, qualified with two attributes, namely, possessing
infinite number of auspicious attributes and being the cause of the world on one hand
and being the indwelling Self of all on the other. This explanation is consistent with the
beginning of the passage 'it willed to become many,' and also the promissory statement
of 'EkavijnANena sarvavijnAnAm,' as the gross world consisting of sentient and
insentient beings, which form His body in their subtle state, is the effect of Brahman,
being ensouled by Him. This is brought up by the
previous sentence to 'thathvamasi' that all this is ensouled by Brahman.'EthadhAthmyam
idham sarvam.' The reason for this is stated in 'sanmoolAhsoumya imAh
sarvAhprajAh sadhAyathnAh sathprathishTAh,all these beings have their root in
sath,rest in sath and dissolved in Sath.'(chan.6-8-4)

Ramanuja quoting other texts also to show that Brahman is the Self of all the sentient
and the insentient and the identity of Brahman with jiva is established through the
sarirAthma bhAva, the body-soul relationship.

1. 'anthafpravishtah sasthA janAnAm sarvAthmA,'( Taitt.AraNyaka.3-11-21)
The inner Self is the controller of all.

2. 'Yah Athmani thishTanAthmanah antharah yam AthmA na vedha yasya AthmA
sariram ya AthmAnam antharO yamayathi sa tha AthmA anthryAmyamrthah,(Brhd.5-7-
He,the immortal,inner ruler, is the inner Self, situated inside the AthmA whom AthmA
did not know and who controls the Athma from within to whom the AthmA is the sarira.'
3.'anEna jeevena AthmnA anupravisya nAmarupe vyakaravANi,(CHAN.6-3-2) I
will enter into the jiva as its inner self and will make nama and rupa.'

Therefore, says Ramanuja, the identity of all beings, sentient and insentient with
Brahman can be established only through the sarira sariri bhAva. And as all that is other
than Brahman is His sarira the denotation of everything terminates only in Brahman.
'athahchidhachidhAthmakasya sarvasya vasthujathasya brahmathAdhAthmyam Athma
sarirabhAvAdhEva ithi avagamyathE ; thasmAth brahmavyathirikthasya krtsnasya
thaccharirathvEnaiva vasthuthvath thasya prathipAdhaKOpi sabdah thathparyanthmEva
svArTHam abhidhaDHAthi.'

Ramanuja refutes likewise the theory of bhEdhAbhEdha and kevalabhEdha saying
that the texts stating the doctrine of universal identity cannot be explained by their
theories.According to bhEdhAbhEdha either the difference is due to limiting adjuncts
(Bhaskaramatha) or belongs to
Brahman who himself assumes the state of jiva,(yadhavaprakAsamatha) Brahman being
the self of everything will be contaminated by the imperfections of the world and jiva. The
kevalabhedhavAdhins those who claim absolute difference between the jiva and
Brahman (could eithermean nyAyavaisEshikas or dvaitins) the texts that proclaim identiy
have to be abandoned.

Ramanuja proclaims:
'nikhilOpanishadhprasiddham krthsnasya brahma sarirabhAvam AthishTamAnaih
krthsnasya brahmAthmabhAvOpadhEsAh sarvE samyak upapAdhithA bhavanthi.'
That is, by those who accept the sarira-sariri bhava between all beings and Brahman the
texts that speak of identity are well explainable because this concept is known through
all the upanishads.

To the objection that jathi and qualities can be the attributes of substances but a
substance cannot be the attribute of another substance
Ramanuja answers that it is quite proper as in the sentence 'gourasvo manushyo devO
jathah purushah karmabih, the purusha (athman) is born as a cow,as a horse, as a man
as a deva according to his karma.The words in apposition (sAmAnAdhikaraNya) all
qualify one entity, namely the purusha.

It cannot be said that only the words denoting jati or guNa as in the expressions 'khando
gouh, shuklapatah, broken- horned cow, white cloth,can be put in apposition and the
words denoting substances should have termination of possession
(mathvarTHeeyaprathyayah) as in dhandee, one with staff, kundali, one who is wearing
eardrops etc. The words dhanda and kundala are capable of existing independently and
hence used in the possessive sense. But this condition is not necessary when the
substances that qualify are unable to exist separately to be perceived

Advaitin objects to this saying that while the jati and guna are perceived along with
the substance which qualifies the Athma is not so.
Ramanuja says:
'NaithdhEvam; manushyAdhi sarirANAm api AthmaikAsraYthvam,
thdhEkaprayojanathvam,thathprakArathvam cha jAthyAdhi thulyam.'
The bodies of all beings have only Athma as their substratum; they exist only for the use
of the Athma, and exist as its aspects. This is proved by the fact that they do not have a
separate existence apart from the Athma, they enable the Atma to have experience the
karmaphala as karma can be exhausted only through embodiment and they become
qualifying epithets of the Atma as in the _expression man, cow etc.
The Atma is not perceived because it is atheendriya. Even in sense perception what is
perceived by the eye is not cognised by the other indriyas. Since Athma is not cognied
by the indriyas it is not perceived along with the body. As the word cow not only shows
the jati but also
the indidual entity with all its characterstics, the words like man denote the Athma in their
ultimate connotation which further extended denotes Brahman who is the Self of the self.

Ramanuja has made this clear in VedhArTha sangraha thus: Brahman in the causal
state has the sentient and the insentient in their subtle state as its body and the same
Brahman having the beings sentient and insentient as its body in their gross
manifestation is the effect.
'thasmath isvaraprAkArabhoothasarvAvasTHaprakrthipurushavAcinah sabdhAh
thathprakAra visishtathaya avasthithe paramAthmani mukhyathayA varthanthe,
jivAthmavAchi devamanushyadhi sabdhavath.'
That is, the terms denoting prakrthi and purusha are the aspects of Brahman and denote
only Brahman in their primary sense as in the case of the words, manushya deva etc.
which have connotation in the Athma only. This is the only sense of identity implied by
the sarirathmabhAva.

7. Nivrtthyanupapatthi

The view of the advaitin that the avidhya can be removed only through the knowledge
of identity is refuted by Ramanuja, who says,
'brahmathmaikathvavijnAnEna avidhya nivrtthih yuktha ithi thadhayuktham,
banDHasya pAramArTHikathvena jnAnanivarthyathva abhAvAth.'
That is, the bondage being not illusory but real it cannot be removed by mere
knowledge. Ramanuja explains bondage as:
sukhaduhkanubhavarupah banDHah,'
The experience of pleasure and pain by entering into the bodies of deva etc. is
according to the result of meritorious and sinful actions.This cannot be illusory and can
be removed only through the grace of the Lord by means of devotional worship.This can
be destroyed only by the knowledge of brahman as the inner self and controller and not
of identity with Brahman.Moreover, says Ramanuja, the knowledge that is said to
remove avidhya is also unreal as everything except brahman is miTHyA for advaitin and
hence another knowledge that removes this one should be sought. This second
knowledge also being miTHyA it will lead to ad- infinitum, anavasTHA. If the removing
knowledge is said to perish after removing avidhya cannot be accepted. This knowledge
which removes everything that is not Brahman is said to be mere cit, consciousness. If
so, Ramanuja asks, who is the knower? It cannot be the ' I ' the object of avidhya which
is removed with the avidhya. It cannot be Brahman either, since Brahman is not a
knower but pure consciousness according to advaita. If the knower and the knowledge is
said to disappear along with the rest, being other than Brahman, it is absurd, says
Ramanuja,like one cutting down everything other than the ground, which includes cutting
down himself and the act of cutting down itself,
' "bhoothalavyathiriktham krthsnam devadatthEna cchinnam" ithyasyAmEva
chedhanakriyAyam cchetthuh asyAh cchedhanakriyAyAscha
chEdhyAnupravesanavachanavath upahAsyam.'
Ramanuja concludes the mahasiddhantha by saying
'thasmAth anAdhikarmapravAharupAjnAnamoolathvAth banDhasya
That is, as bondage is due to the result of beginningless flow of karma, its removal can
be only through the knowledge that Brahman is the inner Self and ruler different from
souls and matter.this knowledge can arise only through the grace of the Lord, by
following the varnAsrama dharma and duties enjoined in the veda, not desiring result but
as an offering to the Lord which
culminates in intense devotion and meditation leading to moksha. As this requires the
knowledge of vedas the study of the purvamimAmsa is the prerequisite to the study of

JijnAsAdhikaraNa continued-objection by mimamsakaA

The mimamsakas are of the opinion that the significance of the words is only through
their connection with action. They cite the example of vrddhavyavahara, the use by
elders, where a sentence spoken by an elder or experienced person such as 'gAm
Anaya,bring the cow,' and
an inexperienced or younger person understands the meaning of the words by seeing a
cow being brought up. Hence they say that the sruthi texts have meaning only
through action and as study of Brahman does not result in action it need not be
taken up.

The vedantin may mention the sentence ' a son is born ' which does not result in
action but produces result, namely joy and hence meaningful, but the mimAmsaka
objects, saying that even in such cases due to the reference to sukhaprasava etc.
resulting in action like brightening
of face etc they cannot be the exception. Therefore the purport of word should denote
action and not an existing thing. Since the Vedanta texts have reference to Brahman
which is an established thing they cannot be authoritative.
Ramanuja refutes the view that the meaning of the words must be grasped only in
connection with action. The meaning can be made clear even otherwise. The children
understand the meaning of words father, uncle etc. and also other things when indicated
by the forefinger pronouncing the words.
Ramanuja cites another example also. Suppose a man tells another by gestures to
inform Devadattha that his father is alright. When it is conveyed to Devadattha by words,
a person who has been a witness to all the happenings understands the words spoken
to be the meaning of the gestures. Even assuming that the vedantha texts relate only to
established entity the inquiry into brahman must be taken up, says Ramanuja. The
action of meditation is enjoined by the sruthi texts like
'AthmA vA arE drahstavyah srothavyah manthavyah nidhiDHYasithavah, (Brhd.2-
the Self has to be seen, heard, thought of and meditated upon.'
'sO anvEshtavyah vijinAsithavyah,' chan.8-7-1)
it has to be sought after and understood.( As an action must have a result, vedantic
passages have texts which can be termed as arTHa vadha, laudatory, such as
'brahmavidhApnothi param,' (Taitt.2-1)
One who knows Brahman attains the highest.
These types of texts are found in purvamimAmsa also in relation to vedic injunctions.
The text that enjoins horse sacrifice for instance for the one who desires to go to
heaven does not describe the nature of heaven which is known only through other texts
describing it as a place free from grief. Hence even the texts referring to an established
entity are purposeful.
Mimamsaka hold the view that meaning of words lies in what ought to be done, says
Ramanuja, ' krthibhavabhAvi krthyuddhesyam hi bhavathah kAryam’
In which case they have to define what is krthyuddesyam, what ought to be done and if
it is krthikarmathvam, what is desired to be achieved by the action. But what ought to be
done need not be agreeable always unless it achieves the fulfillment of some desire
conducive to pleasure as in the injunction 'jyothishtomena svargakamo yajetha,' one
desirous of heaven should perform jyothishtoma sacrifice. Neither is the obligatory work
can be termed as seshi to which other things are subsidiary. But Ramanuja says that a
work done as an injunction ,that is, what ought to be done does not qualify to be a seshi.
The real sesha- seshi bhava is when an entity acting through a desire to serve another.
Finally the words of injunction also present their meaning only in connection with other
words such as the devathas like agni through which the indweller of all the
parampurusha is being propitiated. Therefore, says Ramanuja,
kEvalAnAm karmaNAm alpa asthiraphalathvAth, brahmajnAnasyacha anantha
sthiraphalathvath thannirNayaphalah brahmavichara Arambhahuktha ithi
considering the meager transitory nature of the results of karam and the infinite and
everlasting fruit of brahmajnana the inquiry into Brahman has to be pursued.
Thus ends the jijnasADHikaraNa of sribhashya.

Suthra2- janmAdhyasya yathah- 'from whom the origin etc. of this proceeds '

'Yathah' from whom , means Brahman, sarvesvara, who is nikhila hEya prathyanika
svarupa, whose nature is free from all impurities (that arefound in the universe),
satyasankalpa, of infallible will,jnAnAnadhyanEka kalyANa guna, who possesses infinite
auspicious qualities such as jnAna, who is omniscient, omnipotent and the Supreme
Purusha.The word 'Adhi' in 'janmadhi includes janma, srshti (creation),sthithi
(sustenance) and pralayam. (annihilation) and 'asya, of this' means this wonderful
variegated universe of beings starting from the four-faced creator, Brahma till the
common blade of grass, ordained to experience the fruit of their respective karmas. This
is how Ramanuja explains the suthra.

The basis of this interpretation is the sruthi text
'yathO vA imAni bhoothani jayanthe, yena jAthAni jeevanthi,
yathprayanthyabhisamvisanthi, thathvijijnAsasva thath brahma.'(taitt.brg.1)
This means, from whom all these beings originate, by whom they are sustained and into
whom they merge back at the time of pralaya, know that to be Brahman.

Here an objection is encountered by Ramanuja that the word janmAdhi denoting the
creation etc. does not define Brahman. The arguments given to substantiate this are:

1. More than one attributes may denote more than one entity. The example shown by
the siddhanthin, namely, 'syamo yuva lohithAkshah devadatthah, Devadattha is young,
dark and red-eyed, is not applicable because the person is seen to be one by the valid
means of knowledge, perception. Here there is only scripture that says so but no other
direct means of knowledge. It cannot be said that since the word Brahman denotes one
entity only the attributes also denote the same entity because a person who has never
seen a cow, on hearing, the cow is that which is 'khanda munda purNa sringah gouh,'
broken -horned, hornless or fully horned, understands it to denote different entities.

2. neither the characteristics can be upalakshana, by implication as in the case where a
field is pointed out to be that of Devadattha, saying 'the field where the crane sits
belongs to Devadattha, yathra ayam sarasah sa devadattha kedarah, because such
characteristics, different from the object are used to denote only the entity already known
through other source. if it is said that to the Brahman already denoted by the text
'sathyam jnAnam anantham'
These characterstics could be the upalakshana because both are characteristics only
and the same objection holds good for both. Therefore Brahman cannot be defined at

Ramanuja counters this objection thus:
Brahman is already known through the etymological meaning of the word brhat meaning
great or big, since there is none greater or bigger than Brahman the word denotes
Brahman only in its ultimate sense. To such Brahman, known already, the origination etc
are cited as the characteristics and hence there is no contradiction of their being
upalakshaNa. Moreover the Brahman is described as the material an efficient cause
of the world by the
Chandogya text, 'sadhEva soumyaidham agra Aseeth-----'
Where 'sadeva Aseeth' denotes the material causation, 'adhvitheeyam ' implies efficient
causation by dismissing the existence of any other agent, and 'it willed to become many
and created fire' ascribes the creation to Brahman only, who is mentioned as 'sath.thath '
etc. The characteristics denote different entities only when there is conflict in their
meaning as in the case of 'khanda,munda, poorNasringa gouh.' In this context there is
no conflict in the
characteristics of being creator, sustainer and annihilator attributed to Brahman due to
the difference in time of the respective functions.

Ramanuja clinches the argument by saying
'yathO vA imAni bhoothAni jAyanthe' ithyAdhi kAraNa vAkyeEna prathipannasya
jagajjanmAdhi kAranasya brahmanah sakalaitharavyAvrtthamam svarupam
abhiDHeeyathe-sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma ithi.'
That is, while the Brahman is defined as that, from which all these beings are born etc.,
by the words 'existence, knowledge and infinity, the svarupa, nature of Brahman, is
described as being other than the world of sentient and insentient, the latter being
subject to changes and the former on account of the association with it. The released
souls are also excluded because of their limited knowledge that existed while in
bondage. In the statement 'sathyam jnanam anantham brahma,' the word jnAna denotes
the eternal, complete knowledge of Brahman, the word sathya is to show that Brahman
is the absolute unconditional existence and the word anantha refers to the characteristic
of not being limited by time, place or entity, 'dEsakAla vasthu paricchEdha rahithathvam.'
Hence the three words that show the nature of Brahman are the svarupanirupaka
dharmas, inseparable attributes of Brahman. Defining the nature of Brahman. So
the objection that Brahman cannot be defined is refuted by Ramanuja.

Suthra-3-sAsthrayOnithvAth: of whom the scriptures are the source of

sAsthryOnih=sAsthram yasya yOnih;kAraNam pramAnam; of whom the scriptures
are the source of knowledge

Thasya bhAvah sAsthrayonothvam. thasmAth=sAsthrayonithvAth, therefore
scripture is the proof of Brahman.

The scriptures being the source of right knowledge of Brahman the scriptural text 'yathO
vA imAni bhoothAni jAyanthE ' is the proof of Brahman.
Ramanuja considers the objection that scripture is not the only source of knowledge
of Brahman as there are other means of knowledge through which Brahman can be

Ramanuja asks 'kim tharhi thava pramANam?' What exactly is the proof of Brahman
other than the sasthra?
It cannot be prathyaksha, perception, which can only be of two kinds, namely, sense
perception or perception through yogic powers. Sense perception through sense organs
is not possible in this case. Even mental perception like sukha and duhkha is possible
only from the experience through sense-contact. Yogic prathyakha also happens only
about things experienced already. Inference is also out of question, says Ramanuja, due
to the absence of sign, linga, which is necessary for creating inferential knowledge.

Inference can arise in two ways, namely, viseEshathOdhrshta and samanyathOdhrshta.
When the fire is inferred in a hill through the perception of smoke coming out, the smoke
is the linga, sign by which inference arises considering the vyApthi, the invariable
concomitance between fire and smoke. This kind of inference is visEshathOdhrshtam.

SAmAnyathodhrshtam is the inference based on general observation as in the inference
of the fragrance of the sandalwood seen afar. The former kind of inference is not
possible with reference to Brahman because it is a subject incomprehensible by the
indriyas. The second kind is also eliminated due to the absence of any sign that
indicates vyapthi, invariable concomitance.

The opponent, possibly Naiyayika, the logician, gives two reasons for inferring that the
world must have a sentient being as its creator.
First is that anything which is an effect is seen to have a maker who has the knowledge
of the material cause, instrumental cause and the use to which it is put to and the user.
the example of this is things like pot , the maker, namely the potter has the knowledge of
mud, the material cause and potter's wheel, the efficient cause and the practical utility of
the pot etc.
Secondly all the insentient products are dependent on and ruled by a sentient being.
This is illustrated by the example of a healthy body which is dependent on the sentient
soul. As in seeing the sprout we infer the presence of the seed, which is not perceivable,
seeing this world we can infer its creator, namely Brahman.

Ramanuja refutes this. He asks, ' what is meant by EkachEthanADHeenathvam,
dependence on one sentient being?' The example quoted, namely, that of a healthy
body being dependent on sentient soul is sADhya vikala, fails to prove the point because
the origination of the body and sustenance of it does not depend on the sentient soul
only but it on the karmaphala of the individual self and of the wife, parents etc. Moreover
the world consists of inanimate things like mountains etc which are included in the
effects which are not seen to be dependent on a sentient entity.
The argument that the agency of the world cannot belong to any mortal being on
account of their limited intelligence etc. also cannot be proved. It is not necessary that
the agent of creation like that of a pot should have full knowledge of the causes and their
potency, uses of the product etc. It is enough if the potter knows that he can create a pot
form the mud and with the help of the potter's wheel without being knowledgeable about
the power and potency of the materials and instruments of creation. In the case of
sacrifices productive of results the doer of sacrifice need not know the unseen power,
apurva, which arises out of the sacrifice producing the result but it is enough if he knows
as to what will be the result of the sacrifice. So the lack of
complete knowledge about the creation does not preclude an agent other than Brahman
and therefore the knowledge of Brahman can be proved only through scriptures.

The opponent now comes up with an argument that the world is an effect because it
consists of things made up of parts.'sAvayathvAdhEva jagathah kAryathvam.' Whatever
is made up of parts and capable of action and has form, is an effect which presupposes
a sentient agent. Hence an omniscient and omnipotent principle, that is, Brahman can
be inferred from the effect, the world. From the nature of the effect the knowledge and
power of the cause is inferred. On seeing the products like pots or even big palaces the
power and knowledge of the maker is inferred. Similarly since pleasure and pain are
effects and insentient, an intelligent cause can be inferred which cannot be the individual
soul but should have to be one who is the dispenser of the results of merits and sins.
Moreover the individual souls lack the subtle knowledge necessary for the construction
of the world.

The opponent here presupposes the objection(possibly from the advaitin) that since all
the agents of creation are seemed to possess bodies it is inappropriate to ascribe
agency to Brahman who is said to have no form. He cites the instance of effects of
demonical spirits on the bodies and of poison being counteracted by will. So by mere
sankalpa Brahman creates the world. It cannot be argued that will or mental power can
only exist in the embodiment because when the soul leaves the body the mind and other
faculties are found in tact and till they enter another body.

So the conclusion is that since the individual souls with their limited knowledge and
power are incalculable to produce this wonderful and variegated world of sentient and
insentient beings the inference points out to a omniscient, omnipotent supreme being
who, though without form,
creates this world through his will. Hence scripture is not the sole proof of Brahman.

Ramanuja replies-' YathokthalakshaNam brahma janmAdhivAkyam
bhODhayathyEva; kuthah; sAsthraikapramANathvAth brahmaNah.'

Brahman is as described in the vedantha vakya 'yatho va imAni bhoothAni jAyanthe----'
ascribing the creation, sustenance and annihilation to Brahman because scripture is the
only pramAna of Brahman. The argument that the world being an effect must have an
intelligent agent as its creator only points out to such an agent but not Brahman.
Moreover no
evidence can be shown through inference that the world was produced in one whole or
at one time to infer one neither creator nor the things in the world are of uniform nature
like pots but have different characteristics. Nor it can be assumed that individual souls
are incapable of such
powers, which can be attained by them through exceptional austerities and merit. (That
is, it cannot be proved through inference.) Perception shows that the things produced in
succession, that is, not at the same time, have different causes.

Ramanuja asks the opponent who tries to prove Isvara as the creator through
'kim isvarah sasarirah asarirah vA karyam karothi, na
thAvadhasarirah, asarirasya karthrthva anupalabDHEh.'
Whether Isvara creates the world possessing a body or without a body. Saying that He
acts without a body is not acceptable as even mental activities require a sarira to work
through It cannot be argued that the mind is eternal because there is no activity on its
part can be seen in the state of disembodiment or release. If Isvara works having a
body, it should either be eternal, in which case its product, the world is also eternal, and
there is no need for Isvara, or creation. The sarira of Isvara cannot be non-eternal since
there will be a contingency to cite another cause for the body of Isvara which in turn
requires another thus ending up in infinite regress. If Isvara works without a body and
creates through His will, there could be no examples cited to prove the validity of the
inference as all the effects such as pot are not created by will.

So, says Ramanuja,
'athah dharsanAnuguNyEna isvarAnumAnam
dharsanAnuguNya parAhatham ithi sAsthraikapramAnah
Therefore it is to be concluded that based on observation the inference is refuted and
the sastra alone is the pramANa for the existence of the supreme Brahman,Lord of all
and the supreme self. The scripture speaks of the supreme being who is different from
all the rest known through other means of knowledge, who possesses infinite auspicious
qualities such as omniscience, infallible will etc. and who is devoid of all imperfections.
Ramanuja concludes by saying
'athah prmAnanthara agocharathvena sAsthraika vishayathvAth,- yathO vA imani
bhoothAni ithyAdhi vAkyam- ukthalakshaNam brahma prathipAdhayathi ithi
Since Brahman cannot be proved by any other means of knowledge and scripture being
the only source, the texts such as 'from whom all this originate' etc. give authoritative
knowledge of Brahman.

The next suthra takes up the question whether scriptures are authoritative regarding
Brahman as it is siddha vasthu, already established entity, and does not have any
activity or cessation of it as its purport.

Suthra-4 thatthu samanvayAth
Thath thu- but that (the scriptures alone are the pramANa for establishing Brahman) is
samanvayAth because it is the main purport ( of the sruthi.)

The aim of the vedas is the paramapurushArTha, the final goal of life which is the
attainment of release, moksha. Since the subject of the upanishads is Brahman, the
knowledge of which leads one to Moksha, Brahman is connected with the
parampurushArTHa through the vedas. Therefore Brahman is known only through the
vedas being its main purport.

Brahman is understood by the texts like 'yathO vA imAnibhoothAni jAyanthe' from
whom all the beings emerge and 'sadhEva sowmya idhamagraAseeth,' sath alone
was in the beginning and 'thadhaikshathaB bahusyAm prajAyEya, 'it willed to become
many, and the like, to be the origin of everything and defined as 'sathyam
jnAnamanantham brahma,'Brahman is existence, knowledge and infinity, denoting the
Supreme Being as the one possessed of infinite auspicious attributes and devoid of all
imperfections. The validity of the texts about Brahman as above cannot be questioned
on the basis of their not being connected with activity or the cessation of it. There can be
no denial of validity in the case of statements like 'your son is born’, or ' this is not a
serpent ' because there also is some activity like the joy or fear

The opponent here is the mimAmsaka, according to whom sruthi texts that do not
deal with some activity, initiating or prohibiting, are not valid. Hence the texts about
Brahman are not authoritative. The opponent argues that perception and other
pramANas can deal with things already established but sruthi texts must always be
purposeful like 'svargakAmO yajEtha,' one who desires heaven should perform sacrifice,
which is an injunction or 'na kalanjam bhakshayeth,' one should not eat garlic etc. Even
in daily life we only hear sentences such as 'arTHArthee rAjakulam vrajEth, one who
needs wealth should go to the king,' etc., which
indicate some activity or like ''mandhAgnirnAmbu pibEth,' one with weak digestion
should not drink water, which prohibits activity.

The opponent, mimAmsaka, asks whether in the case of statements like 'a son is born to
you, or this is not a serpent ' the joy or removal of fear occurs by the event itself or the
knowledge of the fact conveyed through the sentence. If it is said that the action of joy
etc. Cannot happen unless there is the knowledge about it, then by the mere knowledge
of a thing even without its existence can produce an effect.So scripture too need not
refer to things actually existing and hence need not be the valid means of knowledge
unless it refers to action injunctive or prohibitive. Therefore vedanta texts cannot be
taken as the authoritative proof of Brahman.

Next the purvapakshin, the mimAmsaka, considers the view of the advaitin who says
that vedantavakyas are valid even in the sense of denoting an injunction. Brahman who
is perceived as being connected with the world through avidhya has to be freed from the
illusion and this is the injunction which is denoted by the sruthi texts which have the
knowledge of Brahman as their purport. They quote the texts such as 'na dhrshtEh
dhrashtAram pasyEh;na mathErmanthAram manveeThAh , you cannot see the seer
of sight, you cannot think the thinker of thought,' meaning that Brahman is the pure
perception and pure knowledge.

MimAmsaka asks the advaitin to specify the qualification of the person to whom the
injunction is addressed. For instance it is said that agnihothra should be performed as
long as one lives where the life of the person to whom it refers to is the qualification. But
in the case of Brahman -knowledge it can only be directed to a person who already has
the perception of the real nature of Brahman in order to negate the world. Again
Brahman cannot be a phala, fruit of action like heaven in which case it would become
transient. Moreover Brahman cannot be the
object of the injunction since it is not a kriya.

Another argument forwarded by some ( called dhyAnaniyogavAdin) who say that
vedanta passages are nevertheless authoritative as they enjoin dhyAna, meditation as
shown by the texts such as nidhiDH' aAthmA vA are dhrashtavyah srOthavyah
manthavyah nidhiDHyA sithavyah,(Brhd.2-4-5) the self is to be seen, heard, thought
of and contemplated,' and
'AthmAithyEva upAseetha,(Brhd.1-4-7) Let one meditate upon himself as the Self.' The
passages such as
'sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma, sadeva soumya idham agra AseethekamEva
adhvitheeyam define the nature of Brahman in answer to the question "What is the
nature of the Self to be meditated?"
But this is objected by the mAyAvadin (advaita) who says that Brahman cannot be
realized through injunctions on meditation but only through knowledge gained by texts
such as 'thathvamasi,thou art that.' But the former argues that mere knowledge cannot
secure release
as by merely being told that this is not a snake will not dispel the fear until one actually
sees the rope. If the avidhya comes to an end by mere knowledge from vedic texts then
the injunctions on sravana manana and nidhiDhyAsana become meaningless. Therefore
bondage can only
be terminated through the injunctions on meditation which results in direct intuitive
knowledge of Brahman.

VedAntha vakyas enjoining meditation lead to the knowledge of Brahman as one only
without a second and of the nature of existence, knowledge and bliss,
sacchidhAnadham, speak of the unity while the karma portion of the vedas relate to the
difference. As difference and no difference are mutually exclusive, Brahman is proved
only by the vedantha vAkyAs that contain injunction on meditation as a means of
securing the knowledge.

Now mimamsaka refutes all this by saying
'dhyAnavidhi seshathvE api vEdhAntha vAkyanAm arThasathyathve prAmANya
That is, it should be made clear whether the texts that refer to Brahman do so in
connection with the injunctive texts or independently. If it is the first, they become a part
of the injunctive texts and will not be authoritative with respect to Brahman. If they do so
independently they cannot be authoritative since they are devoid of any reference to

It cannot be said that the dhyana involving continuous remembrance requires an object
of meditation which is given by texts like
‘idham sarvam yadhayam Athma, sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma"
all this is that Self and Brahman is existence knowledge and bliss,' and hence these
texts are connected with injunctive texts, to form one whole and hence they are referring
to existing thing because meditative texts are found to deal with unreal things also as
'nAma brahma ithyupAseetha, meditate on the name as Brahman. Hence, concludes
mimAmsaka, the scripture is not the valid authority on Brahman.

Ramanuja meets the arguments of the mimAmsaka by saying, 'thatthu
samanvayAth, but that because it is the main purport,' is the reply of suthrakara to the
view of mimAmsaka that the texts on Brahman are not authoritative because they do not
deal with injunction or prohibition
relating to activity. The word 'thu' meaning 'but' refutes the view of the opponent.
Ramanuja derives the word samanvaya as samyak anvaya, well connected. VedAntha
texts denote Brahman as the highest purushArTha, the ultimate goal of man, the infinite
bliss free from all imperfections. To say that they are without purpose because they do
not denote any
activity is, says Ramanuja, is absurd like the statement denying any purpose to a
descendent of royal family because he does not belong to the family of low- born.

All beings from devas down to a blade of grass, empowered with beginning less avidhya
in the form of karma, are ignorant of the true reality and get involved in different kinds of
activities and
enjoyment. The purpose of the vedantha texts is to impart knowledge to them about the
highest purushArTha, Brahman, with whom in the state of release they merge and, who
imparts infinite bliss to them by His infinitive auspicious qualities.

On enquiring as to how this knowledge is brought about, the texts like 'brahmavid
ApnOthi param, the knower of Brahman attains the Supreme,'(Brhd.2-1-1) and
'AthmAnam Eva lokam upAseetha,(Brhd.1-4-15)let one meditate the world as his Self,'
enjoin meditation as the means of attaining Brahman. The attainment is compared to
that of a man who is told that there is a treasure under the grounds of his house or to the
situation where a prince getting lost and being brought up by a brahmin, instructed in all
the sasthras is told " your father, endowed with all
the kingly qualities, is waiting for you at the door step." The implication here is that the
treasure which is our birth right, that is, moksha, is just waiting to be found and we are
like the prince who lost his identity.

Ramanuja further answers the objection of the mimamsaka that the sentences which
teach about an already existent thing without reference to any activity is like the stories
told to children because they serve no purpose. Even the stories, says Ramanuja, will be
believed only as long as they appear to be true and the moment they are known to be
unreal they cease to give pleasure to the children. The texts relating to Brahman serve
the purpose of being the highest purushArTha only because the Brahman is known to be

Ramanuja ends the samanvayADHikaraNa saying that the texts like 'yathO vA imAni
bhoothAni jAyanthE' etc. teach the existence of Brahman as being the cause of the
world, free from all imperfections and endowed with infinite auspicious qualities and of
the nature of unparalleled

eekshthEr nAsabdham 1-1-5

It is not, not being found in the scriptures asabdham because of the word 'eekshathe'
etc, eekshatheh.

After establishing that Brahman shown as the cause of the world by sruthi texts like
'yatho vA imAni bhoothAni jAyanthe,' the enquiry of Brahman, who is omniscient,
possessing of infinite auspicious qualities has been affirmed by the first four suthras.
Now the view of the sAnkhya school of philosophy who ascribe, the causality of the
world through inference, to the inanimate pradhana, the primordial nature, is taken up
for refutation.

In the Chandogya text, 'sadhEva soumya idham agra Aseeth ekamEva adhvitheeyam,
thadhaikshatha bahusyam prajAyEya ,thatthejo asrjatha, 'sath' , 'Being,' alone was in the
beginning ,one only without a second; it willed to become many and created fire,' the
word 'Being' is defined as Brahman by the vedantic schools. But here the opponent,
sAnkhyan raises a doubt as to whether the word 'sath' refers to the pradhAna, inferred
as the cause of the world.

The view of the sankhya is as follows:
All this world except the sentient self is made up of prakrthi which is constituted of three
guNas satthva,rajas and thamas. When the three gunas are in equilibrium,
sAmayAvastha there is no creation but the primordial prakrthi exists in its unmanifest
state. This is denoted by the word 'sath' in the Chandogya passage. Then, (in the
proximity of purusha, the individual self) the gunas start combining and the evolution
when, from mahat or buddhi till the gross elements takes place. This is indicated by the
sentence 'it willed to become many.'

Sankhyan justifies his stand by saying 'karaNabhootha dravyasya avstTHAnthara
ApatthirEva kAryatha.' The effect is non-different from the cause, being another state of
existence of the cause. The fact that the world came from prkrthi is proved by the
subsequent text,'vachArambhaNam vikarah namaDHEyam mrthikEthyEva sathyam,
that is, the mud alone is true and the various forms like pot etc are only modifications like
the gold ornaments or articles made of iron in which only the gold and iron are the real
essence. Further the opponent argues that the promissory statement of 'ekavjnAnEna
sarva vijnAnam' will be meaningful only if the material cause of the world is prakrthi
made up of three gunas, the modifications of which, is
everything in this world. Therefore the text referring to the origination of the world from
'sath,' points out only to pradhAna, the primordial nature, that is the unmanifest prakrthi,
to be the
cause of the world.

This view, says Ramanuja, is refuted by this suthra 'eekshathErnAsabdhAth.'
PradhAna which is AnumAnikam, established through inference, and not a valid
testimony, is not
mentioned by the sruthi as the cause of the world because of the use of the verb 'eeksh,
to will ' in the passage in connection with the activity of 'sath,' the 'Being.' The action of
willing can be
ascribed only to a sentient entity, which the pradhAna is not. Therefore the term 'sath'
can denote only the omniscient omnipotent Supreme Person, the Brahman. Thus in all
places where creation is mentioned we find texts like ' sa eekshatha lOkAnnu srjAa
ithi,sa imAn lo kAn asrjatha,'(Aitr.Aran.II-4-1-2) and 'sa eekshAm chakre sa prANam
asrjatha,(pras.6-3) He created them and He willed to create the worlds and He willed
and created the vital air.'

It is true ,says Ramanuja , that the effect must be of the nature of the cause. That is
why the omniscient, omnipotent Supreme Being of infallible will, the inner Self of all is
cited as the cause with the sentient and insentient beings in their subtle state forming
His sarira. This is illustrated by the texts such as
'parAsya sakthih viviDHAiva srooyathe svAbhAvikee jnanabalkriya cha,(svet.6-8)
His supreme power is manifold and His action, power and knowledge is His inherent
nature.' and
'yasya avyaktham sariram yasya aksharam sariram yasya mrthyussariram Esha
of whom the unmanifest is the body, of whom the imperishable is the body, of whom
death is the body, He is the inner self of all.'

The argument that the promissory statement and the example given point out only to
pradhAna as the cause of the world through inference is refuted by Ramanuja saying
that there is no reason given for the inference to make it valid. The example given is
only to confirm the possibility of 'EkavijANena sarva vijnAnam,' the knowledge of
everything by knowing about one thing, which is the effect of the cause like everything

The next suthra is in answer to the argument of the opponent that the word 'eekshatha,
willed' can be taken, not in the primary sense, but in the secondary sense, gouNA, as in
the case of the expressions like 'thathEja aikshatha, thA Apah aikshantha, the fire willed
and the water willed, ' in which the activity of the sentient being is ascribed to the
nonsentient figuratively. Thus the action of willing can refer to pradhAna also.

suthra- 6- GouNascheth na AtmasabdhAth

It is not secondary due to the word Atman being used.
This suthra refutes the argument that the 'eekshaNa' the act of seeing can refer to
praDHAna, taken in the secondary sense. The later text 'aithadhAthmyam idham
sarvam, sa athmA, all this is ensouled by that,which is the Self of everything' refers to
'that' which is denoted by the word 'sath.' As the insentient praDHAna cannot be termed
as the sentient self it means only Brahman. This meaning is further strengthened by the
'hanthAham imAh thisrah devatha anena AthmanA anupravisya namarupe
Let me enter into these three deities as their self and give them name and form.' So the
eekshaNam cannot be contrived as being figurative but is only in the primary sense

Suthra-7- Thannishtasya mOkshOpadhesAth-1-1-7

Because release is the teaching here to one who is desirous of it. In the passage
referred to here, the student svEtha kEthu is being instructed by his father about
salvation. After imparting the knowledge 'that thou art,' he is told that there will be delay
only till this body is discarded. This will not be appropriate if pradhAna is the subject
matter of the passage. Even to Sankhya, pradhAna is not instrumental to release.

suthra-8-Heyathva avachanAccha-1-1-8

Also because there is no mention of discarding it(sath)
This means that if pradhAna is the meaning of 'sath,' since it is not conducive to moksha
the mumukshu, aspirant for release would be advised to give it up. But here it is not so.
On the contrary, he is instructed 'thou art that'.
Suthra-9 prathijnavirodhAth-1-1-9

It is contrary to prathijna.
Pradhana is not the purport of the passage because it would be contrary to the
promissory statement, prathijna, of knowing everything by the knowledge of one. As
pradhana can only be the cause of the insentient beings the knowledge of it will not lead
to that of the sentient beings.

Suthtra-10 svApyayaAth-1-1-10

Because of merging with the self
The text 'svapnAntham mE soumya vijaneehi;yathra ethath purushah
svapithinAma, sathAsowmya thadhA sampanno bhavathi; svam apeetho bhavathi,
Learn from me about the nature of sleep. When a man sleeps he unites with 'sath' and
merges into his self. In sleep there is no identity of namarupa and the self exists in its
pristine form and
becomes one with Brahman, its real self. Therefore the state of sleep is akin to
dissolution when all beings merge in Brahman. The sruthi text mentions the state of
sleep as that when
'prAjnena AthmanA samparishvakthah na bAhyam kimchana vEdha
embraced by the sentient self he knows nothing inside and outside.' On awakening the
identity of nAmarupa reassert them as per the text
'tha iha vyagro vA simhO vA vrko vA varAhO vA dhamsO vA masakO vA
yadyadbhavanthi thdhAbhavanthi,'
All beings resume their identity as a tiger, lion, wolf, boar, insect or a mosquito, whatever
they were before. Therefore as the merging into pradhAna in their sleep cannot happen,
the word 'sath'denotes the Supreme purusha only.

Suthra-11 gathisAmAnyAth-1-1-11

Because of the uniformity of view
several texts referring to the creation mention Brahman as the creator. 'AthmA vA
idhameka Eva agra Aseeth, this was only the self in the beginning,'(aith.aran.II-4-11)
thasmath vA EthasmAth Athmana AkAsah sambhoothah, AkAsAth
vayuh,vAyoragnih,agnErApah,adhhyah prthivi,(taitt.2-1)
From the Self came the space, from space, wind, from wind came fire, from fire, water
and from water came the earth. In all these passages Brahman is mentioned as the
cause. So even in this passage, namely 'sadheva soumya idhamgraAseeth,' the word
'sath' refers to brahman only.

Suthra-12 sruthathvaccha-1-1-12
Because it is directly mentioned in the scriptures.
Ramanuja quotes various texts to show that by the word 'sath, only the Supreme
Self, omniscient omnipotent, support of all , of fruitful and infallible will, free from all
defects etc. is referred to. In Chandogya itself it is stated by later passages that
Brahman is the self of all.
'anena jeevena AthmAnam anupravisya nAmarupe vyakaravANi,
I will enter into this jeeva as its self and give name and form,' Later
'sanmoolAhsoumya imAh sarvAh prajAh sadhAyathnAh, satpravishtAh,
All these beings have 'sath' as their source, they reside in it and rest in it,' and
'EthadhAthmyam idham sarvam thatsatyam sa AthmA,
All these are ensouled by that which is truth and which is their true Self.'

Ramanuja concludes that these and other texts which specifically mention that the
world has originated from the Lord NArAyaNa, the ocean of infinite auspicious qualities,
the Supreme Lord, all knowing, all powerful etc.
'antharbahischa thatsarvam vyapya nArAyanassTHithah.( Mahanarayana up. 11).
Since it is established by the above sruthi texts that Brahman must be the Supreme
person capable of manifesting as the world supporting all beings as their inner self, the
advaita view that Brahman is undifferentiated consciousness is also set aside, says

Thus ends the 'eekshthyaDhikaraNam.'

Suthra-13-Anandhamayo abhyAsAth-1-1-13

The Self consisting of bliss because of repetition.
In Taittreya upanishad there is a passage describing the five sheaths
annamaya,prANamaya, manOmaya,vijnAnamaya and Anandhamaya kOsas.

Starting from annamayakOsa, that is, the gross body which is the outermost sheath of
the individual, 'sa VA Esha purushO annarasamayah,'(Taitt.2-2-1) which is made up of
food, the subtler sheaths made of prANA, vital air,manas, intellect and finally the sheath
consisting of bliss are described one by one. The text talks of the bliss sheath as the
innermost and the Athman, 'thasmAth vA EthasmAth vijnAnamayAth anyah
antharah AthmA Anandhamayah.(Taitt.2-5-1)

Here a doubt is raised as to whether the blissful self mentioned in the passage is the
individual self subjected to bondage and release or it is the Supreme self, ParmAthma.
The opponent argues that it is the individual self because of the subsequent statement
'thasya Esha Eva
sArira Athmaa, of the preceding one this is the self, sArira. The word sArira means the
soul in a body and the individual soul, which is connected with the body, must be meant
as the blissful self.

Though Brahman is spoken of as the cause of everything in the Chandogya text, 'it
willed to become many, ‘which has been explained in the previous suthras, it has been
shown to be identical with the individual self by the statements 'anena jeevEna Athmana
anupravisya, entering into this jiva as its self,' and 'thou art that.' As in the sentence 'this
is that Devadatta,' the identity is established through sAmAnADHikaraNya, the principle
of coordination.

The opponent explains the TaittrEya passage thus:

The passage begins with the affirmation 'brahmavidhApnOthi param, he who knows the
Brahman attains the Supreme,' which shows that the real nature of the individual self is
to be attained by knowing Brahman. That the jiva is devoid of acith, the insentient non-
self is denoted by the next sentence 'sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma.' moksha is
thus the attainment of the real nature, as made out by the text
‘na ha vai sasarirasya sathah priyApriyayOrapahathirasthi; asariram vA va
santham na priyApriyE sprsathah,'(Chan.8-12-1)
Which means that as long as the jiva is in the body there is no freedom from pleasure
and pain but they do not touch him once he gets out of embodiment So the blissful state
is the recovery of the true nature of the jiva who is in no way connected with the
insentient body, prana manas and the intellect but it is spoken of as being inside them
all, by the principle 'sAkhAchandhranyaya. That is, in order to show the moon to
someone it is pointed out to be above the branch of a tree, sAkhA, but actually it is not,
and the branch serves only as an indication but it is i no way connected to the moon
.Similarly, the Self of an individual is indicated by mentioning the body as the outermost
sheath and prana which is inside that, and manas which is inside prana and intellect
which is inside manas and the Self is indicated as that which is inside even the
intellectual sheath while actually it is not in any way connected with any of these
mentioned therein. It cannot be argued, says the poorvapakshin, that Brahman is
different from the individual self because of the declaration 'brahma puccham
rathishTA,(Taitt.II-1) Brahman is the tail that supports,' In the passages describing the
other sheaths we find the words, 'prthivee puccham prathishTA, the earth is the tail that
supports,' etc. it only denoted the figurative presentation with head ,sides and tail
specified which make one whole of a body. Similarly the word puccha is used as the
supporting part of the whole.

Moreover if Brahman is other than the individual self it would have been spoken as being
inside the bliss sheath as its inner self in the form 'thasmAth vA EthasmAth
AnandhamayAth anyah antharah AthmA brahma.' But there is no continuation of the
series perceived. Hence the
poorvapakshin concludes that the individual self, which is in its real state is all bliss
being free from pleasure and pain, is the self mentioned as being inside the bliss sheath,
the bliss is meant to be the nature the termination 'maya' indicating all bliss and not in
the sense of possession of bliss. Thus the opponent rests his argument.

SuthrakAra, says Ramanuja, refutes this by the suthra 'Anandhamayo abhyAsAth.'
The self described as blissful is the Brahman because of the repetition.
SuthrakAra, says Ramanuja, refutes this by the suthra 'Anandhamayo abhyAsAth.' The
self described as blissful is the Brahman because of the repetition.

The passage in TaittrEya about the evaluation of the bliss starts with the joy of a man
who is blessed with everything and goes on to relate that of celestial beings, devas etc
multiplying each by hundred to measure the successive one ending with the bliss of
Brahma, the creator and mentioning that to be a particle of the bliss of the Supreme
Being, Brahman. At the end of the chapter is the text,
'yatho vacho nivarthanthe aprApya manasA saha Anandham brahmaNO vidvAn na
bibhEthi kuthschana,
The enlightened man is not afraid of anything after realizing that bliss of Brahman,
unable to reach that, the words turn back along with the mind. This Anandha can reside
only in the Supreme Self who is free from all imperfections and possesses infinite
auspicious qualities as it cannot relate to the individual self who is finite and subjected to
meager happiness mixed with unlimited sorrow.

The term vijnAnamaya refers to the individual self who has vijnAna and not to the
intellect because of the suffix 'mayat' which denotes abundance. The term vijnAna is
also used in the figurative sense in texts like 'vijnAnam yajnam thanuthe, the intellect
performs sacrifice,' where actually the performer is denoted, as there can be no agency
attributed to the intellect. The text of Taittreya however does not ascribe agency to the
others like pranamaya and the preceding ones as they are insentient and they mean
only the prAna etc. and not the self possessing prAna .Hence that which i.e. said to be
the inner self of vijAnamaya is only the Supreme Self.

The argument based on the text that describes Brahman entering into all beings as its
self and the text'that thou art,' to show the identity of the jiva with Brahman is not correct,
says Ramanuja because the statement that it willed to become many and created the
fire will not be applicable to the indivisual self.Ramnuja asks,
'kaTHam vA nirastha nikhiladhoshagandhasya anavaDHika athisaya asankhyEya
guNagaNasya sakalakAraNa bhoothasya brahmaNah nAnAviDHAnantha
karmADHeena chinthithnimishithAdhi sakalpravrtthijivasvarupathvam.'

This means that it is impossible for the Supreme Being, who is free from all
imperfections and abode of limitless wonderful innumerable auspicious qualities, and the
cause of all beings, to be identical with the individual self who is under the influence of
karma and experiences infinite misery and engaged in all kinds’ activities that bind him.

It may be argued that the Brahman is perceived as the individual self due to beginning
less avidhya, to dispel which the study of vedanta is started. But this is contrary, says
Ramanuja to the statement, 'yEna asrutham srutham bhavathi, by which what is not
heard becomes heard,'
thus promising 'EkavijAnEna sarva vijnAnam, all knowledge by the knowledge of one,'
and to the mention of the causality of Brahman by the text
'sadhEva soumya idhamagra Aseeth Ekamva advitheeyam,
thadhaikshatha bahu syAm prajAyEya, thatthEjO asrjatha'
etc. It would be highly improbable that after showing the Brahman as one of infallible will
by the statement 'thdhaaikshatha bahu syAm' if the same Brahman is identified with the
individual self who is the experiences of infinite misery through the proclamation
'thatthvamasi.' If on the other hand it is claimed that all this (the experience of the world)
is unreal then the knowledge of all by knowledge of one will be meaningless as there is
nothing real to know.

If Brahman alone is real and everything else is unreal, the text 'yatha soumya EkEna
mrthpindEna sarvam mrnmayam vijnAtham' will not make sense because it means that
when the cause, which is real, clay, is cognized, the effects, which are also real, are

The word 'thvam' refers to the jiva in the state of transmigration.The identity between
jiva and Brahman has already been refuted by the former suthras. The identity
ascertained through discarding the main meaning of the adjectives and taking only the
implied meaning as in the case of 'this is that Devadattha ,' can not be accepted as
shown already. The words like 'blue lotus denotes the blue color as well as the entity

Ramanuja gives an example to illusrate this point.
'YaTHA neelmuthpalam Anaya ithyukthe neelimaadhi visishtamEva AneeyathE,
yaThA cha vinDHyAtavyAm madhamudhithO mAthangajasThishTathi ithi
avagatha viseshaNa visishta Eva arTha pratheeyathe'
That is, when someone is asked to bring the blue lotus he brings only the lotus having
the attribute of blueness and not white or red one. Similarly on hearing the words there is
a mad elephant standing in the vindhya forest we understand the meaning only with all
the qualifications such as the place, the entity and its state (madness) etc.

According to the principle of SamANadhikaraNya,coordination,
'bhinnapravrtthi nimitthAnAm sabdhAnam Eaksmin arTHE vrtthih sAmana
When different words having different application are coordinated to denote the same
entity. Secondary meaning is to be resorted to only when any one of the words fail to
express the entity it qualifies through its primary meaning as in the cases of
'gourvAhikah, this vahika man is an ox, where the words man and ox cannot denote the
same entity by their primary meaning and hence one of the words, namely, ox, is taken
in the secondary sense. But here in the example 'blue lotus' there is no such need to
resort to secondary meaning as the term blue denotes only the lotus in its primary sense
of colour similar to the expressions 'dhandee or kundalee,' one with a stick or one
wearing earrings. Even in the sentence 'so ayam devadatthah, this is that Devadattah,'
there is no contradiction between the person seen at
present and the same seen in the past because of the difference in the time and place.
(The identity between Brahman and the jiva is established in advaita by citing this
example as seen previously.)

Ramanuja cites another example 'aruNayA EkahAyinyApingkshyA sOmam
kreeNaAthi,' which means, he buys soma by a cow one year old, of tawny hue and
yellow eyes. He refutes the view of the opponent who says that the attributes mentioned
may not refer to one entity, by saying, the same entity ,namely the cow is denoted as
having the attributes, one year old, tawny colour and yellow eyes, which is justified by
the principle of sAmanadhikaraNya. This is the similar one to the expression 'the cloth is
red.' Several words put in the same case ending,
nominative, may stand in coordination denoting the same entity such as ' devadatthah
syamo yuvA dhandee kundalee thishTathi,' Devadattha, dark, young, carrying a staff and
wearing earrings is standing.

Ramanuja shows another instance where the words not with the same case ending also
illustrate the principle of sAmAnAdhikaraNya. In the sentence 'kAshTaih sTHAlyAm
Odhanam pacheth' meaning, 'he will cook rice in a vessel with firewood' denote a single
purport using words with different case endings, kAshTaih in instrumental and sTHAlyam
in the locative case. Ramanuja even cites a more complex sentence as an example of
.'khAdhiraih sushkaih kAshTaih samparimAnE bhANdE pAyasam
salyodhanam samarTHah pAchakah pacEth.'
This means, a proficient cook (samarThah pAchakah-nominative), cooks in a vessel of
even dimension (samaparimANE bhAnde-locative) rice pAyasam( accusative) with sticks
of dry khadhira wood (instrumental). In this sentence the adjectives are put in different
cases according to the words they qualify and yet denote the purport of the sentence by

Ramanuja takes up another objection, (of mimAmsaka) that the word denoting a quality
of a thing already mentioned in the context refers to the quality only and not the entity.
Ramanuja says that it is not so because neither in the scriptures nor in the worldly usage
the words
denoting qualities which are in coordination with the entity are seen to connote only the
lOkavEdhayOh dravyavAchipadhasamAnADHikaraNasya gunavAchinah
kevalaguNAbhiDHAna adarsanATH.'
For example in the sentence 'the cloth is white, patah shukalah' the word white denotes
the cloth which is white whereas in the _expression 'the whiteness of the cloth, patasya
shuklah' it has an independent meaning, not because the word 'patah' is mentioned first
but it is due to the two words being in different case terminations. On the other hand
when it is said 'patasya shuklah bhAgah' the white part of the cloth, the same case
termination denotes the part of the cloth which is white.

In the vedic usage also, points out Ramanuja, in the sentence like
'aruNayA EkahAyinya pingAkshyA sOmam kreeNAthi',
he buys soma with tawny-colored, one year old and yellow-eyed (cow), the words tawny,
one year old and yelow-eyed have connection only with the entity cow whom they qualify
and do not denote the attribute only. This is in answer to mimaamsakas view that all
words are meaningful only when they are connected with action. Hence they explain the
above sentence to mean that one buys soma with one year old, with tawny colored and
with yellow-eyed in which each word is connected with the verb kreeNAthi, buys,
Ramanuja states the siddhantha thus:

The principle of sAmanAdhikaraNya requires that the two words 'thath,' (that) and
'thvam' (thou) are to be explained to denote unity without giving up their particular
attributes. Those who do not accept the view that the Supreme self without imperfections
and possessing all auspicious qualities is different fro the jiva who is experiencing untold
suffering due to beginninless avidhya in the form of karma.

But a doubt may arise that if this view is true, the text 'thathvamasi' which mentions the
oneness of jiva with Brahman would imply hat Brahman will be contaminated by the
imperfections of the jiva. Ramanuja replies that itis not so. The word 'thvam' should be
taken to mean the real Self
that is, Brahman in which case the identity is established.

Ramanuja explains the passage in Chandhogya thus:
The word 'sath' in 'sadheva soumya idham agra Aseeth,ekamEva adhvitheeyam,'
that alone, was there in the beginning one only without a second, means the Brahman
who is the cause of everything created by His will and entered into everything to become
the inner self. This is illustrated also in the TaittrEya text,
'idham sarvam asrjatha,yadhidham kimcha; thath srshtva thadhEva anupravisath;
thadhanupravisya sath cha thyaccha abhavath.'

It means that Brahman created all this and after creation entered into everything and
became 'sath' and 'thyath', that is, sentient and insentient. From the statement that
Brahman entered into all beings and gave they name and form due to its presence in
them, all words in their ultimate connotation mean Brahman only.

Brahman is shown to be the inner self by the Chandhoya text itself viz. 'EthadhAthmyam
idham sarvam, all this is ensouled by that' meaning by Brahman. There are other texts
which substantiate this such as 'anthafpravishtahsAsthjananamsarvAthma,'(Taitt.aran.2-
24 ) entering in, he is the ruler and self of all.Similar to the passage in BrhadhAraNyaka
which states that Brahman is in all elements and individual self as their inner
Self,(Brhd.III-7-3to22) there is a text in Subalopanishad which begins as 'yah
prthivmanthare sancharan yasya prthivee sariram ,
who moves within earth and to whom earth is the body,' and proceeds to show water etc,
also as body of Brahman and ends as
yO aksharam anthare sancharan yasya aksharam sariram yam aksharam na vedha
- esha
sarvabhoothaAnthrAthma apahathapapma dhivyo deva EkO nArAyaNah,
Who is moving inside the imperishable( that is, the individual self) to whom the
imperishable is the sarira and whom it did not know-He is the divine Lord Narayana, who
is the self of all beings and uncontaminated by evil.'

Since all these texts show that Brahman is the inner self of all beings sentient and
insentient, which form His body, all words denoting the insentient body etc. refer only to
the sentient soul. The body and the other insentient parts of any being are its modes
which have meaning only in connection with the entity of which they are modes. So all
names and forms denote only the sentient soul and because Brahman is the inner Self
of all beings, sentient and insentient, all words have their ultimate connotation in
Brahman only.

Even when nouns are found to qualify nouns they need not be used in the possessive
case, as in 'he is a dhandee kundali etc. as long as the thing exists as a mode only when
it is inseparably connected with the entity to which it is the mode. As he dhanda, staff or
kundala, earring are
capable of existing independently but the body has no separate existence apart from the
soul. Since 'i' and 'thou ' are modes of Brahman their inner self they ultimately denote
Brahman only. This is the true meaning of 'that thou art.'

Hence Ramanuja concludes that the Anandhamaya, the self of Bliss is only
Brahman and not the sentient self, vijAnamaya.Then Ramanuja explains the taittrEya
passage thus:
Starting from 'thasmAth vA EthasmAthva akasah sambhoothah,'

That is, space was produced from Brahman, from space wind etc. till man is created,
further showing the man to be the essence of food, the passage goes on to say that
prANamaya is the self of annamaya , manomaya is the self of prANamaya, vijnAnamaya
being the self of manomaya and finally the Ananadhamaya is denoted as the self of
even vijnAnamaya.The
Ananadhamaya is thus the highest self ofwhich all else become the body. Ramanuja
'atha Eva idham param brahma aDHikrthyapravrttham sAsthram sArirakam ithi
abhiyukthaih abhiDHeeyathE.'
This is why the sAstra which has the Supreme Being as its subject matter is called by
persons as sAriraka sAsthra, the study of embodied self. Hence the self of Bliss is
different from the individual self and denotes the Supreme Self, Brahman.

The next suthra examines another poorvapaksha view that the meaning of 'maya' can be
either abundant or 'made of ' in which case it could mean the individual self.
Suthra-14-vikarasabdhAnna ithicheth na prAchuryAth-1-1-14

If it is said (Brahman is not referred to as anandhamaya) on account of the modification
(the suffix 'mayat'), it is not so because it denotes abundance.

The argument of the opponent that the suffix 'mayat' is used in the sense of modification
is set aside by the suthrakara by saying that the suffix means abundance and since
abundance of bliss can be found only in Brahman the blissful self is only Brahman. The
sense of modification is not applicable even in the case of prAnamaya since the self in
prAnamayakOsa is so called only because prAna one of the five vital airs is found in
abundance in jiva.

Moreover the word abundance cannot be construed to mean mostly and hence implying
that there is some sorrow mixed with it in order to make it refer to the individual self. The
individual self is of the essence of bliss which is contracted due to samsAra and for the
same reason it is not subjected to modification from the state of samsara to the state of
bliss in the release like athe clay being modified into a pot.

Finally as the bliss of Brahman is described as that of other beings several times
multiplied the abundance of bliss can refer only to Brahman and hence the blissful self
mentioned in the passage is Brahman only.

Suthra- 15 thadhethuvyapadhEsAccha-1-1-15

and because it is declared to be the cause of the bliss of the individual soul

The Brahman is said to be the cause of the bliss of others in the Taittreya passage
' yath thath sukrtham; rasovai sah; rasahyOvAyam labdhva Anandhee bhavathi; kO hyO
vAnyAthkah prANyAth; yadhEsha Aksa AnandhO na syAth eshahyo va Anandhayathi,'
This means 'that which is known as the self-creator is verily the source of joy; for one
happy by coming in contact with that source of joy; who indeed will inhale and who will
exhale if this bliss is not there in the supreme space(within the heart). This one indeed
causes bliss.'

Brahman alone is the cause of bliss of the individual soul, denoted by the act of inhaling
and exhaling. He is said to be in the supreme space being the inner Self of all. That
which causes bliss must have that in abundance and hence could be only Brahman.

Suthra-16 manthravarNikamEva cha geeyathe-1-1-16

and because the Brahman mentioned in the manthra (is Anandhamaya).

The second chapter of TaittrEya begins with 'brahmavidhapnothi param, one who knows
Brahman attains the supreme' and goes on to say 'sathyam jnanam anantham brahma.'
This same brahman is declared to be the blissful self in the end. Hence it is only the
Supreme Self
and not the individual self which is indicated by the word Anandhamaya. The knower of
Brahman that is the jiva must be different from Brahman. The same idea is expressed in
the text 'thasmAth vA EthasmAth va AkAsah sambhoothah, from this sprang space.

The opponent comes up with the argument that even tough it is granted that the
meditator must be different from the meditated, but still Brahman is not different from the
individual self because Brahman is the real essence of the individual self, who in his real
state is undifferentiated consciousness free from impurities imagined through avidhya.
The text 'sathyam jnanam anatham brahma' refers to this state of the jiva. and ' yathO
vAcho nivarthanthe aprApya manasA saha, the speech returns with mind unable to
reach (Brahaman) only tells that in real state the jiva is Brahman beyond mind and
intellect. The next suthra replies to this.

Suthra-17- netharO anupapatthescha

Not the other because of improbability
Ramanuja refutes the view that jiva is Brahman in its state of release by saying
'paramAtmanah itharah jivasabdhAbhilapyah mukthAvasThOpi na bhavathi
The reason for this is
'thaTHAvidhasyAthmanah nirupADHika vipaschithvam na upapadhyathE.
To the jiva who is said to be identical to Brahaman at the state of release cannot
possess unconditioned intelligence because while in bondage it is not seen to be so.

The Brahman is mentioned as sathyasankalpa, of infallible will as shown in the text
'sO akAmayatha bahusyAm prajAyeya'
He willed to become many,' and that does not fits the description of jiva even in the state
of release. The text 'Yatho vacho nivarthanthe' etc only means that they are not means
of knowledge of Brahman. Since the bliss of Brahman is immeasurable the speech and
mind are not capable of expressing it. The passage beginning with 'one who knows
Brahman attains the supreme' , describes Brahman as the cause of the world ,of the
nature of bliss and causing bliss in others and the controller of other divine beings like
the Sun wind etc. So the words
yathO vAchO nivarthanthe aprApya mansa saha
could not mean that they returned without knowing, but only means that the bliss of
Brahman is
beyond expression by words or thought.

Suthra-18 bhEdhavyapadhEsAccha-1-1-18

Because of the declaration of difference between the individual soul and the blissful Self

From the beginning with 'from that self sprang space,' and 'anyo antharah AthmA
prANamayah,'(Taitt-II-1) where the Self is spoken of as something different from
annamaya, prANamaya, manomaya and vijnAnamaya Athma Hence the blissful Self is
not the individual

SuthrA-19-KAmAccha nAnumAnApekshA-1-1-19

since the desire to create is mentioned, there is ne need of sentient principle like

Th text says 'sO akAmayatha bahu syAm prajAyEya ithi; sa thapasthapthva idham
sarvam asrjatha,'(Taitt.II-6) This shows that the Self of bliss created the universe
without any connection with the insentient matter, pradhAna which is not possible for the
individual self as it is under the influence of avidhya and hence associated with the
insentient matter. So the blissful Self is only Brahman.

Suthra-20-asmin asya cha thadyogam sasthi-1-1-20

the scriptures speak about the union of the individual self with Brahman.
The text 'rasO vai sah; rasm hyOvAyam labDHvA anandhee bhavathi'
The Self of bliss is the essence of existence attaining which the individual soul becomes
blissful. Hence the blissful Self is the Brahman and different from the individual soul and
pradhan, the
insentient matter.

Thus ends AnandhADHikaraNam.
anthraDhikaraNam -1-1-7

Suthra-21-anthah thaddharmO padhEsAth-1-1-21
The one within (the Sun and the Eye is Brahman) because of the characteristics
mentioned therein.

The opponent argues that the creation may not be possible for jivas with less merit but
those with great merit like the Sun, Indra and PrajApathy( the creator Brahma) it could
be possible.

The text

'ya esho anthrAdhithyE purushah dhrsyathE hiraNyasmasru hiraNyakesah
ApraNakhAth sarva Eva suvarNah; thasya yaTHA kapyAsam pundarikam EVa
akshiNee; thasya udhithi nama sa esha sarvEbhyah pApmabhyah udhithah.'
(Chan.I-6 to 8)

This means the golden person seen inside the Sun with golden beard and hair ,whose
eyes are like full blown lotus and who is named 'uth,' has risen above all evil. Later the
text goes on to say that rk and saman are his joints and He is the Lord of all worlds
beyond the Sun and all objects desired by the gods.

The passage continues with the text ' aTha ya EshO antharakshiNi purushah dhrsyathe,
there is this purusha who is seen in the eye,' and this purusha is mentioned as the same
who is seen in the Sun.

Now the doubt is whether this person is Brahman or the individual self. The
poorvapakshin argues that it must be the jiva on account of being mentioned as
possessing a body. When the jiva attains moksha, that is, attains brahmanhood,
because the individual self is none other than
Brahman, there is no embodiment in its natural state. This is substantiated by the struthi
'na ha vai sasarirasya sathah priyApriyayOh apahathirasthi; asariram vA va
santham na priyApriyE sprsathah,(Chan.VIII-12-1)
There is no relief from pleasure and pain for the jiva as long as it is in the body but once
it is free from embodiment joy and sorroow do not affect it.' Though it may not be
possible for a soul bound by karma to possess supreme powers like creation and
mastery over the world , highly evolved souls like the sun ,moon and the like may
possess such powers, final evolution being unity with Brahman, which is the real state of
the individual self described by 'asthoolam anaNu, neither gross nor subtle etc.

The suthra antharthaddharmopadesath refutes this. The words
'sa Esha sarvebhyahpApmabhyah udhithah' in the passage about the purusha in the
Sun clearly indicates the Supreme self only as apahathapApmathvam means free from
karma which does not apply to individual soul however evolved it may be. So this
denotes the attribute of Brahman only.
Ramanuja here quotes the texts to prove this
'Esha AthmA apahatha pApmAvijarO vimrthyuh vishoko vijighathso apipAsah
sathyakAmah sathya sankalpah, (Chan.VIII-1-5)
He is the inner self of all, free from evil, old age, death, grief, hunger and thirst, of
infallible desire and will.' And Subala upanishad speaks of the inner self of all as Lord
' Esha sarvabhoothAnthrAthmA apahathapApmA divyO deva EkO nArAyaNah.'

Ramanuja further says that the other characteristics mentioned in the vedic texts like
'sO akAmayatha bahu syAm prajAyeya, it desired to become many, which denotes
Brahman creating by will, being sathyakAma and sathya sankalpa, and other attributes
like being the cause of fear and fearlessness, possessing transcendental bliss
inexpressible by speech or thought, do not apply to the jiva.

The argument that because the purusha in the Sun is mentioned as having a body it
must be only an individual soul is not tenable, says, Ramanuja, because Brahman being
sathyakAma and sathya sankalpa can assume any body at will whereas the embodiment
of the individual soul is subjected to karma and not controlled by the jiva. Moreover the
argument may hold good if the sarira described is prAkrtha, made up of three guNas.
But the sarira of the Lord Narayana, who is synonymous with Brahman of the
upanishads, says Ramanuja, is not prAkrtha. He is the
embodiment of bliss, free from all imperfections, possessing infinite auspicious qualities
unparalleled and as such He takes wonderfully resplendent, beautiful, fragrant, graceful
exquisite youthful forms to grace His devotees because He is the ocean of mercy,
magnanimity, easy accessibility, love and other divine qualities. This is why sruthi
proclaim Him to be 'ajAyamAno bahuDhA vijAyathE,' the one who manifests in many
forms even though He has no birth. Ramanuja quotes profusely from the scripture to
show that there are abundant sruthi texts to prove his point.
'na thasya kAryam karaNam ch vidhyathE na thathsamaschAbhyaDHikascha
dhrsyathE; parAsya shakthirviviDhaiva srooyathE svAbhAvikee
He has no action to be performed nor needs any instrument of action, there is no one
or superior, His power is supreme and diverse and His knowledge, power and action are
His inherent nature.

Smrithi texts like that of Bhagavatgita substantiate this and Ramanuja quotes from
chapter IV of the Gita the following:
'ajO pi san avyayAthmA bhoothAnAm eesvarOpi san;prakrthim svAm
avashtabhya sambhavAmi Athma mAyaya,
Though I am unborn and immutable and the lord of all, I assume my own nature and
manifest myself through my own mAya. This, the Lord says, He does for the protection
of the good and
destruction of the wicked, 'parithrANAya sAdhoonAm vinAsAyacha dushkrthAm.'

Ramanuja gives an elaborate elucidation of this passage.
'sadhavah hi upasakAh, thathparithrANamEva uddhesyam, Anushangikasthu
dushkrthAm vinAsah, sankalpamAthrENApi thadhupapatthEh.'
The people referred to as sAdhu are his devotees and their protection is the main
purpose of
manifestation and the punishment of the wicked is only a natural consequence because
it could be achieved by mere will.

What has been outlined above is a beautiful offshoot of visishtadvaita doctrine. If
the Lord wished to kill Hiranya kasipu or Ravana or even Kamsa He could have done it
without undergoing the travails of an avathAra. But it was to protect PrahlAda he took
NrsimhAvathAra, to prove the words of His devotee that the Lord existed everywhere in
a pillar or a blade of grass. And also to protect the words of Brahma who is also His
devotee, He had to take so much trouble in fulfilling all the conditions of the boon given
to Hiranyakasipu. Similarly RamAvathAra was to provide protection to those who
surrendered to Him because He could have killed Ravana from Ayodhya itself without
straining Himself and going to DandakAraNya, which was mainly to promise protection
to the rshis there. Likewise KrishNa incarnated as the son of vasudeva to shower His
grace on His devotees, while annihilation of the wicked was

Suthra-22-bhEdhavyapahEsAccha anyah-1-1-22

It is different (from individual self) because of the distinction made.
The Supreme self is distinguished from the beings like the Sun by sruthi texts that speak
of it as the inner self of all.
'ya AdhithyE thishTan AdhithyAth antharah yam AdhithyO na vedha yasya
Adhithyah sariram ya Adhithyam antharo yamayathi,
He who being in the Sun is different from the Sun, whom the Sun does not know, whose
sarira is the Sun, and who controls the Sun from within.' Similar expressions are found
with respect to Athman, earth and other entities. Further Ramanuja quotes from subAla
upanishad the following text.
'yo aksharam anthare sancharan yasya aksharam sariram yam aksharam na
vedha, yO mrthyum anther sancharan yasya mrthyuh sariram ya mrthyuh na
vEdha, Esha sarvabhoothAnthrAthmA apahathpApmA divyo deva Eko
who is moving inside the imperishable (the individual self) whose body is the
imperishable, whom the imperishable did not know, who moves inside death, of whom
the death is the body, whom death did not know, He is the Self of all beings , free from
all evil, the divine Lord Narayana. Hence Brahman being the Self of all from
HiraNyagarbha down to individual jiva, is different from them.
Thus ends the antharaDHikaraNam



AkAsa is brahman because of its characteristic marks.
So far in the chapter of sribhashya first pAdha it has been shown that Brahman is the
source of all beings and their inner Self and of the nature of bliss and is different from
the sentient and the insentient on the basis of sruthi texts that prove all this. Now in the
last part of the first pAdha it is proved that wherever there is special mention about
AkAsa and other entities with respect to creation or control of the world, the words
denoting these entities mean only Brahman.

The text of chandhogya says
'asya lokasya ka gathih ithi;AkAsa ithi hOvAcha, sarvANi ha vA imani bhoothAni
AkAsadhyeva samuthpadhyanthE, AkAsam prathi astham yanthi, AkAsa Eva hi
Ebhyo jyAyan Aksah parAyaNam,
what is the origin of this world? Space, replied he, all these beings originate from AkAsa
and merge back into it. AkAsa is greater than them and their rest.'

There arises a doubt as to whether the word AkAsa refers to the space, which is one of
the five elements or Brahman.

The poorvapakshin argues that it means only AkAsa. The reasons given for this
conclusion is that when the etymological meaning of a word is relevant that meaning
alone should be taken and not figurative one. When it is explicitly stated that all this
sprang from AkAsa there is no need to consider the implied meaning referring to
Brahman. Even the text 'Atmanah Akasah sambhoothah, (Taitt.II-1) the space was
created from the Self,' the word self is to be taken to mean the subtle state of
AkAsa.Hence the origin of the world as made out in the chandogya passage starting
from 'sadhEva soumya idhamagra Aseeth,' the word 'sath' refersonly to AkAsa, similar to
the word Self in Taittreya.

This view is refuted by the suthra saying that the word AkAsa denotes not the element
but only Brahman because of the characteristics of Brahman previously established are
indicated in this text also, namely being the origin of all, being the greatest of all and into
which all beings merge in the end. As the world consists of sentient beings as well, the
insentient AkAsa cannot be the origin and resting place. Nor can an insentient entity can
be cited as being the greatest which requires eminent qualities that apply to Brahman
Moreover, says Ramanuja, the denotation of the word AkAsa needs to be ascertained by
other valid means of proof, to mean the space and not Brahman. By the text 'sadheva
soumya idhamagraAseeth Ekameva adhvitheeyam , clearly establish Brahman as
the cause of the world. So the text, stating AkAsa to be the origin .being subsequent,
must be construed to mean Brahman only. While other texts like 'thadhaikshatha
bahusyAm prajAyEya' declare Brahman as possessing infallible will, omniscience etc.
it is not right to rely on one particular text and
interpret all these texts by the etymological meaning of the word Akasa. Therefore the
word AkAsa in the passage quoted is Brahman only.

To the argument that the word self can be used figuratively even to insentient things as
in the _expression 'mrdhAthmako ghatah, the clay is the self of the pot,' Ramanuja says
that even though this is found to be the practice occasionally the word self is always
used with respect to
embodiment and hence the Self in the passage referred to, means only the Universal
Self, Brahman. The word AkAsa when derived as AkAsayathi ithi AkAsah, make
everything shine or AkAsathi, it shines, will mean Brahman only.

Thus ends the AkAsaDHikaraNam


Suthra-24-atha Eva praNah-1-1-24

For the same reason the vital air is Brahman.
The text in ChandhOgya which praises the prANa and being asked which is that deity it
answers 'prANa ithi hOvAcha, sarvANi ha imAni bhoothAni prANmEva
abhisamvisanthi, prANam abhyujjihathE,
it is prANa into which all beings merge and from it they arise.'

Here also, as in the case of AkAsa, Brahman only is denoted by the word vital breath.
Even though all beings are dependent on the vital breath, this applies only to sentient
beings and not insentient like stone or wood. Moreover all things arising and merging
into Brahman has already
been established.The derivation of the word as prAnayathi ithi prAnah, that which makes
everything alive applies only to Brahman.

Thus ends PrAnaDhikaraNam


The light is Brahman on account of the mention of pAdha,quarter.
The chandhogya text
'aTHa yadhathah parOdhivO jyothih dheepyathE visvathah prshTEshu sarvathah
prshTEshu anutthamEshu utthameEshu lokEshu, idham vA va yadhidham asmin
anthah purushE jyothih,'
Describes the light that shines above in heaven, beyond all, higher than everything in the
highest world, beyond which there is no other worlds, that is the same light which is
within man.'(Chan.3-13-7)

Here there is a doubt raised by some that whether the light mentioned in the passage
refers to well known source of light like the Sun which could have been meant to be the
cause of everything, that is Brahman
or it refers to the highest person, omniscient, different from all beings sentient and
insentient, the supreme cause , the Brahman of infallible will.

The poorvapakshin comes out with the argument that it is the well known source of
light such as the Sun because there is no indication in the passage that it is the supreme
self as in those about AkAsa and prANa.

This suthra refutes the view of the opponent by saying it is Brahman only which is
referred to as the light here because of the mention about charaNa, that is pAdha, feet
or quarter. In a previous text it is said 'pAdhO asya sarvA bhoothAni
thripAdhasyAmrtham dhivi, one quarter or padha of this consists of all beings and the
other three quarters are in heaven and immortal.' So this shows that the reference is
only to the highest being, that is, Brahman.

The opponent has given another reason for his conclusion that the passage refers to the
well known source of light by saying that there is a mention of identity between the light
with that inside the intestines, 'yadhidham asmin anthah purushE jyothi,' namely
vaisvAnara. But Ramanuja refutes this saying
'koukshEyajyOthishaikyOpadhesaschaphalAya thadhAthmakathvAnusanDHAna
The reference to the fire inside the intestines is to enjoin meditation on that as Brahman.
The _expression 'supreme light' is enough to indicate that it is Brahman only and there is
no need for any special mention of the characteristics of Brahman separately.


na,thaTHAchEthoarpaNanigadhAth,thayA hidharsanam

If it is said that the metre (gAyathri) is denoted and not Brahman, it is not so, because
the meditation on Brahman is declared, as seen by the other texts.

In the previous text it is mentioned that 'gayathri va idham sarvam, Gayathri is everything
whatever exists in the universe,'and hence the metre Gayathri is referred to as Brahman,
says the poorvapakshin, which is refuted by this suthra. Mere metre cannot be the cause
of everything and what is meant here is the meditation on gayathri as Brahman. The
Gayathri though has only three feet sometimes said to have four and hence it is similar
to Brahman who is also described as having four pAdhAs as mentioned in the text
'pAdho asya sarvA bhoothAni
thripAdhasyAmrtham dhivi.'

Suthra-27 bhoothADHipadhavyapadhEsA upapatthEsch Evam

Because of the representation of beings as the feet.
The text about Gaythri denote all beings, earth, body and heart as the four feet, 'saishA
chathushpadha', of Gaythri, which can apply only to Brahman.

suthra-28-upadhEsabhEdhAnnaithichEth,na, ubhayasmin api avirodhAth

If it is said that the Brahman referred to in the passage about light is not that referred to
here on account of difference in specification, it is not so because there is no

In passage about Gayathri heaven is said to be the abode of Brahman,
'thripAdhasyAmrtham dhivi' while in the passage on light it is said to shine above
heaven. So it is different, says the poorvapakshin but the suthra refutes this. There is no
contradiction here and Ramanuja says
that there is essential agreement between the two as in the statements 'the bird is
perching on the top of the tree’, and 'the bird is above the tree,’ both of which means the
ubhayasmin api upadhesearTHa svabhAva aikyEnaprathyabhijnAyAh avirODHAth,
yaTHA vrkshAgrE syEnah , vrkshAthparathah syEnah ithi.'

Therefore, says Ramanuja, only the Supreme purusha is shining above the heavens
as the most brilliant light 'ethAVan asya mahima,' this is the glory of Him, of whom all
beings are one foot, that is, a quarter, and the three quarters are immortal in heaven.
The words 'vEdhAham Etham purusham mahAntham Adhithya varnam thamsasthu
pAre,' (svet.III-9) describe Him as the glorious Being of the colour of the Sun and who is
beyond darkness. Hence Brahman alone is specified by the word light.

Thus ends the jyothiraDHikaraNam


PrAnasthaTHA anugamAth-1-1-29
PrANa is Brahman because it is understood to be so.
In Kousheethaki upanishad there is the text that describes the conversation between
Indra and Prathardhana where the latter asks indra to grant him the boon which is most
beneficial to man. Indra said
'prANOsmi prajnAthmA tham mAm Ayuh amrtham ithi upAsya, (koush. III-1-8)
I am the prANa and the intelligent self, and you meditate on me as the life and as
immortality'. Here the doubt arises as to whether it is the individual self or Brahman on
which the upAsanA is intended.

The argument that the individual self in the form of Indra is only the intention of the
passage is forwarded on the basis that Indra is a well known purusha visEsha, special
being, and since he was asked for a boon it might be him whom the upAsana was
intended. Since what is most
beneficial to mortals is the first cause as that alone can secure immortality, Indra must
be denoted as the cause of the universe here and not Brahman.

This view is refuted by the suthra saying that it is the Supreme self and not the
individual self which is the purport of the passage because of the mention of the qualities
that apply to Brahman only, such as bliss, immortality and free from old age.
'sa Esha prANa Eva prajnAthmA Anandho ajaro amrthah,(Koush.III-1-9)
This prAna alone is the intelligent self, bliss, free from old age and immortal.

Suthra-30 na vasthurAthmOpadhesAth ithi cheth adhyAthma sambanDHa
bhooma hyasmin

If it is said that it is not Brahman because of the intention of the speaker, it is not so as
there is abundant reference to the Supreme self in the chapter.

The argument that the speaker is Indra and it may be his intention that Prathardhana
should meditate on him, which is supported by the fact that there is mention of Indra's
killing of Thvashta in the passage, is refuted by this suthra.

There are numerous references connected with the Supreme self. Ramanuja quotes
the passage from the same upanishad
'thadhyaTHA raTHasya ArEshunemirarpithA Evam EvaithAbhoothamAthrAh
prajnAmAthrasu arpithAh, prajnAmAthrAh prAnE arpithAh, sa Esha prAnEva
prajnATHma Anandho ajaro amrthah.' (Koush.3-8)

The meaning of the passage is as follows:
In a chariot the rim of the wheel is connected to the spokes, the spokes to the axle.
Similarly all non-sentient beings are connected to the sentient beings which are in turn
connected to the prANa. The prANa is the prajna , blissful, non-aging and immortal.
Being the abode of everything is the character of only the Supreme self. Besides Indra is
denoted as prAna for the sake of meditation to attain the highest goal of man, namely
moksha and this can only refer to the Supreme self. Moreover in the same passage is
found the text
'Esha Eva sADHu karma kArayathi tham, yamEbhyO lOkEbhyah unnineeshathi,
Esha EVa asADHU karma kArayathi thamyam aDHo nineeshathi'
He makes those, whom He wants to raise from these worlds, do good deeds and makes
those, whom He wants to degrade from these worlds, do bad deeds. This action of
prompting good
and bad deeds is the dharma, attribute of Brahman only. So as indicated by 'Esha
lokAdhipathih,esha sarvEsah' it is only Brahman who is referred to as Indra, that
is prANa.

Suthra-31-sasthradhrshtyAthoopadhesah vamadevavath

the instruction (of Indra to prathardhana) is possible through insight into
scriptures like Vamadeva.

What is meant here is that though Indra told Prathardhana to meditate on him what he
could have meant is not the individual self as Indra but only the supreme self due to his
insight into the scripture as sage VAmadeva has said "I was manu and the Sun."

The scriptural texts such as 'anENa jivEna AthmanA anupravisya nAmarupE
vyAkaravANi, I will enter in along with this self and make nama and form,' and others
denoting Brahman to be the self of all are referred to here and through the knowledge of
such texts indra might have meant only the Supreme self as himself and prANa.

suthra-32-jivamukhya prANa lingAth na ithicheth na,
pASathraividhyAthAsrithathvath iha thadyogAth

If it be said (that Brahman is not meant) on account of characteristic marks of the
individual soul and the chief vital air being mentioned; no, because of the three oldness
of meditation, which , found in other places, is appropriate here also.

It is argued that the individual self only is meant in the passage mentioned because of
the reference to killing of Thvashtra and, the prAna being described as the conscious
self etc. but it is refuted by this suthra.

Brahman is denoted by these terms, namely, individual soul, prANa, and prajnA for
the purpose of threefold meditation

1. The texts sathyam jnAnam anatham brahma , Anandhambrahma denote the true
nature of Brahman,

ThathsrshtvA thdhEva anuprAvisath; thadhanupravisyasath cha thyath cha abhavath,
after creating it(Brahman ) entered into that and became sath and thyath(asath).
2. Sath means the sentient souls which form the body of Brahman.

3. Thyath denotes the insentient prakrthi which also constitute the body of Brahman.

Hence all the words denoting beings like HiraNyagarbha or inanimate prakrthi have
reference only to the Supreme self when they are described as having qualities of
Brahman or they mean Brahman by coordination, sAmAnADHikaraNya.

Thus ends indraprANaDHikaraNam.

End of first pAdha of the first aDhyAya of sribhAshya.

sribhashyam -adhyaya-1-padha2

In the first section of the first chapter of Sribhashya it has been shown that a person who
has studied the veda comes to understand that the fruits of karma are transient, after the
study of the purvamimAmsa, that is, the ritualistic part, and takes up the study of
the portion dealing with Brahman, in order to acquire the knowledge that will secure him
release from the bondage of karma.

The vedantic texts describe the sentient and insentient beings as the body of Brahman
who is their inner self, and who controls them from within. it was also shown that
Brahman is the first cause and can be known only through scriptures. All vedanta texts
are shown to refer only to Brahman and not insentient pradhAna or individual souls.
Thus it was confirmed that the reference to AkAsa, prANa, light and Indra actually
denote only the supreme self. This Supreme Self, Brahman is Narayana, possessing
infinite auspicious qualities of which the world of sentient and insentient beings is the

Still there are some texts that refer to the beings inside pradhAna or individual souls. In
this section the texts that have obscure reference to the individual soul are discussed
while in the next direct references are taken up and in the last pAdha of the aDhyAya the
texts that refer
to the individual soul are shown to denote Brahman only.

Suthra-1-sarvathra prasiddhOpadhEsAth-1-2-1

everywhere (it is Brahman who is denoted) because of the well known teaching.
The Chandhogya upanishad contains a text
'aTHa khalu krathumayah purushah bhavathi thaTHEthah prethya bhavathi;sa
krathumkurveetha -manOmayahprANasarirah bhArupah,(chan.III-14-1,2)
Man is the creature of thought in this world and the next. So let him think (meditate) on
himself as made of mind whose body is prANa and whose form is light. Here the doubt is
whether the individual self having the attributes of mind etc. is to be meditated or the
Supreme self. The poorvapaksha view is that it is the individual self that is denoted
because the mind and prANa are the instruments of the individual self, while the
Brahman is denoted as 'aprANah hyamanAh, (Mund.2-1-2) without prANa, without mind.
Brahman cannot be taken as the object of upasana because in the previous sentence
'sarvam khalu idham brahma,all this is Brahman,' is mentioned and as the object of
meditation in this text has specifically been mentioned as manOmayah prANasarirah.
The concluding text of the passage 'Ethadbrahma, (chan.III-14-4) this is Brahman '
meaning the inner self is also the individual self mentioned as Brahman by extolling it.

This view is refuted by the above suthra. The entity referred to as manOmaya etc is
Brahman because there are abundant vedanthic texts that ascribe the qualities such as
consisting of mind, prANa as sarira etc.
Ramanuja quotes here texts such as 'manOmayah prANAsariranethA, consists of the
mind, ruler of the subtle body,'(Mund.2-2-7), 'sa EshO antharhrdhaya akAsah;thasmin
ayam purushah manOmayah;amrthO hiraNmayah, (Tait.1-6-1) there is AKAsa within the
heart and in it is this purusha consisting of the mind, immortal and golden' and
'prANasya prANah, it is the prANa of the prANa and so on. The _expression aprANO
hyamanAh only means that Brahman does not depend on mind or prANa.

The text 'sarvamkhalu idham brahmatajjalAn ithi shAntha upAseetha ', all this is
Brahman, originating from, merging into, and sustained by it; thus one should meditate
with calm mind,' can also be interpreted as being calm one should meditate on Brahman
as the inner self, which is subsequently described as having mind and prANa in the text
quoted at the outset, namely,'sa krathum kurveetha' etc.

There is a fresh doubt raised here that whether the individual self only is denoted with
the word 'Brahman'. The opponent says that it is so because the word 'all' denotes
everything from the creator BrahmA to the common blade of grass, 'brahmAdhisthamba
paryantham' which will apply only to the individual soul by the principle of coordination as
the self is one, seen differently due to avidhya. This world of imperfections cannot mean
Brahman. The word brahman is used sometimes with respect to the individual soul and
that is why, the opponent declares the Brahman is termed as Parabrahman by way of
distinction. The individual soul is
Brahman in the state of release and hence the text must mean only the individual self
and also the text 'tajjalan' can be interpreted to mean that the individual soul who is
Brahman, enters into various embodiment due to avidhya and realizes his true nature in
the state of release.

This is refuted by the above suthra 'sarvathra prasiddhOpadesAth.'

'tajjalan' refers to Brahman as something well known. 'All this is Brahman' having
Brahman as their inner self. The causality of Brahman has been established by the text
'yathO vA imAni bhoothAni jAyanthe,' which shows that all beings emerge from merge
into and sustained by
Brahman. Also the text further continues to say
'AnandhO brahma ithi vyajAnAth AnandhAth Eva khalu imAni bhoothAni
jAyanthe, (Taitt.III-6)
bliss is brahman, from bliss all these beings originate,' and the text
'sa kAraNam karaNADHipADHipO na chAsya kaschit janithA na chADHipah,
He is the cause and the Lord of the lords of indriyas and there is no creator for Him or
any one above Him. Thus it is clearly stated that Brahman is the Lord of the individual
self who is the master of the senses and Brahman is the cause of everything. Therefore
all beings originate from, merge into and sustained by Brahman and so He is the inner
self of all.

Ramanuja concludes by saying that
'athah sarvaprakAram sarvAthmabhootham param brahma shAnthah bhoothvA
upAseetha ithi sruthirEva parasya brahmaNah sarvAthmakathvam upapAdhya
thasya upAsanam upadhisathi,'
Therefore, the Supreme Self, Brahman, having everything as its mode, being the Self of
all should be meditated with calm mind, is the instruction by the sruthi. Parabrahman as
the cause has the sentient and the insentient in their subtle state as its sarira, which in
their gross state is the effect. Hence Brahman is the inner self of all, always. Thus the
attribute of Brahman as being free from imperfections and possessing auspicious
qualities is not impeded in any way because the defects of the sarira does not affect the
self. The individual self cannot be identified with the world because the jivas are different
in different bodies and the individual soul even in the state of release is not capable of
creation etc. So the word Brahman denotes only the Supreme self.

Suthra-2- vivakshitha gunOppatthEscha-1-2-2

And because the qualities to be stated apply to Brahman only.
The qualities that are to be stated viz.
'manOmayah prANasarirah bhArupah sathya sankalpa AkAsAthmA sarvakarmA
sarvakAmah sarvaganDHah sarvarasah sarvamidham abhyAtthO
Ramanuja takes up the qualities one by one and explains

1. manomayah- consists of mind. Brahman can be grasped by pure mind.
'parisuddhamanasA Ekena grAhyah.' the pure mind is acquired through the
disciplines vimoka etc explained in the jinAsADHikaraNa. By this the attribute of
Brahman as different from everything else, free from imperfections and possessing
auspicious qualities are denoted. As impure mind will grasp only impure objects the
requisite of pure mind for grasping Brahman of such qualities is emphasized.

2. prANasarirah- Having prANa as sarira. Being the sarira means to be supported by,
dependent on and to be subservient to the sariri, the self.

3. BhArupah - resplendent form.

4. sathyasankalpah -infallible will.

5. AkAsAthmA - Subtle and pure like the AkAsa. Or the self of even the AkAsa.Or
shining by itself (AKAsathi) it makes everthing else shine. (AkAsayathi)

6. sarvakarmA - The whole world is His doing. All actions are His.

7. SarvakAmah - All desires are His.

8. SarvaganDHah sarvarasah - To whom all supreme excellent odours and tastes
belong, which are not connected with the ordinary ones, which are negated in Brahman
by the words 'asabdam asparsam' etc.

9. AbhyAttah -He makes all these qualities His own

10. avAkee - He does not speak , because, He is

11. anADHaraH - He does not care for anything being avapthasamasthakma, in full
possession of everything.

All these qualities apply to brahman only

suthra-3-anupapatthesthu na sArirah-1-2-3

Because these qualities do not apply it is not the individual self.
Ramanuja dismisses the view that it is the individual self which is mentioned by saying
'Thamimam guNasAgaramparyAlOchayathAm sarira sambhanDHena aparimitha
duhkha sambanDHayogyasya baddhamukthavasTHasya jivasya prasthutha guNa
lEsa sambanDHO pi na upapadhyathaithi na asmin
prakaraNEsAriraparigrahashankA jAyatha ithyartTHah,'
Considering the ocean of auspicious qualities, that is, Brahman, it is clear that there
cannot be even a trace of reference in this context to the individual self, who
experiences limitless grief due to its connection with the body and who suffers bondage
and gets released.

Suthra-4 karmakarthrvyapadhEsAccha-1-2-4

Because of the mention of the attainer and the attained
In the same chapter of ChandhOgya there is a passage that mentions the jiva attaining
Brahman on death. 'Etham ithah PrethyaabhisambhavithAsmi, when I depart from hence
I shall attain Him,' So the attainer and the attained being distinguished they are different.
The word ' Him ' refers to the one denoted as 'manOmaya,' Brahman and the attainer is
the individual self.

Suthra-5- sabdhavisEshAth-1-2-5

Because of the difference in the words.
In the text 'Esha me AthmA antharhrdhaye' (Chan.3-15-4) the one doing the meditation
is put in the genitive case (mE) and the object of meditation (AthmA) is in nominative
case. So it is clear that the two are different. Ramanuja quotes here a text from
sathapatha brAhmaNA (X-vi-3-2) in which this is made clear.
'vreehirvA yavO vA syAmAkO vA syAmAka thandulO vA, Evam ayam
antharAthmani purushO hiraNmayah yaTHA jyothraDoomam,'
like a grain of rice, grain of barley, grain of canary or a kernel of canary seed, thus the
golden purusha, who is the inner self, exists like fire without smoke.' The word denoting
the individual
self is in locative case while the golden purusha is in the nominative. Therefore only
Brahman is the object of meditation.


From the smrthi also
The Brahman is mentioned as the inner self and the object of meditation in the Gita also.
'sarvasya chAham hrdhisnnivishtO, (BG.XV-15)
I am inside all beings,'and
IsvarassarvabhoothaAnAm hrddhEse arjuna thishTathi; bhrAmayan sarva
bhoothAniyanthrArooDAni mAyayA; thameva saraNamgaccha,
The lord, oh Arjuna, is established in the heart of all beings, driving them around through
His mAya as though mounted on a machine.' This shows the individual jiva as the
meditator and Brahman as the object of meditation.

Suthra-7-arbhakoukasthvAth thathvyapadhEsAccha-

If it is said that Brahman is not denoted because of minuteness and the smallness of
abode, it is not so. Brahman is so described for meditation and is like AkAsa.

The description of the inner self as residing inside the heart, the smallest abode and as
being smaller than the grain 'aNeeyAn vreehErvA yavAdhva,' it is argued that it is only
the individual self and not Brahman, who is spoken of in other texts as being unlimited
while the jiva is said to be 'ArAgramAthram,' size of the tip of spiked stick.

This suthra refutes this saying that Brahman is so described for the sake of meditation
and is not minute in reality. The same text says 'jyAyAn prthivyAth jyAyAn anthrikshAth
jyAyAn dhivojyAyAnEvhyO lokEbhyah,it is infinite like AkAsa greater than the earth and
sky etc.' The omnipresence is not affected by being described as minute because being
subtler than the AkASa its all pervasiveness is unaffected by the abode it is said to

Ramanuja explains the whole passage thus:

Beginning with 'sarvam khalu idham brahma, all this is Brahman,' it enjoins meditation
on Brahman as the inner self and the cause of the world. Next it declares the attainment
of Brahman through meditation and gives the characteristics of Brahman as being
manOmaya, prAnasarira etc. Next mentions Brahman as abiding in the heart as the
inner self. From all
this it is clear that the minuteness and smallness of abode is only for the purpose of

suthra-8-sambhogaprApthirithi chEth na vaisEshyAth-1-2-8

If it is said that being inside the body Brahman will be subjected to joy and sorrow like
the individual self, it is not so because of the difference in the nature of the two.

The reason for joy and sorrow is not the fact that the soul is inside the body but it is
because of karma which does not apply to Brahman.

Thus ends sarvathraprasiddhyDHikaraNam.

AthraDHikaraNam 1-2-2

suthra-9-atthA characharagrahaNAth-1-2-9

The eater is Brahman because both movable and immovable are taken as His food.
In katOpanishad there is this text 'yasya brahma cha kshathram chObhE bhavatha
Odhanah; mrthyuryasyOpasEchanam ka ithTHA vedha sah, who thus knows where He
is, to whom the brAhmaNas and kshathriyas are but food and the death is the

The doubt here is that whether the 'eater' signified by 'He' is the Brahman or the
individual self. The view that it is the jiva is supported by the fact that the action of eating
and enjoyment is suited only to the individual self.

The suthra refutes this by saying that the food being the whole universe of movable and
immovable, signified by brAhmaNa and kshathriya, because they are the foremost
beings of creation, it means the absorption of the universe and not the action of enjoying
the food. Mrthyu, death is said to be the condiment because like the condiment which
becomes the inducement for eating the food while itself being eaten, the death
consumes everything while itself being consumed by Brahman. The same passage
contains the text 'sOaDHvanah pAramApnOthi thadvishNOh paramam padham, he
reaches the end of journey and that is the the supreme abode of Vishnu,' which, says
Ramanuja, shows the annihilation by Parabrahman ,that is, Lord Vishnu, who is the
cause of creation sustenance and annihilation. Therefore the eater is Brahman and not
the individual self.


Because of the subject of the context
The subject of the section in which the passage occurs is Brahman.'mahAntham vibhum
AthmAnam mathvA DHeerO na sochathi,'(kaTa-1-2-22) the wise one who knows the self
as great and all pervading does not grieve, and 'nAyam AthmA pravachanEna labhyah
na mEDHayA na bahunA sruthEna; yamaivEshavrnuthE thEna labhyah,' (KaTa.1-2-23)
this self cannot be gained by veda nor by intellect nor byscriptural learning; only by him
whom He chooses can He be attained.Thus it is shown that Brahman can be attained
only through His own grace.

There is a fresh objection that it is not the Brahman who is denoted here but only the
individual self because of the later text in the same Upanishad
'rtham pibanthou sukrthasya lokE guhAm pravishtou paramE parArDhye;
cchAyAthapou brahmavidho vadhanthi,'(KaTa. 1-3-1)
Which means the two who enter the cave, (cavity of the heart) in the highest world,
drinking the reward of their works, are called by those who know Brahman, as the light
and the shadow? The two referred here must be the individual soul and prANa or the
intellect, because of the mention of the fruits of karma, which cannot be enjoyed by
Brahman. As buddhi or prANa are the instruments of enjoyment to the individual self, it
is that which is mentioned in the passage. So to say that the subject of the context is
Brahman is not appropriate. The next suthra takes up
this point.
Suthra11-guhAmpravishtouAthmAnouhi thaddharsanAth-1-2-11

the two entering the cave are jivAthma and paramAthma, individual self and Brahman
because it is so seen.

In this context only the individual self and Brahman are said to enter the cave (of heart)
'tham durdharsam gooDam anupravishTamguhAhitham gaharEshTam purANam
aDHyAthmayOgADHigamEna dhEvam mathvA DHeerO harshasokou
The wise, meditating on the self realize the ancient one who, entering into everything
dwells in the cave of the heart and who is difficult to be seen, become free from joy and
sorrow. By this the brahman is mentioned as entering the cave and by another text,
'yA prANEna sambhavathi adhithih dhevathAmayi; guhAm pravisya thishTanthee
yA boothEbhih vyajAyatha' (kAT.1-4-7)
He who knows adhithi who is one with the deities, who is born with the prANa,
who,entering into the heart abides therein, also describes the individual soul as entering
the cave. Adhithi here means the individual soul because it eats the fruits of karma
(karmaphalAN atthi ithiadithih) and
the deities are the indriyas through which the jiva enjoys the karmaphala. Hence the two
entities mentioned in the passage 'rtham pibanthou' are only jiva and Brahman. Though
Brahman cannot be said to enjoy the fruits of karma it is included in the term rtham
pibanthou, drinking the results of karma as in the _expression 'cchathriNah gacchanthi'
'umbrella bearers are going there' where some may be with umbrella and some without
but the epithet cchathriNah, umbrella bearers is applied to the whole group.

Suthra-12- viseshaNAccha-1-2-12

Also because of the distinctive qualities
In the context mentioned the individual self and the Supreme Self are denoted in the role
of meditator and meditated, attainer and the attained. The text
'brahmajajnam dhEvameedyam vidhithvA nichAyya imam shAnthim athyantham
Knowing the one who is born from Brahman to be the one to be worshipped the
meditator obtains supreme peace.' Here the word brahmaja is the individual self
originating from Brahman. The same is referred to as dhevam eedyam, deity to be
worshipped because of its being ensouled by Brahman. Again
'yah sEthureejAnAm aksharam brahma yath param abhayam thitheershathAm
that which is the bridge for the sacrificers, is the supreme imperishable fearless brahma
who is the shore for those who want to cross over(the world), indicates Brahman to be
the object of
meditation. Another instance where the individual self and the Supreme self are denoted
as the attainer and the attained is in the text
'athmAnam raTHinam viddhi sariram raTHamEvacha'(Kata.1-3-3-)
Which mentions the self as the one in a chariot and the sarira as the chariot, thus
depicting jiva the meditator as the raTHee it goes on further to say
'vijnAna sAraTHiryasthu manah pragrahvAnnarah so adhvanah pAramApnOthi
thadvishnOh paramam padham.'(Kata. 1-3-9)
This means, the one who has intellect as his charioteer and holds the reins of the mind
reaches the end of his journey which is the abode of Vishnu. From this the individual jiva
is known to be the attainer and the brahman as the attained. Even in the context
mentioned at the outset, the _expression cchAyAthapou, shade and light means the
individual self who is devoid of knowledge and the supreme self who is omniscient.

Another doubt is raised on account of the section of the Upanishad mentioned which
begins with the doubt
'yEyam prEthevichikithsA manushye astheethyEkE nAyamastheethyEke.'
When a man departs from this world some say he continues to exist and others say no.
So the poorvapakshin argues that the whole section must refer only to the individual

Ramanuja gives arguments to prove that it is not so. The story goes like this.
NachikEthas , a young boy seeing his father giving away useless objects like old cows to
the brahmins after a sacrifice becomes worried as to the effect of this action and
repeatedly asks his father to whom he( NachkEthas ) is going to be given. The irritated
father said "to the Lord of death." Not wishing to prove his father false Nachikethas goes
to the door of Yama who was out and waited three days for him. Yama on returning
becomes worried on account of keeping a brahmin at his door for three days waiting
without food wants to give him three boons.

Ramanuja after relating this episode says that
1) The first boon asked being his father's forgiveness shows that the boy was aware of
existence of the soul apart from the body.
2)The next one was the instruction in the agnividhya, knowledge of the sacrificial fire
proves that he was aware of the experience of the soul after it leaves the body and
3)the last boon is the question 'Yeyam prethe' etc. and hence it is about the state of the
individual soul after it sheds the embodiment, that is, about moksha and not merely
refers to leaving the body after death. Therefore the question relates to the true nature of
release and of the Supreme self.

The doubt being arisen out of different schools of thought regarding the reality and
Nachikethas wanted the truth from Yama direct.

Then after testing him well, Yama gave him the highest knowledge which
Ramanuja outlines as follows:

Thrayyantha nishnAthAsthu-nikhila jagadhEka kAraNasya aseshahyeya prathyaneeka
ananthajnAnAnadhaikasvarupasya svAbhAvika anavaDHika athisayaasankhyEya
kalyana gunakarasya sakala itharavilakshaNasya sarvAthmabhoothasya parasya
brahmaNah sarirathayA prakArabhoothasya anukoola aparicchinna jnana svarupasya
paramAthmanubhavaikarasasya jivasya anAdhikarmathirOhithasvarupasya avidhyA
ucchEdhapoorvaka svAbhavikaparamAthmAnubhavamEva moksham AchakshathE.

The meaning of the above passage is as follows:

Those well versed in vedanta ( thrayyantha nishnAthAh-thryee denotes veda and
thrayyantha is vedantha) know that Moksha is the natural experience of Brahman
preceded by the removal of anAdhi avidhya due to karma by the jiva, the nature of
infinite knowledge of whom is concealed by the beginning less avidhya, has for his
essence the bliss rising out of the experience of the Supreme Brahman, whose sarira
jiva is, and who is the cause of the universe, devoid of imperfections, possessed of
infinite auspicious qualities, different from everything else and the inner self of all. This
is the end of atrhaDHikaraNam

antharADHikaraNam- 1-2-3

suthra-13- anthara upapattheh- 1-2-13

The person inside the eye is Brahman because it is appropriate.
The chandogya upanishad contains a text
'Ya Esho akshiNi purushah dhrsyathe esha AtmEthi ho vacha ethadhamrtham
Ethadhabhayam ethadhbrahma.'
The person seen inside the eye is the self, immortal, fearless and Brahman. A doubt is
raised as to whether the person referred to is the reflection in the eye or the individual
self or the deity presiding over the eye or the Supreme self.

The poorvapakshin says it could be the person or the self reflected in the eye because
of the well known reference to the person and also because it is seen. It may be the
individual soul as by looking into the eye it could be ascertained whether the soul is in
the body or not. Or, it could be the presiding deity of the eye as per the text of
Brhadharanyaka ( 5-5-2) which says 'rasmibhih ESHo asmin prathishTithah,' meaning
that the person seen in the Sun rests on the
person seen in the eye, who could be a special divine being.

This view is refuted by the suthra 'anthara upapattheh.' The person seen inside the eye
is only the Supreme self. For the text says that He is immortal and fearless which could
apply only to Brahman. The text further goes on to say
'ethamsamyaghvAma ithyAchakshathE; Etham hi sarvANi
vAmAnyabhisamyanthi;Esha u Eva vAmaneeh;esha hi sarvANi vAmAni
nayathi;Esha u EvabhAmaneeh;Eshahi sarvEshu lOkeshu bhAthi.
The knowers of Brahman call Him as the centre of blessings as all blessings come
together in Him. He is the vehicle of blessings for He carries all blessings. He is the
vehicle of lights for He shines in all regions. These qualities can be of Brahman only.

Suthra-14-sTHAnAdhi vyapadhEsAscha-1-2-14

because the abode etc. can be attributed only to Brahman
He who abides in the eye is the supreme self as shown on the passage
'ya cchakshushi thishTan chakshusha antharah------yah chakshuh
antharOyamayathi Esha tha AthmA antharyAmyamrthah'(Brhd.III-vii-18)
Who is inside the eye and controls it, He is the immortal inner self. The word seen could
very well be used with respect to Brahman as the yogis are able to perceive Brahman in
their meditation.

Suthra-15- sukha visishtAbhiDHAnAdhEva cha-1-2-15

If only because of the reference to Brahman as bliss
The subject matter of the section is only Brahman as indicated by the text 'kam brahma
kham brahma,' (Chan.IV -x-5) kam is sukha and kham is AkAsa. The same Brahman is
denoted as being inside the eye for the purpose of meditation and also to show the
characteristic of consisting and leading all blessing as explained in the previous suthra.
The word Eva in the suthra shows the needlessness of any other reason.

But an objection is raised here on account of the intervention of the passage on the
agnividhya between the text 'kam brahma'(chan.IV-x-5) and the text about the person
inside the eye (Chan.IV -xv-1). The context is that of Upakosala who tended the fires in
the absence of his guru and the fires instructed him the agnividhya. The instruction was
about the meditation on the fires and the fruit of the meditation is mentioned as the
attainment of a ripe old age and
prosperity of the descendents. So due to the break in the continuity of the subject matter
the person mentioned as being inside the eye cannot be connected with the Brahman
mentioned in the beginning by 'kam brahma' etc.

This objection is not tenable because in both texts the word Brahman is used. The
instruction by the fires is only subordinate to that of brahmavidhya because they say that
the teacher will show him the way, meaning the path to liberation as Upakosala was
desirous of only that, which his guru has not imparted to him before he went
away.Further the words of the fires ' EshA soumya thE asmadvidhya cha Athma vidhya
cha,' shows that the agnividhya is only subsidiary to
The fruits of the agnividhya specified are only by way of praise (arTha vAdha).As the
Athmavidhya should be properly obtained from his guru only, the fires said 'achAryasthu
thE gathim vaktha, the guru will instruct you about the path.'

Suthra-16-atha EVa cha sa brahma-1-2-16

Therefore it is Brahman
To the objection as to how it can be ascertained that the words kam brahma, kham
brahma denote the Supreme self only as it could very well be like pratheeka upasana
such as name is Brahman and mind is Brahman the suthra replies that the words kam
and Kham inthe text do
not refer to the worldly pleasures and the AkAsa as symbols but what it means is that
the bliss is Brahman and the AkAsa is Brahman because of the later text where it is
mentioned that what is bliss is AkAsa and what is AkAsa is bliss 'yadhEVa kam
thadhEva kham,' by which only Brhaman is meant.

Ramanuja elucidates on this. When the fires instructed UpakOsala 'prANo
brahma,kam brahma kham brahma,' he said that he could understand prANa is
Brahman but not about the ka and kha being Brahman. PrANA being the body of
Brahman 'prANasarirah' and as
Brahman has been denoted as the controller of prANA it was easy to understand 'prANO
brahma.' But the intention of the passage being not prathikOpAsana but Athmavidhya
UpakOsala fails to understand the significance of ka and kha with reference to Brahman
and has a doubt whether the two has been mentioned as brahman because of their
being the sarira of brahman like the prANa or to convey the bliss that is the essence of
Brahman. Then the fires said to him 'yadhvA va kam thadhEva kham, yadhEva kham
thadhEva kam,' The meaning is that the bliss, which is the nature of Brahman is
unlimited and therefore it is Brahman who is denoted by the text 'kam brahma kham
brahma' and the same Brahman is referred to later in the passage as the person inside
the eye.

Suthra-17- sruthOpanishaadhkagathyabhiDHAnAccha-1-2-17

Also because of the mention of the way of those who know the scriptures
In Chan. IV-xv-5 it is said that the knowers of the person in the eye go through the
devayANa, the path of light, by which the knowers of Brahman are said to proceed.'thE
archisham Eva abhisambhavanthi,' they go through the path of light . And later the path
is described as 'Esha dhEva paTHObrahmapaTHah' this is the divine path of Brahman.
So the person in the eye is Brahman only.

Suthra-18 anavasTHithEh asambhavAcchnEtharah

Not any other because of the impossibility of permanency of abode of others
The reflexes self does not stay in the eye always but only till the person reflected stays
in front. The individual self has its seat at the heart and connected with all the indhriyas
and hence its
residence in the eye is not correct. The text 'rasmibhih EshO asmin prathishTithah,'
imply the presence of the Supreme self through the rays of illumination like the Sun in
the eye and hence it is Brahman only, also because the attributes like nirupAdhika
amrthathva, unconditioned immortality will apply only to brahman.

antharyAmyaDHikaraNam 1-2-4

suthra-19-antharyAmee,aDHi devADHi lOkAdhishu thaddharma vyapadhEsAth-1-

The internal ruler of the gods and the worlds is Brahman because of the qualities
The vAjasanEyins of kAnva as well as mADHyanDHina branch have the following text,
'yah prthivyAm thishTan prthivyAh antharah yam prthivee na vedha yasya
prthivee sariram yah prthiveem antharo yamayathi sa tha Athma
antharyamyamrthah,' ( Brhd.3-7-3)
This means, the inner immortal self is the one who is inside the earth, whom the earth
does not know, whose body is the earth, who controls the earth from inside. Similar
description of this inner ruler is found with respect to all elements all luminous bodies, all
beings and all organs of the body including mind and intellect and each passage ends
with the words 'Esha tha AthmA
antharyAmyamrthah' this is the immortal inner self. In the mAndhyandhina text however
there is a slight change in as much as the ruler is said to be inside all worlds, all vedas
and all yajnas and the words 'ya Athmani thishTan, who is inside the individual self,' is
substituted for 'ya
vijnAnE thishTan,who is inside the intellect.'

Here a doubt arises as to whether this inner ruler is Brahman or the individual self
because in the subsequent text at the end of all the passages depicting the inner ruler of
being inside each entity are the words drashta srothA mantha vijnAtha, seer, listener,
thinker and knower, which applies only to the individual self.

The suthra replies to this on account of the characterestics of Brahman being
mentioned that it is Brahman only. Ramanuja explains thus:
'aDHiDhaivAdhilOkAdhipadhachihnithEshu vAkyEshu srooyamANah
apahatha pApmA paramAthma nArAyanah.'
The inner self heard in the sentences marked with the qualities of being the Lord of
tdevas and the worlds is the Supreme Lord Narayana. The characteristics of ruling over
all deities, all beings and all worlds while being the One applies only to the Supreme
In answer to the question of UddhAlaka as to who is the inner ruler of all beings and
worlds YAjnavalkya starts with the passage quoted at the outset and establishes
Brahman as the inner ruler and the self of everything. Other texts that substantiate this
'anthaf pravishtah sAsthA janAnAm sarvAthmA, entered inside He is the inner ruler and
self of all,' and
'thath srshtvA thadhEva anuprAvisath; thadhanupravisya saccha tyaccha
abhavath,(Tait.II-6) after creating it entered into everything and became sath and tyath.'
In the subAla upanishad also there is a passage which begins with 'naiveha
kimchannAgra Aseeth. There was nothing in the beginning,' and ends with the sentence
'sarvabhoothAnthrAthma apahathapApmA dhivyO devO ekO nArayaNah,'
Which establishes Brahman as the inner self and ruler of all which form His body. The
amrthathva, immortality is natural only for Brahman. Even the word drashtA, seer etc are
applicable to Brahman who is essentially all knowing, sarvajna, and sathyasankalpa, of
infallible will. The text from svetasvahtara upanishad confirms this by
'pasyathyachakshuh srnothyakarNah, apANipAdhO javanO grheethA,(Svet.3-9.)
He sees without eyes and hears without ears and moves fast without feet and grasps
without hands. The jiva requires the instruments of indriyas, its knowledge being
obscured by karma but the Supreme self needs no sense organs for, and His knowledge
is His nature. Also the subsequent line, mentioning drashta and srOtha quoted by the
purvapakshin, is nAnyathO asthi drahtA etc which eliminates any other seer than
Brahman. The _expression ' He is your self ' where the individual is put in the genitive
and the self in the nominative clearly distinguishes the jiva from Brahman.

Suthra-20-na cha smArtham athaddharmaabhilapath, sArirascha-1-2-20

neither which is said in the smrthi nor the individual soul (is the inner ruler)
because of the mention of contrary attributes
Here smrthi referred to is that of sAnkhya and what is mentioned therein is praDHAna,
the unmanifest prakrthi, primordial nature, made up of three guNas. The qualities
mentioned in the passage such as being the seer, ruler and self of everything do not
apply either to praDHAna or to the individual soul.

Suthra21-ubhayEpi hi bhEdhEna Enam aDHeeyathE- 1-2-21

for both read this as different
the two versions of the passage, namely, of mADHyandhina and kANva, read as 'ya
athmani thishTan,' and yO vijnAne thishTan,' refer to Brahman as being different from
the individual soul. Therefore Ramanuja concludes the aDhikaraNa by saying
'athah antharyAmee prathyagAthmanah vilakshaNah apahatha pApmA
paramAthmA nArayana ithi siddham,'
It is established that the inner ruler, different from the individual self and free from all
imperfections is the Supreme self, Narayana. There ends the


Suthra-22-adgrsyathvAdhiguNakah DharmOkthEh 1-2-22

that which possesses invisibility etc. (is Brahman because of the mention of
The AtharvaNikas read in their text
'aTHaparA yayA thadhaksharam aDhigamyathE yath thaddhresyam agrahyam
agOthram avarNam achakshuskshothramthadhapANipAdham; nithyam vibhum
susookshmam thadhavyayam tadh boothayOnim paripasyanthi DheerAh,
now by the higher knowledge the imperishable is known, that which is invisible,
ungraspable, unoriginated, and attribute less what has neither eyes, nor ears, nor hands,
nor feet; what is
eternal, all-pervading immeasurably subtle and limitless in manifestation-that
imperishable being is what the wise perceive as the source of all creation. ‘Further there
is a mention of 'aksharAth
parathah parah, He transcends even the unmanifested causal state of the universe.

Here a doubt is raised as to whether the entities described by the two texts are
praDHana and purusha of the sAnkhya or both denote the Supreme self. The opponent
is of the view that the reference is to the individual soul which is said to be higher than
praDHana, the later text
clearly mentioning the unmanifested causal state which is praDHAna and the purusha is
denoted as transcending it.

The argument given in favour of this is; rupa etc are negated which are only the
attributes of manifest form of prakrthi and this points out to the unmanifest praDHAna.
The entity higher to that is the purusha. Moreover the next sloka is
'yaTHA urNa nAbhih srjathE grhNathe cha yaTHA prthivyAm OshaDHayah
sambhavanthi yaTHA sathah prushATH kEsalOmAni thaTHA akshrAth
sambhavathi iha visvam.'
This world has sprung from the imperishable as the spider emits and withdraws the
web,as the herbs come out of the earth and as hair grows on the body of man
effortlessly. So it points out to pradhAna the cause of the world and the purusha as
being higher.
The suthra refutes this view and says that it is the Supreme self which is denoted by
both the texts because of the attributes mentioned. The subsequent text mentions the
qualities like omniscience, all-pervading etc. 'yah sarvajnah sarvavidh,'(Mund.1-1-9)
which are only qualities of Brahman. The imperishable is denoted by invisibility etc. and
by 'aksharAthsambhavatheeha visvam,' the causality is indicated and then ‘yah
sarvajnah sarvavith' shows the omniscience etc. Finally the same imperishable is
denoted as the highest of all. The word aakshara in the
final text quoted does not denote Brahman as nothing can be higher than that but only
means matter in its subtle state.

Suthra-23-viseshaNa bhEha vyapadhesAccha netharou 1-2-23

the other two are not referred to because of the attributes and difference being
The section of the upanishad quoted begins with the query 'by knowing which everything
becomes known,
kasminnu bhagavO vijnAthe sarvamidham vijnAtham bhavathi.'(Mund. 1-1-3),
in order to know the nature of Brahman. The questioner was Sounaka, a householder
asking Angiras who replied
'dhve vidhyE vedhithavyeithi ha sma yadh brahmavidho vadhanthi,
parAchaivaparA cha.'(Mund.1-1-4)
That is, there are two kinds of knowledge, lower and higher. This means the indirect
knowledge, parOksha, from the sasthras and the direct intuitive knowledge aparOksha,
of Brahman. The parOksha jnAna .says Ramanuja, is the means of attaining the direct
intuitive knowledge, which is upAsana, devout meditation.This is confirmed by the text
itself which says
'yamevaivEsha vrNthE thEna labhyah,'(Mund. 3-2-3)
Brahman can be attained only by him who is chosen by Him, meaning Brahman.
Knowledge is
mentioned as the means of intuition while the higher knowledge is the direct through
meditation by which the imperishable is said to be known.

The passage about that which is invisible etc. describes the nature of Brahman and that
on spider and its web indicates that the imperishable, that is, Brahman, is the cause of
the universe. Then the next chapter deals with the need for the varnASrama dharmas
which have to be performed, not with the desire for fruit, but as an offering to Brahman.
The last section of the upanishad instructs the aspirant to meditate on the Supreme
Being, the Self of all, and higher than everything, with devotion by which he can become
free from the cycle if birth and death and attain the highest goal on direct perception of
the Supreme.

That the Parabrahman is different from the sentient (purusha) and the insentient
(praDHAna) is shown by the text
'dhivyOhyamurthah purushahsa bAhyAbhyantharO hyajah;aprANO
hyamanAssubhrO hyaksharAth parathfparah,'
self resplendent, formless, unoriginated and pure, that all-pervading being is both within
and without and without prANa and without mind He is higher than the imperishable,
(unmanifest causal state of the universe)


Because the form is mentioned.
'agnirmurDhA chakshushee chandrasuryou dhisasrOthrEvAgivivrthAscha
vEdhAh;vAyufprANOhrdhayam visvamasyapadhbhyAmprthivee hi

Fire is His head, eyes are the Moon and the Sun, His ears are the directions, vedas are
his eloquence, the wind is his prANa,His heart is the whole universe and from his feet
the earth has originated and he is the inner Self of all.this kind of form and the attribute
of being the inner self of all apply only to Brahman. Thus ends the aDHikarNa.


suthra-25-vaisvAnarah sADHAraNasabdhavisEshAth-1-2-25
What is referred to as vaisvAnara is Brahman because of the mention of the
common characteristics.

In chAndhogya upanishad there is a passage which begins thus 'AthmAnamEva imam
VaisvAnaram samprathyaDHyEshi tham Eva no bruhi, (Chand.5-11-6)
You only know about vaisvAnara and tell us about it ' and continue to say
'yasthvEtham Evam prAdhesamAthram abhivimAnam AthmAnam vaisvAnaram
upAsthE, (Chan.5-18-1)
But one who thus meditates upon this vasvAnara Atman as a whole, consisting of parts
and self

The doubt is about whether this vaisvAnara is Brahman or not. The purvapakshin says
that it is difficult to ascertain because the word vaisvAnara is mentioned in the sruthi
texts in four different meanings viz. the intestinal fire, one of the five elements, the
presiding deity of the fire and the Supreme self.

This suthra confirms that the word vaisvAnara is used here only in the meaning of
Brahman.In Chandhogya it is said that five rishis desirous of knowing about vaisvAnara
self and Brahman approached UddhAlka AruNi who took them to Asvapathi, the king of
Kekaya who knew about it. The query of the rshis and the answer by Asvapathi is given
at the outset.
The reference is to Brahman only because of the sADHAraNasabdha visEsha, the
common meaning of the word being qualified by special attributes. The rshis desired to
know what Atman is and what Brahman is. Since the terms self and Brahman are used
earlier and in the later texts the terms self and vaisvAnara are mentioned vaisvAnara
must be Brahman. Moreover the text continues to say
'sa sarvEshu lOkEshu sarvEshubhoothEshu sarvEshu Athmasu annam atthi,
He eats the food in all worlds, all beings and all souls,' and in a subsequent text, later, it
is said
'thdhyaTHaisheekAthoolam agnouprOthEpradhooyEth Evamha asya
sarvEpApmAnah pradhooyanthE,
as the soft fibers of isheeka reed when thrown in the fire, burn out so too the sins are
burnt up,' as the result of worshipping the vaisvanara Athman. Hence is only the
parabrahma that is specified as vaisvanara.

Suthra-26-smaryamANam anumAnam syTH ithi-1-2-26

that which is referred is the mark of inference that it is only Brahman. The limbs of
vaisvAnara is described thus: heaven is the head the sun its eye, air is praNa,AkAsa
trunk, water the lower belly and earth is its feet. This description applies only to Brahman
and not the intestinal fire, or the fire which is one of the five elements or the presiding
deity, agnideva, of fire.

suthra-27-sabdhAdhibhyah anthah pravishTAnAccha nethi ceth na thaTHA
dhrshtupadhEsAth asambhavAth purushamapi cha Enam adHeeyathE- 1-2-

If it is said that vaisvAnara is not Brahman because of the meaning of the word and due
to its abiding inside, it is not so. There are three reasons given by the suthra.

1. dhrshtupadhesAth-instruction to meditate on vaisnAnara as Brahman

2.asambhavAth-it is impossible for the intestinal fire to have the form described

3.purusham apich enam aDHeeyathE- VaisvAnara is described as a person which is
not suitable in the case of intestinal fire. That the term vaisvAnara denotes only the
supreme self is substantiated by smrthi also as the Lord says in the Gita
'aham vaaisvAnarO bhoothvA pachAmyannam chathurviDHam,' (BG.XIV-15)
I digest the four types of food by being inside the body in the form of vaisvAnara.

Suthra-28-atha Eva na dhEvathA bhoothamcha-1-2-28

For the same reasons mentioned in the previous suthra it could not be the presiding
deity ar the element fire.
suthra-29-sAkshAdhapi avirOdham jaiminih-1-2-29

Even taken in the direct sense there is no contradiction says Jaimini.The word
vaisvAnara can be derived as visvEshAm narANAm nEthA, one who leads the worlds
and men and the word agni as agrE nayathi, one who leads, in which sense both words
are applicable to Brahman.


The difficulty in reconciling the expression, 'yasthvEthamEvam prAdhEsa
mAthramabhivimAnam,(Chn.5-18-1) describing Brahman as occupying the limited space
of the heaven earth and ,akASA , that is, having heaven for his head etc in the passage,
is resolved on account of manifestation, says Asmarathya. The manifestations in
different places are for upAsana.


For the purpose of constant remembrance says BAdhari.
It is to enjoin devout meditation on Brahman.

suthra-32-sampatthErithi jaiminih thaTHA hi dharsayathi.1-2-32

Jaimini says that the description of the chest of vaisvAnara as the altar is for offering the
prANa, performed by upAsakas in agnihothra sacrifice. The sins of those who make
offering with the full knowledge of Brahman have their sins burnt up.

Suthra-33-Amananthi chainam asmin

Moreover they teach vauisvanara as being within. That is, at the time of offering the
prANa in agnihothra, the Various limbs of vaisvAnara are imagined to be inside the body
of the
worshipper. Thus vaisvAnara mentioned in the said passage is none other than
Brahman.With this the vaisvAnarADHikaraNa ends and that is the end of the second
pAdha of the first aDHyAya of SribhAshya.

The end of second pAdha of first aDHyAya

dhyubhvAghyaDHikaraNam - 1-3-1
suthra-1-dhyubhvAdhyAyathanam svasabdhAth

The abode of heaven, earth etc is Brahman by the word 'self.'
MundakOpanishad has the following text:
'Yasmin dhyouh prthivee cha antharikshamOtham manah saha prANaischa
sarvaih;thamEva Ekam jAnaTHa AthmAnam, anyA vAcho vimunchaya;
amrthasyEsha sEthuh.(Mund.2-2-5)

Know that to be the Self in which heaven, earth and the sky are woven as also the mind
with prAna and the senses. Give up other talk. He is the bridge of immortality.'

The opponent presents the view that the Self mentioned here as being the abode of
earth, sky etc. is the individual self. The reason for this is that the individual self alone is
the abode of mind, prANa and senses. The next verse speaks of the self as being like a
wheel in which all the arteries are connected as spokes and he moves and become

'ArA iva raTHanAbou samhathA yathra nAdyah sa EshO anthascharathE bahuDhA

The connection with the nAdis and becoming many, that is, being born in different
bodies fit only the description of jiva. Also the individual self alone can be the abode of
prANa and the mind.

This view is refuted because of the words 'the bridge of immortality.' Brahman alone
is described as the bridge of immortality in various texts.
'ThamEVa vidhvAnamrtha iha bhavathi, nAnyafpanTHA ayanAya vidhyathE'
He alone is the means of immortality.and knowing Him one becomes immortal. The word
'sethu' is from the verb sinOthi, meaning 'to bind' therefore it means that which binds the
jiva with
immortality, just as the bridge leads one to the other side of the river.

The purport of the word 'self ' is only Brahman who is unconditioned supreme self.
'Apnothi ithi AthmA.' That which reaches, which applies only to Brahman the pervading
self because as the inner ruler it pervades all. The subsequent verse contain words 'yah
sarvajnah sarvavid
yasyaisha mahimAbhuvi,' He is all-knowing, all cognizing and the world is His glory.
MahAnArayaNa upanishad shows Him as the abode of arteries ' santhatham
sirAbhisthu lambathyAkosa sannibham' and 'thasyAssikhAya madhye paramAthma
vyavasThithah,' This means, like the bud of lotus suspended in the inverted position
supported by the arteries is the
heart And in the flame in the middle abides the Supreme Self. He is also born in many
ways as found in Purushasuktha-21, 'ajAyamAnO bahuDHA vijAyathE.' The unborn
takes birth in many ways, meaning He manifests Himself as many.In bhagavat gita also
we find the sloka 'ajOpi san
avyayAtmA bhoothAnAm isvarOpi san prakrthim svAm aDHishTAya sambhavAmi
Athma mAyayA,' eventhough I am unborn, immutable and the lord of all beings I
manifest Myself presiding over the prakrthi through My own mAyA.'Hence it is only
Brahman which is referred to in the passage.

Suthra-2-mukthOpasrpya vyapadhesaccha 1-3-2

Also because Brahman is stated to be attained by the liberated.
The person mentioned as the abode of heaven, earth etc. is also referred to as the one
attained by the liberated.
'yadhA pasyah pasyathE rukmavarNam karthAram isam purusham
brahmayOnim;thadhA vidhvAn puNyapApE viDhooya niranjanah paramam
sAmyam upaithi,' (Mund.3-1-3)
Which means that when one sees the creator of brilliant hue, the Lord whose source is
Brahman then the knower casts off his merit and demerit, becomes pure and attains the
supreme unity? The wise thus becomes free of name and form and attains the supreme
just as the rivers lose theirs on reaching the sea.
'yaTHA nadhyah syandhamAnAh samudhrE astham gacchanthi nAmarupE
vihAya;thaTHA vidhvAn nAmarupAth vimukthah parAthparam purusham upaithi

The transmigration, samsara, is due to merit and demerit which makes man acquire
nama rupa according to the karma that produces the particular embodiment. So the
abode of heaven etc which is referred to as the goal to be attained by those free from
puNyapApa and hence from all contact with matter and to become united with Brahman.
Therefore it is the Supreme self only.

Suthra-3-nAnumAnam athadhsabdhAthprANa brth cha 1-3-3

The abode of heaven etc. is not what is inferred (praDHAna) because there is no
mention of it and also not of the (individual self) the bearer of prANa.


Because of the mention of difference
the passage oft quoted from Mundakopanishad, namely
'dhvA suparNA sayujA sakhAya saanam vrksham parishasvajAthe; thayOranyah
pippalam svAdhu atthi anasnan anyah abhichAkaseethi,'(Mund.3-1-1)
the two birds sitting on a tree out of which one eats the fruits sour and sweet, meaning
experiences sorrow and joy, indicating the individual soul and the other not eating
anything simply looks on, which means Brahman. They are said to be sayujA closely
united and sakhAyA, friendly. The next verse traces the reaction of jva by saying
‘samAnE vrkshE purushO nimagNo aneesayA sochathi muhyamAnah;jushtam
yadhA pasyathyanyameesam asyamahimAnam ithi veetha sokah.'(Mund.3-1-2)
This means that the individual soul grieves for his inability to get free from misery, sees
the other, the Lord and becomes free from dejection. by this the difference between the
individual self and Brahman is known and hence the reference of the one who is the
abode of heaven etc. is Brahman and not jiva.

Suthra-5- prakaraNAth-1-3-5
As shown in the suthra 'adhrsyathvAdhiguNako dharmOkthEh'(BS.1-2-21) the subject
matter of the upanishad is Brahman. The same subject matter is continued throughout
and the intervening vaisvAnara text has also been shown to deal with Brahman only.

suthra-6- sTHithyadhanAbhyAm cha- 1-3-6

In the verse 'dhvA suparNA' the two birds described as one eating sour and sweet fruits
and the other simply looking are the individual self and Brahman respectively and the
latter , sarvajna. All-knowing, amrthasEthuh, the bridge of immortality and sarvAthma,
the self of all, can only be the dhubvAyathanam, the abode of heaven etc.

This is the end of dhyubvAdhyaDHikaraNam


suthra-7-samprasAdhAth aDHyupadhEsAth-1-3-7
Bhooman is Brahman because of the instruction about it is there in addition to that of

There is this text in Chandhogya,
'yathra nAnyath pasyathi nAnyath srunOthi nAnyath vijAnAthithadhbhoomA,
yathra anyath pasyathi anyath srunOthi anyath vijAnAthi thadhalpam.' (Chan.VII-
which means ,where one sees nothing else hears nothing else knows nothing else it is
great and where one sees, hears and knows something else it is small.

Here the word bhooman means large or great, even though it is derived from the word
bahu meaning many, because it is used as an antonym to the word alpam meaning
small. Now a doubt is raised as to whether this entity describes as bhooman is the
individual self or Brahman.

The poorvapakshin says that it is the individual self. The context is this. Sage Narada
approached sanatkumara and asked him to help him to cross over his state of grief and
the latter taught him several truths.He began with nama and goes higher and higher, as
Narada asked him whether there is anything higher, and ends his discourse with
prANa.There is nothing mentioned higher nor it is further questioned by Narada. So the
discourse on the self being terminated at this stage the individual self which is
accompanied with the prANa is what is implied as the greatest by the word bhooman.

The poorvapakshi further argues that prANA is referred to as father and mother and any
harm done to one with prANa, is mentioned as an act to be condemned. Even the
example of spokes of the wheel should not be misconstrued to denote Brahman
because as all insentient beings are connected to the sentient soul for its enjoyment and
the individual soul being the one with prANa, it is what is denoted as bhooma.

Moreover the next section refers to the one who places prANA above all else is an
athivAdhin, eloquent. He is then said to be speaking surpassingly with truth 'Eshathu vA
athivadhathi sa sathyEna athivadhathi.' (Chan.7-16) then, the passage on bhooman
occurs and hence it is the individual self that is expressed as bhooman.

This view is refuted by the suthra saying that it is only the Supreme self and not jiva
because the instruction is given about the bhooman in addition to the individual soul
which is termed as samprasAdha, serenity, as known from
'aTHa ya Esha samprasAdhO asmAth sarirAth samutthAya
paramjyothirupasampadhya svEna rupENa prathinishpadhyatha Esha AthmA,
This serene and happy being rises up from this body and reaches the supreme light and
appears in its true form.

The athivAdin mentioned in the pasage on prANa is different from the one in the
subsequent passage, which mentions the one who realizes the truth as the athivAdhin. It
is well known that the Truth is Brahman from the text 'sathyam jnAnam anantham
brahma.' As the every successive entity mentioned starting from nAma till prAna are
different from the preceding one, here also the truth is different from prANa and is the
same as bhooman. It is clear that from the text, 'Esha thu vA athivadhathi ya satyEna
athivadhathi, but he really speaks surpassingly who speaks surpassingly with truth.' that,
the athivAdhin regarding prANA is different from the one regarding the truth. Narada
then wants to become the athivAdhin of truth. Hence Brahman is introduced as a fresh
topic and later it is mentioned that Brahman is bliss 'yo vai bhooma thath
sukham nAlpE sukhamasthi.' (Chan.7-23) confirming bhooman to be Brahman as the
word bhooman is explained as the infinite. Then the passage quoted at the outset occurs
thereby establishing the denotation of bhooman as Brahman because Brahman
alone is the infinite bliss.

Ramanuja explains the passage thus:
The one who experiences the unlimited exquisite bliss in Brahman does not see
anything else, because everything is the manifestation of the glory of Brahman. He sees
nothing apart from Brahman whose Lordly power is due to His divine attributes and
glory, and enjoys bliss unalloyed with sorrow because Brahman is essentially blissful.

To the objection as to how this world consisting of pleasure mixed with pain can be
perceived as one of pure joy, Ramanuja answers that, because the individual self sees
the world different from Brahman he experiences pain and pleasure due to his
knowledge being obscured by his karma. Once he is freed from the nescience he sees
the world as nothing but the manifestation of the Lord whose nature is of infinite joy and
who possesses infinite auspicious qualities.

Ramanuja illustrates this by two examples.
A man affected with bile finds the taste of water unpleasant or moderately pleasant
according to
the extent of bile he suffers from. The same water tastes good for a healthy person.
Similarly a boy who does not know that a plaything can amuse him he has no liking for it
but when he finds that it gives him pleasure he likes it.
So too the world, which is a plaything for the Lord and has Him as its inner self, is seen
as an object of joy by the enlightened one.

The concluding sections of the passage on bhooman has this text
'sa vA Esha Evam pasyan evam manvAnah Evam vijAnan ATHMarathih
AthmamiThunah AthmAnandhah sa svarAt bhavathi thasya sarvEshu lokEshu
kAmachAro bhavathi.' (Chan.7-25-2)
He, who sees thus, thinks thus, knows thus, loves the self, revels in the self, united with
the self and delights in the self. He is the sovereign who is free to move in all the worlds.
The word svarat denotes that he is not bound by karma like the normal kings. Also he
who sees this does not see death, illness or grief. He, who sees this, sees everything
and obtains everything.
'na pasyo mrithyum pasyathi na rOgam nOha duhkhathAm sarvam ha pasyah
pasyathi sarvam ApnOthi sarvasah,' (Chan.7-26-2)
Therefore the subject of the passage on bhooman being different from pRAna, bhooman
is only


The attributes mentioned are suitable only to Brahman.
They are, immortality,' Ethadhamrtham,' supported by its own glory. 'sva mahimni" being
the self of all,'sa Eva idham sarvam,' being the cause of everything, 'Athma Eva idham
sarvam.' These qualities apply only to the supreme self and hence the bhooman is

Suthra-9-aksharam ambarAnthadhrthEH-1-3-9

the akshara is Brahman because it supports that beyond AkAsa
In BrhadhAranyaka upanishad there is a passage in the form of conversation between
Yajnavalkya and Gargi in which she asks, after being told that the unmanifest AKasa
pervades that above heaven and earth and what is in between, that, by which the AkAsa
is pervaded. He
'sa hovAcha Ethadhvai thadhaksharam gargibrAhmnA abhivadhanthi asTHoolam
anaNu ahrasvam adheerGHam alOhithm asnEham acchAyam,' (Brhad.3-8-8)
That the knowers of Brahman describe it as the Absolute, neither gross nor subtle,
neither short nor long neither red nor oily neither shadow nor darkness and so on. Now
is it pradhAna, or jiva or brahman is the doubt.

The reason given for it being praDHAna is that in the Mundaka passage discussed
earlier, the phrase 'aksharAth parathah parah' (Mund.2-1-2) shows that the word
akshara is used with respect to the unmanifest prakrthi.Moreover the question which
pervades even AkAsa proves that it is praDhAna because it is the cause of the element

This view is refuted by saying that it is only Brahman because AkAsa is referred to as
the support of everything, pervasive of above the heaven and below the earth and in
between them, the phrase 'yadhbhootham cha bhavath cha bhavishyath cha' meaning
that the AKasa pervades all, past,present and future, which cannot be the element
AkAsa but denotes only the unmanifest praDHAna. Then, the AkAsa is said to be woven
like warpand hoof and the answer is given as akshara.

It may be said that akshara could be the individual self and not praDHAna because the
words it is neither red nor black which eliminates praDHANa as it consists of rajas and
thamas depicted as of red and black colour respectively. Further the words asthoolam
etc also apply to the jivatma. Which has no form. There is scriptural authority also for the
use of the word akshara to denote the individual self and in Gita we find the following
words 'ksharassarvANi bhoothAni kutasTHo akshara uchyathE' allbeings are perishable
and the inner self is called akshara, the imperishable. The next suthra answers this.

Suthra-10-sA cha prasAsanAth-1-3-10

and this supporting come from command
The subsequent passage tells about the command of the akshara over all beings which
cannot apply to the individual soul.
'Ethasya vA aksharasya prasAsanE gArgi suryAchandrmasou viDHRthou
Says YAgnavalkya meaning that under the rule of this akshara the sun and the moon
are held in their post thus he mentions all beings one by one and says that they are
under the control of the akshara. Hence it could only be Brahman.

Suthra-11-anyabhAvavyAvrtthescha- 1-3-11

Because of exclusion of what is of another nature than Brahman
the text
'tadhvA Ethadhaksharam gArgi adhrshtam dhrashtr asrutham srOthr amatham
manthravijnAtham vijnAthr; nAnyadhathO asthi dhrshtr nAnyadhathOasthi srOthr
nAnyadhathO asthi manthr nAnyadhathO asthi VijnAthr; Ethasminnu khalu akshre
gArgi AkAsah OthaschA prOthascha.'

This means- the akshara is never seen but seer, never heard but hearer, never thought
of but thinker.never known but knower. There is no other seer, hearer, thinker than this.
In this akshara is the AkAsa woven like warp and woof. So this excludes praDHAna and
also the individual self. Hence the akshara is Brahman.


It is Brahman as He is mentioned as the object of seeing.
In prasnaupanishad there is this passage
'yah punarEtham thrimAthrENa OmithyEthEna Eva aksharENa param purusham
abhiDHyAyeetha sa thEjasi surye sampannah yaTHA pAdhodharasthvachA
vinirmuchyathE EVam havaisha pApmanA vinirmukthah sa sAmabhirunneeyathE
brahmalOkam, sa EthasmAth jivaGhanAth parAth param purisAyam purusham

One who meditates on the Supreme self with the three syllables of "OM", reaches the
light and the sun. He frees himself from sin as a snake from its skin. He is led by the
saman verses to the world of Brahman where he sees the supreme person, higher than
individual souls, dwelling in
there. (Pras-5-2)

Here the object of meditation and that of 'seeing' is the same by the thathkrathu
nyAya.That is, 'yaTHAkrathurasmin lOkE purushah,' (Chan.3-14) which means
,according to one's thought, is his world, and therefore what one meditates on he sees
that only. The object of meditation is thus mentioned as paramapurushah, whom the
upasaka sees,as dwelling, in BrahmalOka. A doubt arises on account of the usage
brahmalOka as to whether this purusha is HiraNyagarbha, that is, the four-faced Brahma
or the Parabrahman. This view is supported by the mention of the one who meditates on
the first mAthra of praNava returns to the mortal world, by meditating on the two mAthras
he reaches the world of the Moon in the heavens and on meditating on all the three
mAthras he attains brahmalOka which is above the heavens in the preceding verse. This
points out only to the world of HiraNyagarbha. The _expression 'EthasmATh
jivaGHanATH paRATHparam' indicates the brahma who, being the collective self is
higher and subtler than the individual soul who is described as GHana, being connected
with gross matter. The qualities mentioned as ajarathva devoid of old age etc are to be
reconciled with the concept of HiraNyagarbha.

This view is refuted by the suthra because there is a clear mention of the object of
seeing as the Brahman. In the concluding verse quoted by the purvapakshin, it is said
'Tham onkArENa EVa ayathanEna anvEthi vidvAn yath shAnthamajaram amrtham
abhayam param cha’
by the omkara the wise know him to be free from old age, immortal, fearless and the
These attributes belong to Brahman only. Moreover the _expression 'EthasmAth
jeevaGHanAth paraTHparam,' higher than the souls in gross form applies to the
HiraNyagarbha also as he is the first creation and hence endowed with a body. By the
attributes mentioned, namely ajaram amrtham etc. the dwelling place of such person
seen by the meditator of praNava cannot be brahmalOka of the HiraANyagarbha but of
the supreme self only. Also the place attained by one who is released from all sins
cannot be the lOka of Brahma. This we know from the text thadhvishnOfparam padham
sadhA pasyanthi soorayah, (Subala.6) the wise see the abode of VishNu always.' The
conclusion that the brahmaloka is above the sky is not correct because there are several
worlds which intervene. So the object of 'seeing' is the Parabrahman only.

suhthra-13 dhahara uttharEbhyah-1-3-5
the small AkAsa is Brahman because of the subsequent texts.In Chandhogya the
following passage refers to the space inside the heart,’
aTHa yadhidham asmin brahmapurE dhaharam pundarikam vEsma,
dhaharO asminnanthara AkAsah thasmin yadhanthah,
The meaning is, in this city of Brahman there is a mansion in the form of lotus and
within that is the small AkAsa; what is within that small AkAsa is to be sought after and
to be understood. Now the doubt is whether the small AkAsa within the lotus of the
heart is the element Akasa or the individual self or Brahman. It is claimed to be the
element AkAsa because of the well known implication of the word to it only.

This view is refuted by the suthra because of what is denoted by a subsequent
'Esha AtmA apahatha pApma vijarO vimrthyur vishOkO vijiGhathso apipAsah
sathyakamah sathya sankalpah ' (Chan.8-7-1),
The self which is free from evil, old age, death ,sorrow, hunger and thirst whose desire
is of truth and whose resolve is of truth,' is mentioned as that to be sought and known.
These attributes, which are also found in the dhaharAkAsa, (Chan.8-1-5) prove that it is

Moreover the comparison
'yAvan vA ayam AkAsah thAvAn EshO antharhrdhaya AkAsah,'
this AkAsa within the heart is as large as the other AkAsa ,meaning the bhoothAkasa,
does not make sense if the dharAkasa is the same as bhoothAkAsa.But an objection is
raised that the supreme self is described as 'jyAyAn prthivya jyAyan anthrikshAth,
(Chan.3-14-3) as being larger that the earth and sky and hence it could not be
compared to the AkAsa in size.

Ramanuja answers as follows:
The comparison to akAsa is given in order to dismiss the idea of smallness on account
of the dhaharAkAsa being situated inside the heart, as in the expression 'ishuvath
gacchathi savithA,' the sun moves like an arrow, to indicate the fastness of movement,
though in fact the sun moves faster.

Another argument forwarded to show that the dhaharAkasa is not Brahman.It is not
dhaharAkAsa which is intended to be sought and understood but only what is inside it.
So dhaharAkaSA is distinguished from that inside it. This objection is ruled out for the
following reason. The sarira of the meditator is indicated as the city in which Brahman
dwells and the
dhaharAKASa denotes the omniscient, omnipotent Lord, who comes to dwell in it out of
love for the devout upAsaka, with all his auspicious attributes, which is the object of
meditation. That is, the Brahman who is the dhaharAkAsa is to be meditated and
understood along with his attributes.

But the opponent questions the interpretation that, the dharAkASa is Brahman and
'thath' in 'thasmin yadhantha' indicates the attributes of Brahman, and both being the
object of meditation is indicated by 'thadhanvEshtavyam', to which Ramanuja replies

The dharAkAsa is said to be as large as the bhoothAkAsa and then the earth, sky, sun,
moon and the stars etc are said to be in it. Then it is said that all desires realized and
not realized are there in it to be enjoyed and the dhaharAkAsa, though being inside the
heart and thus inside the body, is not affected by old age etc. The text further denotes
that the dhaharAkAsa is Brahman by the sentence 'Ethath sathyambrahma param,'
meaning , this city is the reality which is the cause of all, and the qualities of Brahman
have been attributed to it by 'Esha AthmA apahatha pApmA, the self free from evil,'
confirming that it is Brahman by 'sathyakAmah sathya sankalpah, of true wish and
infallible will, and the declaration that those who do not know these qualities of
Brahman enumerated in the passage attain perishable results while those who know
realize their goal and have their wishes fulfilled.
Therefore the dharakasa is Brahman while and the qualities abiding inside is both to
be meditated and known.

Suthra-14-gathisabdhAbhyAm;thaTHAhi dhrshtam;lingam cha-1-3-14

DhaharAkAsa is Brahman on account of the mention of 'going into Brahman' and the
word brahmalOka. This is also seen from the other texts and there is an indicatory sign.

The Chandhogya passage
'thadhyaTHA hiraNyaniDHim nihitham akshEthrajnA uparyupari sancharanthah
na vindhEyuh, EvamEva imAh prajAh ahrahargacchanthyah Etham
brahmalOkam na vindhanthi; anrthEna hi prathyooDAh,'(Chan.8-3-2)
which means, as the people who do not know the field,(akshEtrajnA) walk over and
over and do not know the gold treasure buried underneath, so do all the beings go to
brahmaloka everyday but do not know it because they are covered with untruth. Here
the word Etham denotes dhaharAkAsa and all beings are said to enter into it everyday
in sleep but do not know it as such. So by the gathi, going and sabda, the word
brahmalOka, the dhaharAkAsa is understood as Brahman. This is substantiated by
other texts also.

In chandhogya
'EVAMeva khalu somya imAh sarvAh prajAh sathi sampadhya na vidhuh,sathi
sampatsyAmahe ithi' (Chan.VI-9-2)
'satha Agaccha na vidhuh satha acchAmaha ithi' (Chan.VI-10-2)
The two texts mean, all this beings having gone to braHmaloka (in their sleep) do not
know it and having returned from it do not know that also. Similarly the word
brahmaloka is used in the sense of the abode of Brahman in the texts like 'Esha
brahma lokah samrAt ithi ho vacha,' (Brhd.IV 3-32) this is the world of Brahman. The
mention of all beings getting merged in Brahman in the state of deep sleep as in
pralaya is the sufficient inferential sign of the dhaharAkasa being Brahman and so is
the word brahmalOka denoting that of Brahman. Even if the other texts do not mention
it, the moving about of all beings to the world of Brahman
everyday and not knowing it, is itself the sign of dhaharAkASa being Brahman only.

Suthra-15-DHrthEscha mahimnah asya asmin upalabDHEh-1-3-15
Because of the mention supporting the world by dhaharAkAsa, the glory which is
of Brrahman only
'sa sEthuhrviDhoothirEsham lOkAnAm asambhedhAya'(Chan.8-4-1) this is a bridge,
limiting the worlds so that they do not mingle with each other.This quality of being a
support to the worlds denote that the dhaharAkAsa is Brahman. In BrhadAraNyaka
also we find the passage,
'Esha sarvEsvarah Esha bhoothADhipathih Esha bhoothapAlah Esha sEthuh
viDHaraNa EshAm lOkAnAm asamBhEdhAya,’ (Brhd.4-4-22)
He is the LOrd of all, master of all beings and ruler of all, and He is the bridge and limit
so that these worlds do not get mixed up. And
'Ethasya vA aksharasya prasAsanE gArgi suryAchandramasou viDhrthou
By the rule of this imperishable one, Gargi, the sun and the moon are held in their
position. Since this power of Brahman is also seen in dhaharAkAsa it is Brahman


Also because of the well known meaning
'kO vA hyEVAnyAth, kah prANyAth, yadhEsha AkAsahAnandhO na syAth,
Who could breath in and who will breath out if this bliss is not the AkASa.' and
sarvANi ha imAni bhoothAni AkAsAdhEva samuthpadhyanthe.(Chan.1-9-1)
All these beings come from AkASa only.' From this it is clear that the term AkAsa is
used to denote Brahman. The qualities like free from evil etc. emphasize this meaning
of AkAsa
excluding any reference to the bhoothAkasa.

Suthra-17-itharaparAmarsAth sa ithi cheth, na, asambhavath-1-3-17

If it is said to be the individual self due to the mention of it subsequently, it is not,
because of the impossibility of such assumption.

The opponent quoting the passage
aTHa sa Esha samprasAdhah asmAth sarirAth samutthAya param jyothirupa
sampadhya svena rupeNa abhinishpadhyathe,Esha Athma, ithi hOvAcha Ethath
amrtham abhayam
Ethahth brahma,(Chan.8-3-4)
This individual self having risen from the body attains the supreme light and its true self.
This self is immortal, fearless and this is Brahman.' So the dhaharAkAsa may refer to
the individual self.

This view is refuted on the grounds that the qualities like apahatha pApmathva,
being free from evil do not apply to the individual self.

suthra-18-uttharAth chEth Avirbhoothasvarupasthu- 1-3-18

If it is said that the later passage ascribed to prajApathi speaks of individual soul
only, it is only with reference to the real state of the soul
'Esha AtmA apahatha pApma vijarO vimrthyurvishOkO vijiGhathso apipAsah
sathyakamah sathya sankalpah ' (Chan.8-7-1),
The self who is free from evil, old age, death, sorrow, hunger and thirst whose desire is
of truth and resolve is of truth,' is mentioned as that to be sought and known. In the
passage where PrajApathi gives instruction to Indra, who approached PrajApathi with
the intention of knowing the true nature of the self that is to be enquired into. After
describing the embodied soul in waking, dream and deep sleep states Prajapathi says
'na ha vai sasirirasya priyApriyayoh apahathirasthi asariram vA va santham na
priyApriyE sprsathah,(Chan.8-12-1)
There is no freedom from joy and sorrow till one is in embodiment and once the soul
rises above and frees him from the body, joy and sorrow touches him not. And further
states that the soul rising above attains the light and its own nature.
aTHa sa Esha samprasAdhah asmAth sarirAth samutthAya param jyothirupa
sampadhya svena rupeNa abhinishpadhyathe. (Chan.8-12-3)

Here the light is denoted as the Supreme being and attaining which the jiva is said to
enjoy freedom in Brahmaloka while in the stage of samsara the jiva is like a horse tied
to the yoke. So the entire chapter has been devoted to the explanation of the true
nature of the individual self. Therefore the qualities like apahatha pApma etc may well
denote the self and since the same qualities are shown in the text about dhaharAkAsa it
may as well be the individual self.

This is refuted by the words 'Avirbhootha svarupasthu' in the suthra which
Ramanuja explains thus:
'Poorvam anrtha thirOhitha apahatha PapmathvAdhi guNakasvasvarupah
paschAth vimuktha karma bandDHah sarirAth samutTHithah
paramjyothirupasampannah Avirbhoothasvarupah san apahathapApamathvAdhi
gunavisishtah thathra prajApathi vAkye abhiDheeyathe, dhaharavAkyE thu
athirOhitha svabhAva apahatha ApmathvAdhivisishta Eva dhaharAkasah

That is, the qualities like freedom from evil etc. is attributed to the soul in the state of
release, when its svarupa is no longer concealed by avidhya-karma, according to the
passage referring to PrajApathi while the same qualities are mentioned with respect to
dhaharAkAsa which is not under avidhya. So it means only Brahman. Moreover the
description of dhaharAkAsa as the sEthu, bridge that supports the worlds and as sathya
will not be appropriate in the case of individual jiva even in the state of release. This fact
is proved later in the suthra 'jagathvyApAravarjam'(BS.4-4-17)

suthra19-anyArTHascha parAmarsah-1-3-19

The reference to the individual is for different reason.

The passage,'aTHa sa Esha samprasAdhah asmAth sarirAth samutthAya param
jyothirupa sampadhya svena rupeNa abhinishpadhyathe,' in Chandhogya chapter8,
section3, with respect to dhaharAkAsa is identical to the one in chapter 8, section 12
that deals with the instruction of prajapathi. Both describe the soul rising and attaining
the light and its true nature. But the latter is for the sake of meditation on the
dhaharAkAsa and not to show that the individual soul is dhaharAkaAsa.

suktha20-alpasruthErithi chEth- thadhukatham- 1-3-20

If it is argued that the dharAkAsa is the bhoothAkAsa because of the smallness
mentioned, the reply to this has already been given in suthra1-2-7 as 'nichAyyathvAth'
that is, brahman is denoted as small for the sake of meditation. Therefore, says
Ramanuja, what the dhaharAkAsa refers to is only
'anAghrAtha avidyA dhoshaganDHah svAbhAvika
nirathisayajnAnbalaaisvaryaviryashakthi thEjafprabhrthi aparimitha
dhAraguNasAgarah purushOtthama Eva.'
The supreme purusha, who is untouched by defects of avidhya and who is the ocean of
unlimited great qualities like knowledge, strength, sovereignty, prowess, power and
radiance etc. The self denoted by the passage in section on Prajapathi is only the
individual self.

Suthra-21-anukrthEsthasya cha-1-3-21

Due to the mention of attaining the likeness that.
AS the individual self is id to attain the supreme light by meditating on the dharAkasa it
should be different. This is supported by the passage in Mundakopanishad
'yadhA pasyah pasyathErukmavarnam karthAram isam purusham brahma yonim;
ThadhA vidhvAn puNyapApam viDHooya niranjanah paramam samyam upaithi,’
When the seer sees the radiant being, who is the creator, the Lord and Supreme
he sheds all his merit and demerit and becomes like the pure Supreme self.(Mund.3-1-

suthra-22-api smaryathE-1-3-22

The smrthi also states this

In the gita the Lord says 'idham jnAnam upAsrithya mama sAdharmyam AgathAh,
those who acquire this knowledge become like Me.'(BG.14-2)

Thus ends the dhaharADhikaraNam

suthra-23-sabdhAdhEva pramithah-1-3-23

from the word (Lord) mentioned in the text, measured ('by the size of the thumb.')
In the KatOpanishad there is this text,
'angushTa mAthrah purushah maDHya Athmani thishTathi, eesAno
bhoothabavyasya,na thathO vijigupsathE,' (KaTa.II-4)
This being of thumb size stands in the middle of the self as the Lord of past and future
and therefore there is no fear.' And
'angushTa mAthrah purushah jyOthiriva adhoomakah eesAnO
bhoothabavyasya,(KaTa.I-13) this thumb sized being is like light without smoke and
the Lord of past and future.' The same purusha is spoken as
'angushtamAthrah purushO antharAthmasadhA janAnAm hrdhaye
sannivishtah'(KaTa.2-6-17) the inner self situated in the heart of all people.

This person of the size of a thumb is the individual self, says the poorvapakshin. The
reason given for this is that there is mention about the jiva as being of the size of a
thumb in the scriptural texts.In svetasvatara upanishad the individual self is referred as
'prANADHipah sancharathi svakarmabhih; angushTa maAthrah ravithulyarupah
sankalpa ahamkAra samanvitho yah,'(Svet.5-7,8)
The lord of prANa,of the size of a thumb, brilliant as the sun, moves with his actions,
and is endowed with will and ego. Further nowhere is any mention of Brahman as
angushTamAthra, thumb sized.

This argument is refuted because there is the word in the passage quoted, namely,
eesAnO bhoothabhavasya, Lord of past and future which applies only to Brahman
and not to jiva who is under the control of his karma.


With reference to the heart (for upAsana for which) human beings alone are qualified
(and not other creatures.) Brahman is meditated as being in the heart, which is of the
size of thumb, and therefore brahman is said to be angushTamAthRA which is not
inappropriate. Man alone is capable of meditation and hence Brahman being described
as angushTamAthra means that he is seen in the heart as such. Other creatures like
horse, snake etc. though also have heart of
thumb size are excluded for this reason. The status of Brahman being angushTamathra
ia discussed in a later suthra.


suthra-25-thadhuparyapibAdharAyaNah sambhavATH-1-3-25
BadarAyaNa says that meditation is possible for beings higher than humans like
dhevas because of the possibility.

Since it is said in the previous suthra that only human beings are qualified to meditate
the question arises whether those higher than humans are also qualified or not.

the poorvapakshin says that they are not because they do not have prAkrtha sarira
and hence cannot observe the spiritual disciplines, sADHana sapthaka like viveka and
vimoka outlined in the jinjnAsAdhikaraNa. Neither the vedanta texts nor the injunctions in
the puravamimamsa texts refer to the embodiment of devas.

This is refuted by the suthra. Meditation is possible for the higher beings also because
they also have desires, wishes, hardships and sufferings and know that the highest bliss
can only be found in Brahman, who is untouched by evil and possessed of infinite
auspicious qualities.

[This can be seen in the purAnic lore where we find Indra and others facing troubles and
even Brahma is said to have meditated on Narayana before starting the creation, in
BhAgavatha purANa.]

The objection forwarded that they do not possess a body is not correct as prajApathi and
Indhra and others are described as having body in the upanishads in the chapters on
creation and meditation. All the scriptures describe four kinds of creation, deva, human,
animal and plants. They occupy the places till brahmaloka according to their karma. In
the section on Prajapathi giving instruction to Indra, the latter was said to have
approached him along with Virochana with
samith on hand and staying with him as his disciple for thirty-two years, all of which
implies the embodiment of Indra and the like.

Even in the karmakanda there are manthras and arthvAdhAs (laudatory passages)
which speak of the devas having bodies as could be seen in 'vajrahasthah purandharah,'
Indra with vajrAyuDHa in his hand, etc. These passages cannot be ignored as laudatory
because the
qualities that exist alone will be praised not those which are nonexistent.

Since ithihasas, puranas and dharmasasthras also speak of devas as having
embodiment they are also qualified for meditation.

suthra-26-virODHah karmaNI ithi cheth, na,anEka

If it is said that if devas have bodies it makes them impossible to be present at various
yajnas to accept havirbhAga simultaneously the suthra refutes it saying that they are
capable of assuming several bodies through their superhuman powers. Even yogis were
found to have such powers as in the case of soubari who was supposed to take several
bodies to please his many wives.

Suthra-27-sabdha ithi cheth, na,athah prabhavAth

If it is said that the embodiment involves contradiction with respect to words, it is not so
because beings originate from them(words) as seen from perception and inference.

This means, all the words in the veda and their meanings are eternal as accepted by all
thinkers. Hence the forms and entities denoted by the vedic words like indra ,varuna etc
are also eternal and if the devas are said to have embodiment they will not be eternal as
bodies are subjected to destruction and their names denoted in the veda will lose their
meaning being just an appellation like Devadatta.

This view is refuted by the suthra. The names like indra found in the veda are not related
to a particular entity but a class. That is why the vedic words are said to be eternal. The
creator, Brahma utters a word and the form comes into being. Hence the entities are
created ever new and their having a corporeal body is not detrimental to the eternity of
the word in the veda denoting them. There is valid proof for this through perception,
inference, that is, through sruthi
and smrthi.

Sruthi says
'vEdhEna rupE vyAkarothsathAsathee prajApathih.(Taitt.Aran.2-6)
PrajApathi created the names and forms through Veda, being and nonbeing. And
'sa bhoorithi vyAharath bhoomim asrjatha; sa bhuva ithi vyAharath so
anthariksham asrjatha'
He uttered the word 'bhoo' and created the earth and
Uttered the word 'bhuva' and created the sky.
From smrithi also we know that everything was created by Brahma through words of
veda. 'anAdhi niDHanO hyEshA vAg uthsrshtA svayambhuvA,Adhou vEdhamayee
dhivyA yathah sarvAh prasoothayah'
In the beginning the creator gave out divine speech beginning less and endless in the
form of veda from which everything originated. (MB.shanthi.231)Therefore the devas
bodies does not in any way makes the vedic words meaningless.

Suthra-28-atha Eva cha nithyathvam-1-3-28

the eternity of the vedas result from this reason only. Brahma remembers the words after
each deluge and creates the devas and rshis as before and hence the eternity of the
Vedic words. The rshis are called manthradrshtas, seers of manthra and not composers
for the same reason. But at the time of prAkrtha pralaya, complete dissolution, Brahma
himself ceases to exist and how can the creation take place based on the remembrance
of the vedas as in naimitthikapralya, the intermediate dissolution, is the question raised
and the next sutha answers that.

suthra29samAnanAmarupathvAthcha Avrtthou api avirODHO

As said in the Chandhogya text 'thadhaaikshatha bahusyAm prajAyEya,' etc the Lord
creates everything as before and entering into all beings gives them name and form and
hence the creative process happens as before starting from that of Brahma himself. This
is how the veda cme to be called apourushEyam, uncreated by any individual.The
supreme person also follows the same order of the vedas as before but it happens
spontaneously for Him and not through

There is scriptural evidence for this as we find in svetAsvathara upanishad
'yO brahmANam vidhaDHAthi poorvam yO vai vEdhAmscha prahiNOthi thasmai,'
he who first created Brahma and gave the vedas to him. In the puraNas like nArasimha
and VarAha also we find passages to substantiate this.
'thathra supthasya dhEVasya nAbhou padhmamajAyAtha;thasmin padhmE
mahAbhAga vEdhavEdhAnga pAragah; brahmOthpannah,sa thEnOkthah prajAh
srja mahAmathE.' (Nara.10)
Also in varaha purANa we find the text
'Evambhoothasya me dhevi nAbhipadhmE chathurmukhah;uthpannah;sa
mayAchOkthah prajAAh srja mahAmathE .'
Both passages describe how Brahma came out from the naval of Narayana and was
instructed on creation. So the devas also are qualified for brahmavidhya.


suthra-30--maDHvAdhishvasambhavAth anaDHikAram jaiminih

Devas are not entitled for madhuvidhya due to impossibility-Jaimini.

It was established by the previous suthras that devas are also qualified for
brahmavidhya But a doubt arises as to whether they are qualified for meditations in
which they themselves are the objects. Jaimini is of the opinion that they are not. In the
madhuvidhya for example (Chan.3-1-1) one is instructed to meditate on some parts of
the sun, called 'madhu 'because certain nectar being produced as the result of certain
sacrificial rites in rkveda. The fruit of such upAsana
is the attainment of the position of vasus Adhithya etc. Jaimini says devas like Adithya,
the sun and the vasus cannot meditate on themselves as they already enjoy the fruit of
the vidhya. This and the next are suthras in the nature of poorvapaksha.

Suthra-31- jyOthishi bhAvAccha-1-3-32

Because of meditation on light.

The text in BrhadhAranyaka
'tham dhEvA jyothishAmjyOthih AyurhOpAsathE amrtham'(Brhd.4-4-16)
Mentions the meditation by devas on the light of lights as life and immortality, which is
Brahman and due to the special mention of this particular upasana for devas it is
concluded that they are not qualified for the other kinds of meditation such as

suthra-32-bhAvam thu bAdharayaNah-1-3-32

For BadharayaNa there is qualification (for the devas)
Badharayana thinks that even vasus, adhityas and others are qualified for
madhuvidhya because of the probability that they have only achieved their present
status through upasana on Brahman and they may wish to continue that in order to
maintain their position in future They can meditate on Brahman in themselves. In
madhuvidhya there is two parts
one dealing with Brahman in his causal state and
Other in the state of effect
First section upto the text 'aTha thadhoordhvam udhEsya, (Chan.3-11-1) when from
there he has risen up' implies the manifestation of Brahman as the effect in the form of
vasus etc. and the latter part of the above text is about the meditation on causal
Brahman as abiding in the sun as its inner self.
'na ha vA asmA udhEthina nimlOchathi sakrddhivA naiva asmai bhavathi ya
EthAm Evam brahmOpanishadham vedha,'
For him the sun neither rises nor sets. He who knows this brahmopanishad, there is
always the day. This refers to the whole of madhuvidhya as brahmOpanishad and the
fruit of upasana is mentioned as the attainment of vasuhood leading to the attainment of
Brahman. The meditation on light enjoined for devas only emphasizes the fact that
Brahman alone is to be meditated. Hence devas are qualified for madhuvidhya.


suthra-33-shugasya thadhanAdhara sravaNAth thadhAdhravaNAth
soochyathE hi-1-3-9

Grief due to the contemptuous talk that grief was referred to, on jAnasruthi approaching

The subject under discussion here is whether sudras are also qualified for BrahmajnAna.
The poorvapaksha view is that they are qualified because even though they are not
expected to do the vaidhhika karamas the meditation is only a mental act it does not
prevent them from
attaining brahmajnAna. The argument is that how can it be possible to attain
brahmajnAna without studying veda of which they are prohibited, ?
The poorvapakshin answers that the knowledge of Brahman can be obtained through
the listening to ithihasa and purANa.
Also there is evidence for sudras having brahmajnAna from the example of Vidhura and
the like. Even upanishads have instances of this. When JAnasruthi approached Raikva
for instruction on brahmavidhya he was called sudra by Raikva. So this shows that
sudras are also qualified for meditation on Brahman.

Ramanuja refutes the view because of the absence of capabilities.Without knowing
the vedas and vedAngas the procedure of meditation and its culmination are not
possible and since this vedADHyayana is prohibited for a sudra he cannot do the
upAsana. Even in ithihasa and puranas only those who have mastered the vedas only
acquired brahmajnAna. Mere listening of ithihasa and purana, prescribed for the sudras,
are for removal of sins and not for doing upasana.People like Vidhura were well versed
in vedas in their purvajanma, who
acquired their sudra janma due to prarabdha.

The example of Raikva and JAnasruthi where the former is heard to call the latter as
sudra is to be interpreted otherwise. This is explained in the suthra. Janasruthi on
hearing the talk of two rshis in the form of swans, who, wishing to kindle the desire of
knowing Brahman in him, flew past him and while one was praising him for being a
generous person and adhering to dharma the other said that unless he acquires
brahmajnAna from Raikva his greatness is not worth mentioning. Then with grief for not
knowing about Brahman, he approached Raikva who called him sudra not because of
his birth but because of his grief. The word sudra is derived as 'sOchathi ithi
sudhrah' meaning one who grieves.

Suthra-34 -kshathriyathvagathEscha-1-3-34

because his being a kshathriya is known
JAnasruthi was described in Chandhogya upanishad as bestowing gifts and food
liberally and also gave Raikva several villages as gurudhakshina. So this shows him to
be a king and thus a kshathriya.

Suthra35- uttharathr chaithrraTHEna lingAth -1-3-35

Because of the indication on being connected with the descendent of
Chithraratha, a kshathriya

In connection with this same samvidhya JAnasruthi is mentioned with AbhiprathArin, a
descendent of ChithraraTHa who was a kshathriya.
Suthra-36-samskAra parAmarsAth thadhabhAvAbhilApAccha-1-3-36

Because of the purificatory rites and their absence (in sudras)
In the scriptures the purification ceremonies like upanayana are prescribed before
learning of the vedas. Since these are only prescribed for the first three varnas he fourth
varna is not qualified for upasana.

suthra-37-thadhAbhAva nirDhAraNE cha pravrtthEh- 1-3-37

Because of the ascertainment of the absence(of sudrahood)

In Chandhogya we have the section in which the guru Gouthama imparted the
Brahmavidhya to SathyakAma jAbAli after ascertaining that he was only a brahmin. He
was the son of a maid servant and told the truth to the guru that he did not know who his
father was. The guru said that he must be a brahmin because he spoke the truth. This
shows that being a sudra does not qualify one for brahmavidhya.

Suthra-38- sravaNADHyayanArTHaprathishEdhAth- 1-3-38

Because of the prohibition on hearing and studying
the fourth varna is prohibited from hearing and studying the Vedas without which
brahmajnAna is impossible.


Smrthis also prohibit vedic learning to the fourth varNa.


In the pramithADHIkaraNa-1-3-6 there are four suthras and after the first two there is a
digression prompted by the second suthra 'hrdhyapEkashyA thu
manushyADHikArathvAth' which mentioned the qualification of human beings for
upAsana which led to the question of
devas and sudras. Now the remaining two suthras of the pramithADHIkaraNa are dealt


The trembling described (of others) denotes Brahman.
The person thumb sized described in the text
'angushTamAthrah purushah madhya Athmani thishTathi; eesAno
bhoohabhavyasya' (KaTa.2-1-12)
Is Brahman because between this and the text 'angushTa mAthrAh purushah
antharAthmA'(KaTa.2-3-17) there is this passage
'yadhidham kimcha jagathsarvam prANa Ejathi nissrtham;mahadhbhayam vajram
udhyatham ya Ethadhvidhuh amrthAsthE bhavanthi; bhayAdhasya agnisthapathi
bhayAth thapathi suryah;bhayAdhindhrascha vAyuscha mrthyurdDHAvathi
This means, all this universe emerges and moves because there is the supreme
Brahman who is a great fear like an uplifted thunderbolt; from fear of Him the fire burns
sun shines, indra vAyu and death run. This declares the elements and the world as
emerging from the thumb sized purusha and ruled by Him who is therefore none else
than brahman. This is substantiated in the BrhadhAraNyaka text
' Ethasya va aksharasya prasAsNe gargi suryAchandhramasou vidhrthou
thishTathah;BheeshAdhASmAth vAthah pavathE bheeshAdhEthi
suryah;bheeshAdhasmAth agnischa indhrascha mrthyurDHAvathi panchamah.,'
which means almost the same.

Suthra-41- jyothirdharsanath-1-3-41

Because of light being seen.
Between the two texts on the thumbsized purusha mentioned above there is another
'na thathra suryO bhAthi na chandhra thArakam nEmA vidhyuthO bhAnthi kutho
ayam agnih;thamEva bhAntham anubhAthi sarvam thasya bhAsa sarvamidham
There no sun, moon or the stars or lightening shines and where could be the fire!
Everything shines by and reflects His light. This idea is expressed in other upanishads
also speaking about
brahman. Hence the angushTa mAthrapurusha is Brahaman only.
Thus ends the pramithADHikaraNam.


1-3-10 -suthra-42-AkAsO arTHantharADHI VYAPADHeSaTH
AKASa is Brahman because it is mentioned as something different.

The text of Chandhogya reads
'AkAsO vai nAmanAmarupayOrnirvahithA,thE yadhantharA ; thadhbrahma
thadhamrtham sa AthmA,'
that which is called AkAsa is the revealer of name and form;that which is inside these
and forms is Brahman, the immortal the self.(Chan.8-14-1) a doubt is expressed as to
whether this AkAsa is the released soul or Brahman. The poorvapakshin says it is the
former because between the section teaching about the daharAkasa, which has been
established as Brahman and this, the section on the individual soul intervenes in the
form of the teaching of PrajApathi. The text immediately preceding this is about the soul
in the state of release, which is
'asva iva rOmANi viDHooya papam chandhra iva rAhOrmukhAth pramuchya,
DhoothvA sariram akrtham krthAthmA brahmalOkam abhisambhavAmi.'
This means, "shedding off all sins like a horse sheds its hairs and Moon frees himself
from Rahu I enter the brahmalOka. "

This view is refuted by the suthra which says that the passage refers to AkAsa of
being something different from the individual soul. The reason for this is the individual
soul is not the revealer of names and forms but it is only the Brahman who is the
revealer. As shown in the text
'anEna jivEna AthmanA anupravisya nAmarupE vyAkaravANi,' (Chan.6-3-2) in the
released state the individual soul is not connected with the world. Hence it is only
Brahman who is meant by the text as the nirvahithA of names and forms.


On account of the difference shown between deep sleep and death.
The opponent raises an objection that due to the texts thathvamasi and nEha nAnA
asthikimchana which affirms unity while denying duality mean that the individual soul is
not different from Brahman and hence the AkASa in the text could be the individual self
in release.

This suthra refutes the argument. Both in deep sleep and death the individual self is
shown to be different.
'prAjnEna AthmanAsamparishvakthah na bAhyam kimchana vedha nAntharam,'
In deep sleep being embraced by the supreme self the individual self knows nothing
outside and inside. (Brhd.4-3-21) Again 'prAjnEna AthmanaanvArooDah uthsarjan yAthi,'
being presided over the supreme self it departs. In both instances the individual self is
denoted as something different from the supreme self. Hence the AkASa in the context
is only Brahman.


Because of the words like Lord etc
This embracing self is denoted letter in the upanishad as 'sarvasya aDHipathih,sarvasya
vasee, sarvasya eesanah,' the Lord of all, master and ruler. The qualifications mentioned
namely, sarvEsvara, king of all, sarvabhoothADHipathi,master of all beings and
bhoothapAlah, protector of all, sethuh, bridge etc apply only to Brahman. Therefore the
AkASa in the context is only Brahman. This is the end of

End of the third pAdha of first aDhyAya of sribhashya.
First aDHyAya- fourth pAdha
suthra-1-AnumAnikamapi EkEshAm ithi cheth na

If it is said that what is inferred (praDhAna) is the cause, it is not so because the word is
referred to as the body which is explained.

Ramanuja starts the first aDHikarana of the fourth pAdha thus:
Uktham paramapurushArTHalakshaNa mokshasADHanathayA jijnASyam
jagajjanmAdhikAraNam brahma achidvasthunah
praDHAnAdhehchethanAcchabaddhamukthObhayAvasTHAth vilakshaNam
nirasthasamastha hEya ganDham sarvajnam sarvashakthi sathya
sankalpamsamasthakalyANa guNAthmakam sarvAnthrAthmabhootham
nirankusaisvaryam ithi .

So far Brahman, who is the goal of life knowledge of which leads to mOksha,who is
different from insentient entities like praDHAna and sentient souls both in bondage and
release, who has no trace of imperfection of any kind, omniscient, omnipotent,
possessed of infallible will and infinite auspicious qualities and who is the inner self of all
and unlimited glory, has been elucidated in the suthras.

Now the theory of Sankhya advocated by Kapila, in which the cause of origination of the
world is said to be the unmanifest prakrthi, that is praDHana and the concept of the
individual souls, purushas not having Brahman as their inner self, is refuted by the
suthras that follow.

The text in katopanishad reads as follows:
'indhriyEbhyaH parAhyarTHA arTHEbhyasthu param manah;mansasthu
parAbuddhih buddhErAthmA mahAnparah;mahathaH paramavyaktham avyakthAth
purushaH parah;purushAnnaparam kimchith sA kAshTA sA parA gathiH'

The sense objects are beyond the senses, the mind is beyond the objects, the intellect is
beyond the mind and the great self is beyond intellect; beyond that is the unmanifest
beyond which is purusha. There is nothing beyond purusha and he is the great limit and
the goal.

Here the doubt is that whether the word unmanifest, mahAn avyaktham means
praDHAna of sAnkhya or not. The opponent says it is praDhAna because the unmanifest
is said to be the beyond buddhi and only purusha ,the individual self in sankhya, who do
not hold that Brahman is the inner self of all, is said to tbe beyond avyaktham, the
unmanifest, being the last and 25th thatthva of sankhya. From this the cause of the
world is known to be the avyaktha, the unmanifest prakrthi,that is praDHAna.

This is refuted by the suthra saying that praDHAna is not what is meant by avyaktha
but it is the body as it can be understood by the earlier passage
'ATHManam raTHinam viddhi sariram raTHamEva cha;buddhim thu sAraTHim viddhi
manah pragrahmEva cha;indhriyANi hayAnAhuH vishayAmstheshu gocharAm' which
ends as 'sO aDHvanaH param ApnOthi thadvishnOH paramampadham.'(KaTa.1-3-3, 4)

The self is the one in a chariot, which is the body, the intellect being the charioteer and
the mind is the reins. The horses are the sense organs and the sense objects are the
roads. Here the one who desires to attain the vishnupadha is the individual self
metaphorically referred to as the person in the chariot and the body as the chariot and
the rest are the other things connected with it.

The sense objects pictured as the road is higher than the horses, the indhriyas because
even a man who has controlled his horses finds it difficult once they are on the road, that
is when the indhriyas are in contact with the sense objects. The mind is higher that the
indhriyas because to control the mind is more difficult than controlling the senses like the
reins let loose being unable to control the horses. The intellect, the charioteer is higher
still because if he is efficient he can hold the reins firm. The self who is the master,
raTHee, controls even the intellect to do his bidding by his will. So is the AthmA. So later
what is described in the passage as avyaktha, which is said to be even higher than the
individual self is the body which is the seat of all efforts made by the aspirant towards
attaining the purushArThas. In the passage 'indhriyANi parANyAhuh etc. all the
constituents in the metaphor of the chariot have counterparts except the body. Hence it
is the avyaktha, being the only remaining constituent of the metaphor.

The one who is even higher is the supreme self indicated by the word purusha, who is
the inner self of all and the goal of the journey. This is evident from the text
'purushAnna param kimchith sA kAshTA sAparAgathiH.'
Sruthi negates any other ruler by
'nAnythOsthi dhrashtA,' and ;'ya Athmani thishTan,' etc.
Smrthi also confirms this by
'sarvasya chAham hrdhi sannivishto' "I am in the heart of all" and
'IsvarassarvabhoothAnAm hrddhEsE arjuna thishTathi; bhrAmayan
sarvabhoothAni yanthrArooDAni mAyayA.'
The lord stands in the heart of all beings, whirling them around as on a machine.

Moreover the expression that the sense objects are higher than the sense etc is not
compatible with the concept of sankhya according to which buddhi is identical with
mahath and all others being the evolutes of that there is no question of one being higher
than the other. As the
passage refers only to those entities mentioned in the metaphor the purusha is the
supreme self, highest of all and hence cannot be the purusha of sankhya.
The subsequent passages explain the control of each by the higher entityand finally says
that the self should be restricted by the quiet self ,that is, Brahman.

Suthra-2-sookshmam thu thadharhathvAth-1-4-2
But the subtle body is meant as it is capable

The avyaktha, unmanifest is the subtle body which transforms into gross body, so it
deserves to be called avyaktha. But the opponent argues that in which case it could as
well be the praDHAna which is also matter in subtle state. Next suthra replies to this.

Suthra-3-thadhaDHeenathvAth arTHavath-1-4-3
It is dependent on Him for its usefulness.

The existence of subtle matter, says Ramanuja, is not denied in visishtadvaita
because it is real. But what is refuted is the concept of it being independent evolving.
The subtle matter is in the control of Isvara who is its inner self and whose body is the
subtle matter. Both from sruthi and smrthi it is understood that prakrthi and its
evolutes,that is, the insentient matter and the purusha, the sentient soul, have Brahman
as their inner self. In Subala upanishad we have the text 'prthivyapsu leeyathE,' the
earth merges in water, and it proceeds today that the each element merges in that
subtler than itself till all the elements merge in mahath and mahath in the unmanifest
which merges in the imperishable which in its turn merges in the thamas and finally the
thamas becomes one with the supreme divine being. (sub.2to7) in smrthi also we have
the declaration of the Lord
'bhoomirApO analo vAyuh kham mano buddhirEva cha;ahamkAra itheeyam
mEbhinnA prakrthirashTa DhA; aparEyam ithasthvanyAm prakrthim viddhi mE
parAm' "
Earth, water fire, wind, AkAsa and the mind, intellect and the ego form my eightfold
prakrthi which is the lower and other than this is my higher prakrthi. This higher prakrthi,
says the lord, supports the world and
'aham krtsnasya jagathahprabhavah pralayasthaTHA' "
I am the source of all and the annihilator." further
'matthah paratharm nAnyath kimchidhasthi Dhananjaya,mayi sarvamidham
protham suthrE maNiganA iva.' "
There is none else higher than Me and all this is strung on Me as the beads on a
string.(BG-8-4,7) Thus the prakrthi and its evolutes along with the individual self all these
are merged in the supreme self. That self, the self of all is Vishnu glorified in the vedas
and vedanta.

Suthra-4-jnEyathva avachanAccha-1-4-4
there being no statement of its being something to be known

as the paradhAna and its evolutes and purusha are to be understood to attain release
according to sankhya, the pradhAna would have been mentioned as such if it were the
term avyaktha. But it is not found to be so. Hence it is not pradhAna which is denoted by
the word avyaktha in the passage.

Suthra-5- vadhatheethi cheth na, prAjnO hi prakaraNAth-1-4-5
If it is said to have been mentioned, it is not so because only the supreme self is
The opponent quotes the sruthi text
'asabdham asprsam arupam avyayamthaTHA arasam nithyam aganDHavaccha
yath;anAdhyanantham mahathah param DHRuvam nichAYya tham
mrthyumukhAth pramuchyathE'(KaTa.2-3-15)
meaning, one who meditates on that, which is without sound, touch and form and is
imperishable, without taste and smell, without beginning and end, and which is higher
than mahath and unchangeable, will conquer death and says that the pradhAna which is
higher than the mahath is what is denoted as that to be meditated on.

This suthra refutes this saying that it is only the supreme self prAjna who is
denoted in the passage as could be seen from the text
'sO aDHvanah param ApnOthi thadvishnOh paramam padham,' (KaTa.1-3-4) and
'Esha sarvEshu bhoothEshu gooDAthma na prakAsathE; dhrsyathE thvagryA
buddhyAsookshmayA sookshma dharsibhih.' (KaTa.1-3-12)
Thus the supreme self hidden in all beings is said to be seen only by the subtle intellect.
By 'purushAnna param kimchith ' only brahman is indicated as purusha. The qualities
mentioned in the passage quoted by the opponent are all applied to brahman only which
is made evident from 'yath thadhadhrEsyam agrAhyam ' (Mund.1-1-6) etc. the term
mahathah param is the supreme self as the mahath is already shown to be the individual
self by the term buddhErAthmA mahAn parah, beyond the intellect is the great self, in
the previous passage.

Suthra-6-thrayANAm Eva chaivam upanyAsah prasnascha-1-4-6
The mention of three only and the question on them (in the passage)

NachikEthas asked only three boons of the Lord of death, the first two being the
forgiveness of his father and the agnividhya. The third is about attaining mOksha,
yEyam prEthE vichikithsA manushyE astheethyEkE
nAyamastheethyEkE;EthadvidhyAm anuisishTasthvayA ahamvarANAmEva
varasthrtheeyah.' (KaTa.1-1-20)
This refers to the departure of the soul after death, some saying he soul exists after
death and some say it does not and Nachikethas asks Yama to tell him this and says
that this is thefinal boon. Yama after testing his fitness to receive the
instructionimparts him the Brahma vidhya
'tham dhurdharsam gooDam anupravishtam guhAhithamgahvarEshTam purANam
aDHyAthma yOgADHigamEna dhEvam mathvA DHIrO harshasokO jahAthi.'
The wise relinquishes joy and sorrow by meditating on the Self and thereby the divine,
who is difficult to be seen hidden and entered the cave (of heart), ancient and exists in
the darkness. (In the body, the seat of misery) By this the meditation on Brahman is

NachikEthas questions again on
'sakala ithara atheetha anagatha varthamAna sADHya sADHana sADHaka
vilakshana thraya',
The three things namely, the object, means and the effecting agent which are different
from everything in the past, present and future. Thereafter Yama instructs him on
praNava and then the nature of the individual self by expressions like 'na jAyathE
mriyathE vA vipaschith, he is neither born nor dies,' and the goal of attainment as the
supreme self, by descriptions such as aNOraNeeyAn, subtler than the subtle etc. Finally
the upAsana on Brahman is enunciated in the form of devotion by 'nAyam AthmA
pravachanEna labhyah.' etc. Next the sloka
'rtham ibanthou,' ( KaTa.1-3-1) shows the unity of the devotee and the object of devotion
meditation. Finally 'asabdam asparsam', etc (KaTa 1-3-15) describes the nature of
Brahman .So there was never a mention of praDHAna in the passage.

Suthra-7-buddhErAthmA mahAn parah-1-4-7
Since the words AthmA and mahAn are shown to be synonymous the term avyaktham is
not the praDHAnaof sAnkhya.

Thus ends AnumAnADHikaraNam

There being no special characteristics as in the case of bowl.

This suthra refutes the praDhAna of sankhya being independent of Brahman but not the
existence of it and of its evolutes, which has been accepted on the testimony of sruthi
and smrthi. That the prakrthi and its evolutes are ensouled by Brahman is established by
the suthra.

In the svethasvathara upanishad there is a passage
'ajAm EkAm lOhithashuklakrishnAm bahveeh prajAh srjamAnAm sarupAh;ajO
jushamANO anusEthE jahAthyEnAm bhukthabhOgAm ajO anyah.' (Svet.4-5)
There is one unborn of red, white and black colour produces many offspring of similar
form. One unborn associates with her and lays with her and another unborn leaves her
after enjoying the pleasures. This obvious reference to prakrthi raises a doubt whether it
is the one described by sankhya or the one ensouled by Brahman.
The opponent claims that it is the praDHAna of sankhya because of the term 'ajA' is
used with respect to prakrthi and the reference to the independent production of many
offspring similar to herself. To this the suthra replies that it is not so because there are
no special characteristics mentioned to prove this. The word ajA is not sufficient
evidence as the praDHAna is not the only unborn entity.
The suthrakAra cites an example from the manthra
'arvAGbilaschamasa oorDHvabhugnah,'
meaning, there is a bowl which has opening below and bulging at the top, which
expression is not explicit enough to understand what kind of bowl is meant here,
because the derivative meaning alone cannot be taken literally without reference to the
context. Later in the text it is made clear that the human head is meant by the
'idham thcchirah Esha hi arvAgbilaschamasa oorDHvabhugnah,'
the bowl which has opening below (the mouth) and bulging above (the skull) is the head.
Here also the mere expression that the prakrthi is producing many offspring is not
conclusive in denoting that the prakrthi creates independently. So this does not point out
to the praDHAna of sankhya.

Suthra-9-jyOthirupakramAtthu thaTHahyaDHeeyatha EkE-1-4-9
Some reading has prakrthi as originating from light.

The light is Brahman as can be seen from the texts
'tham dhEvA jothishAm jyothih, (Brhd.10-4-16),
The devas meditate on that which is the light of lights, and
'aTha yadhathah parah dhivO jyOthir dheepythe,' (Chan.3-13-7)
That light which shines above the heavens. In MahAnarayaNa upanishad the identical
passage about the ajA etc is found preceded by the text
'aNOraNeeyAn mahathO maheeyAn AthmA guhAyAm nihithOasya janthOh,'
That which is smaller than the small, greater than the great, which means Brahman and
then says 'sapthaprANAh prabhavanthi thasmAth' from Him the seven prANAS originate,
thus showing Brahman as the cause of everything. So all things other than Brahman are
to have Brahman as their origin and their inner self. The aja referred to is the prakrthi
which originated from Brahman giving birth to all entities like mountains and seas is
enjoyed by the individual self under the influence of karma and is abandoned by the one
who has acquired the
knowledge of Brahman.Hence the ajA in the passage quoted at the outset should also
be interpreted in accordance with this passage and means prakrthi originated and
ensouled by Brahman.

The objection that if the prakrthi is created by Brahman as denoted by
jyOthirupakramATH inthis suthra, how can the term ajA,unborn be applied to it. The next
suthra answers it.

Suthra-10-kalpnOpadhEsAccha maDHvAdhivath aviroDHah-1-4-10

Because of the teaching of creation there is no contradiction as in the case of

The word kalpanA means creation as denoted in the text
'yaTHA sooryAchandhramasou DHAthA yaTHA poorvam akalpayath, (maha
As the creator made the sun and the moon as before’. In svetasvatara upanishad also
the creation of the world by Brahman is mentioned as 'asmAnmAyee srjathE
visvamEthath, from that the Lord of maya created all this.' In the causal state the prakrthi
remains in Brahman in the
subtle state, without nama rupa and it is denoted as ajA, that is, unmanifest. As the
effect, it acquires nama and rupa and divides itself into fire, water and earth,
tEjObannarupa, indicated by red, white and black colours.

In madhuvidhya we find the text 'asou vA AdhithyO dheEva maDHu,this sun is the
honey,' (Chan.3-1-1)which ends as 'aTHa thatha oorDHvamudhEthya naivOdhEthA
nAsthamEthA Ekala Eva madhyE sThAthA.' (Chan.3-11-1) from there he rises up and he
neither rises nor sets but being one, stands in the middle. As the sun in the causal state
is one only but in the state of effect it is temed as madhu, honey to be enjoyed by the
vasus and hence there is no contradiction, similarly there is no contradiction here also
between the unborn, denoting the prakrthi in the causal state and the gross form of fire
etc in the state of effect, having Brahman as its inner self in both states.

The view that the term aja refers to the three elements fire, water and earth is refuted
because of the word Eka,one. Also the word ajA cannot be taken as a she-goat because
the word is used again with respect to the sentient soul.

Suthra-11-na sankhyOpasangrahAdhapi nAnabhAvAth athirekAccha-1-4-

Even the mention of numbers is not (sufficient evidence of praDHAna) because of
the diversity and the excess.

BrhadAraNyaka upanishad reads
'yasmin pancha panchajanA AkAsacha prathishTithah thamEvamanya AthmAnam
vidhvAn brahmAmrtho amrtham, (Brhd.4-4-17)
in whom these five groups of five and AkASa rest, Him alone I consider the Self, the
immortal Brahman, knowing which I attain immortality.' Here the five groups of five
totaling to 25 could be the thattthvas of sankhya, says the poorvapakshin, namely the
five karmendhriyas, five jnAnendhriyas, five thanmathras, (subtle elements) five gross
elements and pradhana, mahath (buddhi), ahamkara, manas and purusha, who is the
25th thatthva.

This suthra refutes the above contention saying that the mention of numbers do not
indicate the sankhyan categories because on account of diversity and excess. The
expression pancha pancha jana five 'five people' does not mean the groups of five
because the individual constituents of the group are different from each other and also
there is the mention of AkAsa and the self separately. Moreover all the five are said to
rest in 'that' which is the self , Brahman and knower of 'that' becomes immortal .Hence
the word pancha is to be interpreted as in the expression 'seven saptarshis,' which
means only seven and not seven times seven.

If it is so, what could be the panchajana mentioned therein? The next suthra answers

Suthra-12-prANAdhyO vAkyaseshAth-1-4-12

It is the prAnA which is meant by the subsequent passage.

We find the subsequent text
'prANasyaprANam utha chakshushaschakshuh srOthrasya srOthram,annasya
annam, manasO yE manO vidhuh thE nichikyuh brahma purANam agryam'

which means, they know for certain the prANa of the prANa , eye of the eye, ear of the
ear, food of the food and the mind of the mind as Brahman, the first and ancient reality.
Hence the entities that rest in and ensouled by Brahman are prANa etc.

Suthra-13-jyOthishaikEshAm asathyannE-1-4-13

In some texts annasya annam is added to the passage mentioned in the above suthra
and in others the number five is made up of 'light' as jyothishAm jyOthih. The lights
referred to are the sense organs and the light of lights is Brahman by whom they are
illuminated. In the version which includes annasya annam, 'prANa 'in prAnasya
indicates the sense of touch since it is connected with air, the eye stands for the sense
of sight, ear for sound and food represents both smell and taste, which completes the
number, five, denoting the five senses together with the mind. The AkAsa in the
'panchajana' text represents the elements, all of which rest in Brahman. therefore the
thatthvas of sankhya are not meant by the text.

Suthra-14-kAraNathvEnacha AkAsAdhishu yaTHA vyapadhishtOkthEh-1-4-

Brahman is the cause as it is described as the origin of AkAsa etc.

The sanKhyans try to prove the causality of PraDHAna on the basis of the sruthi
passages like 'asadheva idham agra Aseeth,thath sadhAseeth thath
Only non-being was in the beginning in contrast to that in ChAndhOgya namely,
'sadhEva soumya idhamgra Aseeth,' (Chan.6-2-1)
Only the sath alone was in the beginning. So they say that there is no conclusive
evidence for the causality of Brahman.On the other hand there is proof for the
praDHAnA being the origin of the world through texts like
'thadhEdham tharhi avyAkrtham Aseeth,(Brhd.1-4-7)
this was then unmanifest,' showing that the world of beings was unmanifest in the
beginning as PraDHAna, the word unmanifest denoting the praDHAna., and the
subsequent text 'thannAmarupAbhyAm Eva vyAkriyatha, (Brhd.1-4-7)
it manifested as names and forms speaks about the creation.

The terms Being and Nonbeing on account of the texts quoted can be applied to
praDHANa without conradiction while it is not possible to do so in the case of Brahman.
The texts 'thadhaikshatha bahusyAm prajAyEya ' etc should be interpreted to mean
the start of creation by praDHAna, says the opponent, and the words Brahman and
Athman can also be applied to praDHAna as brhathva, being great and all pervading
quality of Athman, apply to it.

This suthra refutes the above view because Brahman is explicitly described to be
the cause of AkAsa etc. From the suthra 'janmAdhyasaya yathah,' it has already
been shown that Brahman who is omniscient, omnipotent, of infallible will, free from
imperfections and the supreme self is the origin of the world. Further the scripture
confirms this by
'thasmAth vA EthasmAth vA Athmanah AkAsah sambhoothah,'
from that self AkAsa originated, (Tait.2-1) and 'thathEjO asrjatha, (chan.6-2-3) it
created fire.' Thus it is proved by the scriptural texts that Brahman is the cause of the

The poorvapakshin asks 'How can the Brahman all knowing and possessing infallible
will can be the cause when it is clearly stated that nonbeing only was in the beginning?'
the next suthra answers this.


Based on the passages on Brahman non-being does not indicate absolute non-
The passage
'thasmAth va ethasmAth vijnAnamayathanyO antharah AthmA
Anandhamayah,(Tait..2-5) the self within the sentient self is different from it and made
of bliss,' describes Brahman as being the self of all and the next text 'sO akamayatha
bahu syAm prajAyeya ithi, denotes Brahman as the origin of all and
‘idham sarvam asrjatha ,yadhidham kimcha; thath srshtvAthadhEva anuprAvisath
;thadhanupravisya saccha tyaccha abhavath, (Tait.2-6)
He created all this and afterwards entered into everything and became Being and
Nonbeing. The next passage has the words 'asadhva idham agra Aseeth, only
Nonbeing was in the beginning.' The word asath refers to Brahman before creation
when the names and forms did not exist, that is the unmanifest state of Brahman. Hence
there is no discrepancy. Therefore praDHAna is not referred to as the cause of the



Because it denotes the world

The sankhya philosophers raise another objection now. They say that even though the
scriptures mention a sentient principle to be the cause of the world, there is no other
entity to be known other than the praDHAna and purusha of Sankhya as the cause.
They quote from Kousheethaki upanishad to show that only the purusha is said to be the
cause of the world.

In Kousheethaki text we find the following passage as a conversation between BAlAki
and AjAtha sathru:

The passage begins with 'brahma thE bravANi, I will tell you about Brahman,' and goes
on to say
'yO vai bAlAkE EthEshAm purushANAm karthA,yasya cha Ethath karma, sa vai
vEdhithavyah,' (Kous.4-19)
Which means, He is to be known who is the creator of these persons and whom does
the work belongs to. The poorvapakshin says that this 'maker' referred to is the
individual soul because of the phrase 'to whom this work belongs,' as the individual
soul alone is connected with the works, karma, in the form of merit and demerit. The
word 'work' cannot be construed to mean this world, in which case the sentence
'Brahma thE bravANi' will mean the Brahman. If so, the two separate statements 'who
is the maker of these persons' and 'to whom the work belongs’ will be tautology.

This view is refuted by the suthra which says that the word work means the world
only. It does not mean the individual soul, the purusha of sankhya, who is under the spell
of karma that gives rise to merit and demerit, and experiences the result of them. It
means only the Brahman who is free from all imperfections, possessor of infinite
auspicious qualities and the cause of all. If it is the individual self that is meant it is
already known to Balaki and does not need special mention. Actually Balaki
misunderstood Brahman as the person abiding in the sun, moon etc. on which AjAtha
sathru proceeds to instruct him that Brahman is not the person residing in these sentient
entities but He is the maker of all and the world is His work, that is, creation. The whole
world is not the creation of the individual soul and even of the works and the results he is
not the agent but acts only influenced by karma.

Suthra-17-jivamukhyaprAnalingAnna ithi chEth tadhvyAkhyAtham-1-4-17

Should it be argued that Brahman is not referred to because of the inferential
marks of the individual soul and prAna being mentioned, this has been already

The subject matter of the passage is confirmed as being Brahman from the beginning,
middle and the end of the text. At the outset it is said, 'brahma thE bravANi, I will tell
you about Brahman,' and in the middle of the passage are the words 'yasya cha Ethath
karma,' which has already been explained as denoting Brahman. At the end of the
'sarvAn pApmanah apahathya sarvEshAm bhoothAnAm sraishTyam svArAjyam
ADHipathyam paryEthi,ya Evam vEdha,
Having overcome all sins he attains excellence and rulership over all beings through this
knowledge.' So the texts on prANa and the individual soul have to be interpreted
accordingly. In the text 'aTHAsmin prANa Eva EkaDHA bhavati,' then he becomes one
with prana alone,' prana means Brahman, which has prana for its body, and is
prescribed for meditation.

Suthra-18-anyArTham thu jaiminih prasna vyAkhyAnAbhyAm api cha Evam

But Jaimini thinks that it has another purport because of question and answer and
so do some others.

Ajatha sathru takes Balaki to a sleeping man to show that the soul is different from the
body etc. When on being called the man does not wake up he was pushed by a stick to
wake him up. Ajatha sathru asks Balaki that where was the man in his sleep and who
was he.
'ka vA Ethadhabhooth, kutha EthadhAgAth.'(Kous.4-19)
Ajathasathru himself replies to the question that the man in deep sleep has become one
with prana alone, which here means Brahman. In sleep the individual self merges with
Brahman, free from the experiences of joy and sorrow that are present both in the
waking and dreaming states. The same idea is expressed in ChandhOgya (6-8-1) as
'sathA soumya thadhA sampannO bhavathi, then (meaning, in sleep) he becomes
one with the Being,' and in BrhadhAraNyaka (4-3-21) 'prAjEna AthmanA
samparishvakthah na bAhyam kimchana vedha nAntharam,
Embraced by the supreme self (in sleep) he did not know anything inside or outside.'
In the vAjasanEya version of the text in brahadhAraNyaka upanishad, where also this
conversation occurs, reads as
'yathra Esha supthO abooth ya Esha vijnAnamayah purushah thadhEthaishAm
prAnAnAm vijnAnEna vijnAnam AdhAya ya Esha antharhrdhaya AkAsah thasmin
sEthe,' The meaning is this. When the sentient soul is asleep absorbing all prAna,
meaning the senses and intellect, it rests in the AkAsa within the heart. The AKasa
within the heart is already shown to be Brahman in dhaharadhikarana. The vijnanamaya
is the individual self, thus distinguished from the supreme self. Thus ends the



Self in the passage shown is Brahman because of the connected meaning.
In the BrhadhAraNyaka upanishad there is this text
'na va arE pathyuh kAmAya pathih priyO bhavathi,
The husband is loved not because of himself,' which continues to enumerate all
relations and possessions in this manner finally saying that everything is loved because
of the love of the Self
'na vA arE sarvasya kAmaya sarvam priyam bhavathi;Athmanasthu kAmAya
sarvam priyam bhavathi.' (Brhd.IV-5, 6)
The text ends with
'Atma va arE dhrashytavyah srothavyah nidhiDhyAsthavyah;maithrEyi Athmani
khalu arE dhrshtE,sruthe mathE vijnAthe idham sarvam vidhitham,
This Self is to be seen, heard, thought of and meditated upon when all will be known.'
Here a doubt is raised by the poorvapakshin as to whether the self described therein
is the individual self, the purusha of sankhya, or the supreme self. He claims that it is the
former because of the reference to the individual self from the beginning to the end. At
first the various individual selves like husband, wife son etc are mentioned. In the middle
it is said that the sentient soul, denoted by the term vijnAnaGhana, rises from the
elements and goes back into them and when the soul departs there is nothing left.
'vijnAnaGHana Eva EthEbhyah bhoothEhyah samutthAya thAni Eva
anuvinasyathi;na prethya samjnA asthi.'(Brhd.II-4-12)
Thus the origination and the destruction of the soul is mentioned and in the end by the
words 'vijnAthAram arE kEna vijAneeyath'(Brhd.II-14)
Who can know the knower the same individual self is indicated as the knower.
There may be a possible argument, says the poorvapakshin, that by the words in the
text, 'amrthathvasya thu na AsA asthi vitthEna, money can never arouse desire for
immortality, ‘it is evident that only the Brahman who is referred to as the self. But this
cannot be an objection because what is meant here is the real nature of the individual
self acquired through the knowledge of the distinctness of the purusha from praDHAna
and its evolutes, which makes him a freed soul. When the nature of all the released
souls are known to be the same, the knowledge of all by the knowledge of the self
makes sense since all beings from devas to the plants are of uniform nature and the
difference is only due to the prkrthipariNAma, the intermingling of the three guNas, the
constituents of prakrthi only.

This view is refuted by the suthra because the meanings of the various passage are
found to be connected only when the purport of all of them are taken to mean Brahman.
When YAjnavalkya told MaithrEyi who asked him the reason for his leaving all his
property and going away he replied that the immortality cannot be attained through
wealth. Then she wanted to know about immortality
'yEnAham nAmrthAsyAm kimaham thEna kuryAm;yadhEva bhagavAn vedha
thadhEva mE broohi,' (Brhd.2-4-3)
Meaning, as there is no use of all the wealth he is giving her she wanted to know that
which will make her immortal. Thereupon he started instructing her on brahmavidhya.
The self thus taught is not the individual self but it is Brahman, as the scriptures say that
the immortality can be attained only through the knowledge of Brahman. The texts
'thamEva vidhithvA athimrthyumEthi,and 'thamEvam vidvAn amrtha iha bhavathi,'
Show this clearly. The same Brahman is referred to in the passage 'AthmA vA are
dhrashtavyah' etc Moreover the declaration that all the vedas were breathed out by the
great Being,' asya mahathah bhoothasya nisvasitham Ethath yadhrgvEdha' will
apply only to Brahman., who is the cause of the universe. Also
'AthmanO vA are dharsanEna sarvam vidhitham,' (Brhd.2-4-5)
That by seeing the Athman all is known, can be true only with respect to Brahman. What
is said that by knowing one individual self all is known is not correct because it does not
involve the knowledge of the insentient universe? The text mentions of different
categories such as brAhmaNa, kshathriya devas and all beings and says that all this is
only the Self,
'idham brhma idham kshathramimElokAh,imE dhEvAh ,imAni bhoothAni idham
sarvam yadhayam AthmA, ' --(Brhd.2-4-6)
This could be only Brahman. The preceding sentence 'sarvam tham parAdhAth yO
anyathra Athmanah sarvam vedha, all these mentioned leave him who sees the self
elsewhere,' eliminates everything else but Brahman from being the self. The attributes
found in a later passage, 'Evam vA are idham mahathbhootham anantham apAram
vijnAnaGHna Eva,' namely, the greatness, infinity, limitlessness and essence of
knowledge suit only the Supreme Self.
Ramanuja takes up next the claim of the opponent that the individual self is the
subject matter of the maithreyi brAhamanA because of the connection with husband etc.
He says that on the other hand the connection clearly is established only with the
supreme self because the phrase 'the self is indeed to be seen, 'AthmA vA arE
dhrashtavyah,' etc. which has been proved to denote Brahman will not otherwise be in
accordance with the opening text. Hence the context is as follows: all the things which
are dear to man like wife son, wealth etc. are not productive of joy by themselves and
hence dear, but, they are so because of the will of the Lord who is the self of all. This is
known from the text in Taittiriya 'Esha hyEva AnandhayAthi, (tait.2-7) this Supreme
self makes all happy.' It is also indicated that the things by themselves are not conducive
to happiness or sorrow by
'thadhEva preethyE bhoothva punarduhkhAya jAyathE, thdhEva kopAya yathah
prasAdhAya cha jAyathe; thasmAth duhkhAthmakam nAsthi na cha kimchith
Meaning, that which gives pleasure turns out to be the cause of sorrow and that which
angers itself gives peace and hence there is nothing inherently joyful or painful.

The view that the word self in the beginning may denote the individual soul while the
self to be seen etc may be the supreme self on account of the realization that the
husband etc are not conducive to eternal happiness, is set aside by Ramanuja who says
that in the section the word self is used only in the sense of the supreme self as
everything is said to exist for the pleasure of the Self and the self which is to be seen are
one and the same.

Suthra-20-pratijnAsiddhErlingam Asmarathyah-1-4-20

Asmarathya thinks that the word indicating the individual self is the indicatory
mark of proving the promissory statement. Because of the identity between
Brahman and the individual self

By the statement that the self alone was existing in the beginning 'AthmA vA idham
eka Eva agra Aseeth, (Aith.2-4-1-1) the oneness of the individual soul with Brahman is
declared and the former being the effect of Brahman is shown by the text in mundaka
upanishad which speaks of all beings produced from Brahman as sparks from the fire
and merge back into Brahman in the end.
'yaTHA sudheepthAth pAvakAth visphulingAh sahasrasAh prabhavanthE
saroopAh, thaTHA aksharAth viviDHAh soumya bhAvAh prajayanthe thathra cha
Eva apiyanthi.' Hence the individual souls being the effects of Brahman they are
identical with it and therefore the promissory statement of knowing one resulting in the
knowledge of all is proved.

Suthra-21-uthkramishyatha Evam bhAvAth ithi aoudulomih-1-4-21

The nature of the individual soul which rises from the body denotes that it is
Brahman, says Aoudulomi.
Aoudulomi does not accept the view that the promissory statement is proved through
the identity of the individual soul with Brahman and by its being the effect of Brahman.
He says that the soul is shown to have no origination from the text 'na jAyathe mriyathe
va vipaschith, the discriminating self is not born and does not die,' If the souls are
created by Brahman, the world being created according to the result of karma of the
individual souls will not make sense and if they merge with Brahman like the pot
becoming clay losing its identity the aspiration for moksha will not be there. Therefore
as per the text

Esha samprasAdhO asmAth sarirAth samutthAya param jyOthrupasampadhya
svena rupENa abhinishpadhyathE; (Chan.8-3-4)
This serene self rising from the body reaches the highest light appears in its true form,'
the individual soul possesses the characteristics of Brahman in its state of release.
Hence the word denoting the individual self refers to Brahman only.

Suthra-22-avasThithErithi kAsakrtsnah-1-4-22

The words denoting the individual self refers to Brahman because it resides in the
individual self, says KAsakrthsna.

The view that because the individual self becomes Brahman when it rises from the body,
the word denoting it refers to Brahman in reality, is refuted by Kasakrthsna because, if
the individual self is not Brahman before departure from the body due to its essential
nature it can never become Brahman. If the difference from Brahman before departure is
due to a limiting adjunct, it means that the soul was Brahman even before departure but
only limited by the adjunct. If it is said that the real nature is obscured while in the body,
if the obscuration is real it cannot be removed. If it is unreal it cannot obscure the soul
which is self illuminated in reality, being Brahman.

Therefore AchArya Kasakrthsna, says Ramanuja, states that the individual self being
ensouled by Brahman, the word denoting the individual self can be taken to mean
Brahman. Scriptural texts are several to show that the inner self is Brahman such as
'ya Athmani thishTan Athmanah antharah yamAthmA na veda yasya Athma
sariram ya AthmAnam antharO yamayathi sa tha AthmA
He who stays inside the self whom the self does not know, whose body is the self and
who rules the self from within, He is the inner self and immortal. The text in
Taitthiriya (1-3-21) -- 'anthah pravishtah sAsthA janAnam sarvAthma’
The one who has entered into all beings as their self,' also confirms this.

Ramanuja clinches the argument by saying that this relationship of the individual soul
and Brahman, namely the sarirasariri bhAva renders explanation of all the scriptural
texts, proclaiming the characteristics of Brahman such as omniscience, blemishlessness
and being the cause of the universe etc. Therefore the suthrakAra also accepts only
the view of Kasa krthsna as there is no more argument presented after it.

Hence the passage in Maitreyi brAhmaNA of BrhadhAranyaka upanishad is to be
explained as follows:

When Maithreyi wanted to know that which will lead to immortality, Yajnavalkya explains
the meditation on the highest self, Brahman, the cause and the ruler of all beings. Then
he shows that the individual self of the meditator, when it departs from body is no longer
limited in knowledge as the karma which made its knowledge contracted, has been
destroyed. That Brahman is known only through meditation which alone is the road to
immortality. With this ends the vAkyAnvayADHikaraNam.

prakrthyaDHikaraNam -1-4-7

Suthra23-prakrthisc ha
prthijnA dhrshtAnthAnuparODH Ath-1-4-23

Brahman is also the material cause as this view is not contradicting the promissory
statement and the example stated therein.

The preceding suthras refuted the arguments of nirisvara sAnkhya, which does not
accept Isvara above the prakrthi and purusha, and now the view of the sEsvara sAnkhya
is refuted. The sEsvara sankhya known as atheistic sankhya, accepts Isvara but only as
an efficient cause while they claim that the material cause of the world is PraDHAna, the
primordial nature and they quote vedantha texts to prove this. For instance the
svethasvathara text 'asmAnmAye srjathE visvamEthath' which means that the ruler
of Maya projects this world and the following text that says 'mAyAm thu prakrthim
vidhyAth mAyinam thu mahEsvaram, the nature is Maya and the supreme Lord is
the controller of Maya, show that the Isvara is only created this universe with the
help of prakrthi. The smrithi also supports this as shown in Gita 'mayA aDhyakshEna
prakrthih sooyathE sacharAcharam,with Me as the supervisor the prakrthi produces
the world of the sentient and the insentient.'

The opponent cites the example in the world where the efficient cause and the
material cause are always different like the potter and the clay, in making a pot.
Therefore, claims the opponent, Brahman is only the efficient cause.

This suthra refutes the view that Isvara is only the efficient cause by saying that
Brahman is also the material cause in order that there is no discrepancy between the
promissory statement and the analogy given to substantiate it. The promissory
statement, prathijnA, is the EkavijnAnEna sarva vijnAnam, the knowledge of all by the
knowledge of one declared by 'yEna asrutham srutham bhavathi amatham matham
avijnAtham vijnAtham, that is, by the knowledge of which what is unheard become
heard, what is not thought of is thought and what is unknown becomes known. Then the
passage is continued to illustrate the promissory statement by citing the example of clay,
gold and iron,(Chan.6- 1-4) that the knowledge of the effects like pot, ornaments and
instruments become known by the knowledge of their causes, namely, clay, gold and
iron. Similarly by the knowledge of Brahman everything becomes known and hence
Brahman is both the material and efficient cause of the universe. This is made clear by
the opening text of the section, 'sadhEva soumya idhamagra ASeeth EkamEva
adhvitheeyam' which prohibits any material or efficient cause other than Brahman.

The word prakrthi in the texts quoted, says Ramanuja, mean only Brahman in the
KaRAnaVAStha, causal state, where everything exists in Brahman in their subtle state
without name and form. That everything is Brahman is indicated by sruthi texts such as
'sarvE tham parAdhAth yO anyathra Athmanah sarvam veda,' (Brhd.II-4-6)
everything leaves him who sees the self elsewhere,and 'sarvam khalu idham
brahma,'(Chan.3-14-1) all this is Brahman, and 'EthadhAthmyam idham
sarvam,'( 7) all this is ensouled by Brahman,by which it is shown that
Brahman is the self of all both in their causal and effective state.

Even the texts such as 'mahAn avyakthE leeyathE avyaktham akshare leeyathe,
(Subala-2) the great one is merged in the unmanifest, the unmanifest in the
imperishable, ' only denotes the manifest gross universe merging in the unmanifest
which is the kAraNAvastha of Brahman, the imperishable. The text of Subala upanishad
continues as 'aksharam thamasi leeyathe thamah parE dEva Ekee bhavathi, it is not
laya, merging that is denoted but only EkeebhAva, becoming one with Brahman which is
the absence of name and form that is referred to as thamas. This is also shown in the
smrthi as
'Aseedhidham thamO bhaootham aprajnAtham alakshaNam, apratharkyam
avijnEyam prasupthamiva sarvathah,'(Manu-1-5)
This universe existed as darkness, unperceived, indistinct, beyond reasoning,
unknowable and like one in deep sleep.

It is argued that normally the efficient and material cause are seen to be different
through experience and to say that both are the same is self contradicting statement like
the sentence 'sprinkle with fire.' To this Ramanuja replies
'sakalaitharavilaks hanasya parasya brahmanah sarvasakthEh sarvajnasya Eva
sarvam upapadhyathE.
‘It is quite appropriate for Brahman who is different from everything, all powerful and
omniscient, to accomplish anything. The absence of intellect in the case of clay and the
lack of power of transformation and absence of infallible will, are the reasons for the
material and efficient causes being different. Hence Brahman is both the material and
efficient cause.

Suthra-24-abhiDHyOp adhEsAccha- 1-4-24
Brahman is both because of the texts about willing.

In Taittiriya we have the text 'so akAmayatha, bahu syAm prajAyeya,' (Tait.6-2) and in
Chandhogya 'it willed to become many,' from which it is evident that Brahman is both the
material and efficient cause of the world.

Suthra-25-sAkshAcch a ubhayAmnAnath- 1-4-25

Both being directly mentioned

There is direct reference to Brahman being the material as well as the efficient cause in
the scripture. '
kim svidvanam ka u sa vrkshaAseeth yathO dhyAvA prthivee
nishTathakshuh,'(Tait.2-8- 9)
What was the woods what was the tree by which the heaven and the earth was shaped
and where it stood,' was the question asked to which the answer given was
'brahma vanam brahma sa vriksha AseethyathO dhyAvAprthivee nishTathakshuh;
maneeshiNO manasA vibraveemi vO brahma aDHyathishTath buvanAni
DHArayan,' meaning that Brahman is the woods, the tree which shaped the world and
which stood on Brahman, the supporter of the worlds..Thus it is directly said that
Brahman created the world out of Himself.

Suthra26-AthmakrthE -1-4-26

Because it created itself

The Taittiriya text 'thadhAthmAnam svayam akurutha,' (Tait.2-7) that itself manifested
itself, shows that Brahman manifested Himself as the world. Hence it is the material and
efficient cause.

To the objection that if Brahman created the world out of Himself the imperfections of the
world will mean that the Brahman is not as indicated by the texts ’sathyam jnAnam
anantham,(Tait-Anan. 1-1) truth knowledge and infinity ,' AnandhO brahma,(Tait.brg.6)
brahman is bliss,' 'apahathapApmA,(Chan.8-1-2) .free from evil' and 'sa vA Esha
mahAnaja AthmA ajarO amarah,'etc.(Brhd.6- 4-25) The next suthra answers this.

Suthra-27-pariNAmAt h-1-4-27

Because of modification it is possible.

This is explained by Ramanuja in his own special way as follows:

'asEsha hEya prathyaneekakalyANa ika thAnam svEtharasamastha
vasthuvilakshaNam sarvajnam sathya sankalpam avAptha samasthakAmam
anavaDHIkAthisayAna ndham svaleelA upakaraNabhootha samastha
chcidhachitvasthujA thasarirathayA thadhAthmabhootham param Brahma
svasarirabhoothE prapanchE thanmAthrAhamkArAdh ikAraNaparampara yA
thamassabdhavAchya athisookshma achidvasthvEkaseshE sathi, thamasi cha
svasarirathayA api prthangnirdhEsa anarha athisookshmadashApa tthyA svasmin
EkathAm ApannE sathi thaTHA bhootha thamassariram brahma poorvavadh
vibhakthanAmarupach idhachnmisraprap anchasariram syAm ithi sankalpya
apyayakramENa jagccharirathayA AthmAnam pariNamayathi ihti sarvEshu
vEdAnthEshu pariNAma upadhEsah.'

What this long passage means is this:

Brahman who is free from imperfections, abode of auspicious qualities, unparallel led,
omniscient, of infallible will, of the nature of infinite bliss, is the self of the sentient and
the insentient, which are His sarira , used for His sport. When this entire world was
absorbed in Him what remained was darkness, so called because of its highly subtle
state not distinguishable by name and form, inseparable from Brahman being its sarira,
becomes one with Brahman. Then Brahman willing to become many gives forth the
world of name and form again in the reverse order in which the involution took place.
This is shown by the texts in BrahadhAraNyaka upanishad which mentions Brahman as
the inner self and controller of all, enumerating earth, and other elements and indhriyas
etc. one by one, and finally mentioning the individual self. In Subala upanishad the
process of involution is described as the earth merging in water, water in fire, fire in
wind, wind in AkAsa, AkAsa in indhriyas, indhriyas in thammAthras, which merge in their
turn in the elements which merge in mahath, which merges in avyaktha while avyaktha
merges in akshara and akshara in thamas which merges in the supreme divinity, that is

But even though brahman Himself became the world as stated in Taittiriya anandhavalli
text 'thath srshtvA thadhEva anuprAvisath, thadhEva anupravisya sathcha thyath
cha abhavath. (Tait.6-3)
Having created it He entered into it and became real and unreal.' This means that the
supreme self who remained as the Self of all in the causal state, became the world in the
state of effect. But even though Brahman Himself became the world, the imperfections of
the world do not adhere to Brahman who remains in the the same unlimited nature of
bliss, for whom the creation is a matter of play. All the sentient and the insentient being
His modes, neither the defects of the sentient soul nor the changes of the insentient
matter touch Him as they are the modifications of the body only, of which He is the inner

Suthra-28-yOnischa hi geeyathe-1-4- 28

Because Brahman is called the origin

Brahman is mentioned as the source of all by the sruthi texts such as
'karthAram Isam purusham brahmayOnim,'(Mund.3-1- 3) meaning, He is the creator
and the source, 'yadhbhoothayOnim paripasyanthi dheerAh,' (Subal.1-1-7) whom the
wise see as the origin of the world,and 'yathA oornanAbhih srjathE grhnathe cha
,(Mund.1-1-7) as a spider creates and absorbs,etc.

Therefore Brahman is the material and efficient cause. Thus ends the

sarvavyAkhyAnADHika raNam-1-4- 8

Suthra-29-EthEna sarvE vyAkhyAthAvyAkhyAth Ah- 1-4-29

By this all texts are explained.

In the four pAdhAs of the chapter all vedanta texts that refer to the origin of the world are
explained to denote only the Brahman who is chEthanAchEthana vilakshaNah,
different from sentient and insentient beings, sarvajna sarvashakthi, omiscient and

The end of the first adhyaya of Sribhashya of Ramanuja


Sribhashya-second adhyaya
First padha

SmrthyaDHikaraNam- 2-1-1

In the first chapter it has been shown that Brahman is the subject matter of all Vedanta
texts and that Brahman is different from the insentient matter known from perception and
other means of cognition and also from the sentient soul, while in bondage and
in release. Brahman, who is free from imperfections and possessor of infinite auspicious
qualities, has been understood as the cause of the world of sentient and insentient
beings and the inner soul of all. Now this chapter has begun in order to refute all
arguments against this. First the view of sankhya is taken up and refuted.
Suthra-1-smrthyanav akAsadhOshaprasa nga ithi chEth na anyasmrthyanavakAsa
dhOshaprasangATH- 2-1-1

If it is claimed that there would be no scope for certain smrthis (like that of sankhya) it is
not so as otherwise some others will be having no scope.

The opponent argues that the smrthi texts serve the purpose of elucidating the sruthi
texts and the sankhyan smrthi by sage Kapila clearly shows that praDHAna, the
premordial nture is the material cause of the world. It is true that if the smrithi is contrary
to the sruthi it has to be set aside. But this view can be true only when there is no
ambiguity in the meaning of the sruthi passages. Here the meaning of the vedantha texts
is not explicit and hence the Kapila smrthi which explains the thatthvas has to taken as
authoritative. The possible objection that in the smrithis like that of Manu there are
arguments in favour of the causality of Brahman is set aside by the opponent by saying
that the main purport of these smrthis is dharma and hence has relevance to
karamkAnada only whereas Kapilasmrthi deals with the metaphysical and shows the
path to happiness.As otherwise the Kapilasmrthi wiil be meaningless the vedantha texts
have to be interpreted according to it

This view is refuted by the suthra. The smrthis like that of Manu do teach that Brahman
is the cause of the world and to accept the smrthi of Kapila will result in their being
rendered obsolete. We find in Manusmrthi the following passage: Beginning with the
words 'Aseedhidham thamO bhootham, this world existed in the form of darkness,'
and continues to say
'thathah svayambhoorbhagavAn avyakthO vyanjayan idham; mahAbhoothAdhi
vrtthoujAh prAdhurAseeth thamOnudhah sOmiDHya cha sarirAth svAth sisrkshuh
viviDHAh prajAh, apa Eva sasarja Adhou thAsu veeryam apAsrjath.' (Manu.1-5-8)
This means, the Lord, self originated and unmanifest, made this entire manifest. The
great elements and others came from the darkness and the Lord created from His body
all these beings, first creating the waters and placing His seed in them.

In Bhagavathgita also we have the declaration 'aham sarvasya prabhavah matthah
sarvam pravarthathE,(BG.7-6) meaning "I am the source of everything and from Me
everything proceeds." In Mahabharatha Bhishma was asked, from where is this universe
of movable and immovable objects are created and in whom all this merges back at the
time of annihilation and he answers 'nArAyaNO jaganmoorthirananth AthmA
sanAthanah, that it is Narayana, the eternal and infinite self, who manifests as the
world and further it is said that from Him the unmanifest prakrthi constituted of three
gunas originated. If Kapila smrthi is taken as authoritative these smrthis will be of no

Ramanuja says that it is true that the meaning of vedanta texts are not understood by
those with limited knowledge because the subject matter of those texts, being Brahman,
is beyond perception and other means of cognition. But there are many smrthis
composed by competent and reliable persons elucidating the purport of the vedantic
texts and there is no need to resort to the works such as Kapilasmrthi which are
opposed to the vedanthic view.

Even the smrthis like that of Manu which are said to deal with the karamkanda they
inculcate all the works only as the worship of the Supreme self.'yathah
pravrtthibhoothAnAm yEna sarvam idham thatham svakarmaNA tham abhyarchya
siddhim vindhathi mAnavah,' (BG.18-46) which means, man achieves the highest by
worshipping Him, from whom all beings originate and by whom all are pervaded, through
his own actions. In vishnupurana the following text 'yaih svakarmaparaih nATHa
narairArADHithO bhavAn, thE tharanthyakhilAm EthAm mAyAm
AthmavimukthayE, ' meaning, by those who worship you, Oh Lord, with their own
works this maya is transcended. So even the smrthis which enjoin the various works for
getting result in this and other world, actually emphasise the performance of the same
works as an offering to the supreme self.

Ramanuja concludes by saying “yadhuktam "rshim prasootham kapilam" ithi
kapilasyaApthathayA samkirthanAth thathsmrthyanusArEN a
vEdhAnthArThavyavas THApanam nyAyyam ithi--thadhasath; brhaspathEh
sruthismrthishu sarvEshAm athisayitha jnAnAnAm nidharsanathvena
samkirthanAth thathpraNeethEna lOkAyathEna sruthyarTha vyavasTHApana
prasakthEh ithi”

What the passage means is this: If the smrthi of Kapila is to be accepted as being
authoritative on the basis of his being mentioned as competent in the svethasvathara
upanishad and the vedanta texts have to be interpreted in accordance with it, then, it
would follow that Brahaspathi being mentioned as the most competent and wise person,
the atheistic and materilistic view of the smrthi composed by him should be held as
being authoritative as well. What Ramanuja means is that just as the materialistic and
atheistic view, that of the ChArvAkas, cannot be accepted being opposed to vedas,
similarly the Kapila smrithi also cannot be accepted.

But the opponent says since Kapila by his yogic perception had intuited the truth his
view must be true. The next suthra answers this.

Suthra-2-ithrEshAm cha anupalabDHEh- 2-1-2

Because of the no perception of others of the view

Manu and others also had yogic perception but they did not come to the same
conclusion as Kapila. Hence, Ramanuja concludes that the theory of Kapila is
based on misconception.

This is the end of smrthyaDHikaraNam
yOgaprathyukthyaDHi karaNam

Suthra-3-EthEna yOgah prathyukthah- 2-1-3

Here by the yoga is refuted

The doubt that even though the sankhya smrthi may be rejected, the yoga smrthi can be
taken to be authoritative in as much as it recognizes Isvara, as the one who directs
pradhAna and also because it was propounded by Hiranyagarbha and proclaimed to be
in accordance with the vedantic texts.

This view is refuted by the suthra as this smrthi is also based on error. Ramanuja gives
the following reasons for rejecting the yoga smrthi.

1. The praDHAna and not Brahman is mentioned as the cause of the world.

2. Isvara is cited only as the efficient cause.

3.The yoga of meditation on the self and the Isvara as outlined in the yoga smrthi is
avaidhic, contrary to vedas, because the self is not brhmAthmaka, ensouled by
Brahman, and the Isvara who is only the efficient cause is not the Brahman of vedanta ,
endowed with infinite auspcious qualities and the cause of the world.

4. The one who expounded the smrthi, namely Hiranyagrbha is himself a created being
and liable to the influence of rajas and thamas.

Hence, yoga, which is also based on error, cannot be used to support the vedanthic
texts. Thus ends the yOgaparthyukthyaDHi karaNam.

vilakshaNathvADHika raNam- 2-1-3

Suthra-4-na vilakshaNathvAth asya thaTHAthvam cha sabdhATH- 2-1-4

World being of contrary nature to it, Brahman cannot be the cause and this is known
from the scriptures also.

This suthra and the next are poorvapaksha suthras. Here the opponent resorts to
tharka, reasoning, to prove that Brahman is not the cause of the world. The reason
given for this is that the world is full of sorrow, insentient, impure and contrary to
Brahman , who, according to the vedantin, is omniscient, omnipotent, free from
imperfections and possessed of infinite auspicious qualities. This difference is not only
known through perception but also from the scriptural texts like
'samAnE vrkshE purushah nimagnO aneesayA sochathi muhyamAnah, (Svet.4-7)
In the same tree the individual self immersed in sorrow grieves, being overpowered by
his own helplessness. ‘and ’aneesaschAthmA baDhyathE bhOkthrbhAvAth, the
individual soul, not being master of itself, gets bound, with the concept of being an
enjoyer. (Svet.1-8) As it has been shown through experience that the cause is not
different from the effect in nature by the example of pot and clay, gold and ornaments
etc. Therefore the cause of the world can only be praDHAna of sankhya.

Further the poorvapakshin says that even though the scripture is said to be independent
of any other pramANa because of its content being something beyond the sense
experience, it has to be explained in accordance with tharka. He quotes from
Manusmrthi 'yastharkENa anusanDHatthE sa Dharmam vedha nEtharah, only who
investigates dharma by means of reasoning, understands it and none else.' ( Actually
this is only half the verse and Ramanuja quotes the full verse in a later suthra in reply to
this.) Moreover the sasthra, verbal testimony, as a valid means of cognition requires
three conditions, namely, AkAnkshA, expectancy, sannidhi,proximity and
yOgyatha,compatability and hence these are to be proved by tharka.

Now it requires a little explanation as to what these three conditions mean. There are
three valid means of cognition, namely,
Inference- anumAna and
Sabda- verbal testimony
Which generally means the vEdha, accepted by both sankhya and visishtadvaita, though
advaita cites three more, namely, upamAna, comparison, arthApatthi, presumption and
anupalabDHi, noncognition. Of these, the sabdhapramANa requires the above
mentioned conditions for validity. AkAnksha, expectancy is the inability of a word to
convey the meaning of a sentence without other words. For example,' a cow, a horse a
man,' is not a meaningful sentence without some other word denoting their connection.
Sannidhi is juxtaposition which means that a sentence will be meaningful only when the
words are uttered in quick succession and not with long intervals. YogyathA is
compatibility in the meaning of the words. For instance, the sentence 'sprinkles with fire'
is not valid because of the incompatibility between the words 'sprinkling' and 'fire.'

The opponent presupposes an argument by the vedantin that the causality of Brahman
being determined on the basis of sruthi texts sentiency must be present in the world,
which is the effect, and hence saying that the world being insentient it cannot be the
effect of Brahman is not correct. Even in the case of pot etc, sentiency is present but as
in the case of deep sleep and swoon it is not manifest and this is the difference between
sentient and insentient beings. To this the poorvapakshin answers that when something
is always absent it only proves its nonexistence. Since the sentiency is not present in the
inanimate objects it proves that they are not sentient. To have potency which is never
exhibited is like the procreative power of a barren woman. T say that just because the
causality of Brahman is established through the sruthi the sentiency is present in
inanimate things and because it is present it proves the causality of Brahman, is based
on mutual dependence which cannot be ascertained. It is not possible to show the
relationship of cause and effect between two things which are basically different.

Of course there cannot be similarity of all the characteristics between the cause and the
effect in which case the effect will not differ from the cause but the essential
characteristic persists in the cause and effect which distinguishes it from other things as
clay is distinct from gold.It cannot be argued that the sattha, existence is the
characteristic that persists in Brahman the cause and the world ,the effect, because the
essential characteristics’ of Brahman such as being free from defects, having knowledge
and bliss as HIs nature and the Lordship are all not found in the world and hence
brahman cannot be the material cause.

It may be argued that the relationship of cause and effect is seen in the world between
things of different nature as in the case of the hair and nails, which are insentient,
coming out of the sentient being, or the scorpion originating from cow dung or from the
sentient spider the insentient web coming out. But the poorvapakshin disagrees, saying
that even in these cases only the insentient part of the cause persists in the effect.

There is a fresh objection to the view of sankhya put forward now. In the scriptures it is
seen that sentiency is attributed to the insentient things as in the texts such as 'tham
prthivee abraveeth' the earth said to him, 'ApO vA akAmayantha,' the waters desired,
etc. To this the next suthra replies.

Suthra-5-abhimAnivy apadhEsasthu visEshAnugathibhyAm -2-1-5

But the reference is to the presiding deities.
It is found in the scripture passages such as 'hanthAham imA thisrO dhEvathAh,'
(Chan.6-3-2) where fire, water and earth are denoted as deities which means the
presiding deities of these elements. Also in AithrEya Aranyaka
‘AgnirvAg bhoothvA mukham prAvisath, Adhithyaschkshurbho othvA akshinee
prAvisath,vAyurprAN ObhoothvA nAsikE prAvisath,
Fire became speech and entered the mouth, the sun became the sight and entered the
eyes and the wind became the vital air and entered the nostrils, where the fire, sun and
the wind are the presiding deities of the sense organs.
The opponent concludes by saying that since the world consists of insentient beings
Brahman cannot be the cause of it, which has been proved from the scripture and
reasoning and hence praDHAna is the material cause.

Suthra-6-dhrsyathE thu-2-1-6

But it is seen to be so.
The argument that Brahman cannot be the cause of the world because it is different from
Brahman is not correct. In the world there are examples of the cause and effect being
different as worms is seen to originate from honey and the scorpion from cow dung. The
explanation that the insentient part in both only has the relationship of cause and effect
is wrong. As per the contention of the opponent the characteristic which distinguishes
the cause from others must be present in the effect. But it is not so in the examples
cited. So the world, even if it is assumed to be different from Brahman, could have
originated from Brahman.

Suthra-7-asadhithi cheth, na, prathishEdfhamAthra thvAth-2- 1-7

If the effect is said to be nonexistent in the cause, no, it is only denial of similarity and
not of oneness.
If the world and the Brahman, though different are related as cause and effect it would
mean that the effect was not existent in the cause, says the opponent. But this suthra
refutes it saying that, it is only the similarity between the two is denied as an essential
requisite and not the oneness of the cause and effect. Brahman is the cause which is
modified into the effect, the world, which is not different from Brahman in reality.

Suthra-8-apeethou thadvath prasangAth asamanjasam- 2-1-8

Since at the time of dissolution the cause becomes the effect the causality of Brahman is
not admissible. In dissolution the effect becomes the cause and if Brahman is the cause
it becomes one with the effect. In that case all the imperfections of the world will adhere
to Brahman. Then all the vedantha vakyas like
'yassarvajnah sarvavith,''apahathapApmA ,vijarO vimrthyuh,' etc will become
meaningless, says the opponent. This difficulty, he says, cannot be got rid of by
claiming the body- soul relationship between Brahman and the world and explaining that
as the imperfections of the body do not affect the soul, those of the world do not touch
Brahman, because, the very relation ship is untenable. If it is assumed to be so, the
defects of the world, as the body of Brahman will affect Brahman also. Moreover sarira is
the result of karmaphala while Brahman is free from karma. Vedanta texts also clearly
describe Brahman as not having a body 'apANipAdhO javanO grheethApasyathyach
akshuh srnOthyakarNah, (Svet.-3-19) He moves and grasps without feet and hands,
sees, hears without eyes and ears. Since He has no indhriyas to enjoy any experience
He cannot have a body which is the seat of enjoyment.

Nor can it be said that the body is that which is subservient and controlled by the will of
the sentient soul and exists for its use, (that is seshathva) says the poorvapakshin. The
body which is injured or dead does not obey the will of the soul inside and the puppets
which are controlled by a sentient being do not constitute his body.
Hence the sarira sariri bhava cannot be accepted and if it is accepted the imperfections
of the world will find a place in Brahman.

Suthra-9-na thu dhrshtAnthAbhAvAth- 2-1-9
Not so. because of examples.

The imperfections of the world do not affect Brahman and the contention that the
vedanta texts are not valid in proving the causality of Brahman is not correct. It is seen
that the imperfections of the body do not adhere to the soul and the same entity can
remain with and without defects in two different states. The defects of the body like old
age, disease etc are not found in the self and the attributes like joy and sorrow are not
found in the body. Such as the state of childhood, youth etc belong only to the body, the
imperfections of the world do not belong to Brahman who is the inner self. When
Brahman expands and contracts by creation and dissolution, these changes are only
with respect to the world of sentient and insentient beings and do not affect Brahman.

To say that the sarira-sariri bhava of brahman and the world is not appropriate, says
Ramanuja, is only a kutharka, malicious reasoning on the part of those who do not
understand the real significance of the scriptural texts which are substantiated by logical
reasoning. There are enough evidence in the scriptures to prove the sarira-sariri bhava.
In BrhadhAraNyaka upanishad the passages beginning from
'yah prthivyAm thishTan ---Yasya prthivee sariram,(Brhd.3-7)
He who is in earth as its inner self,'(Brhd. 3-7-12) and ending with 'yah Athmani
thishTan---- yasya Athma sariram, who is in the individual soul as its inner self and of
whom the individual soul is the body, enumerates each sentient and insentient entity and
declares the sarira-sariri bhava of Brahman. In Subakla upanishad also similar passage
is found ending with
'Esha sarvabhoothAntharAt hmA apahathapApmA dhivyO dhEva Eko nArAyaNah,
This is the divine Lord Narayana who is free from evil and the inner self of all.

The definition of body as the instrument of enjoyment of the fruit of actions as given by
the opponent is not correct, says Ramanuja. The declaration of earth etc as the sarira of
Isvara does not satisfy this definition. The sarira of the released souls also fall outside
the scope of this definition since there is no karma for them. The body assumed by the
supreme self in His manifestations is not made of elements and hence the body cannot
be said to be a combination of five elements to cite pradhAna as the cause. Again the
body can neither be defined as that of which the five vital breaths are the source of life
because in the case of the plants, though they have life, the five vital breaths have no
place in them. Nor is the body the abode of indhriyas or cause of joy and sorrow always,
as can be seen in the case of body of stone or wood acquired through curse like that of
Ahalya and others.

Therefore the body is to be defined as a substance which is in subordinate relation to a
sentient soul, to be used for the purpose of that soul and controlled by it. In the injured
body the power of control is obstructed as heat of fire etc. are obstructed by external
agents. A dead body is not fit to be called as such since the soul has left and it is only a
congregation of matter.Hence the whole universe of sentient and insentient beings
constitutes the sarira of the Lord, who controls and supports it for His purposes and
which is totally subservient to Him.

Suthra-10-svapkshad hOshAccha- 2-1-10

Also because of defects of the poorvapaksha view

This suthra points out the discrepency in the view of sankhya that the praDhAna is the
cause of the world. PraDHAna, that is, prakrthi, is said to create the world by the mere
proximity of purusha ,who in his turn gets bound due to the superimposition of the gunas
of prakrthi on him, while purusha is said to be chinmAthra,pure intelligence free from all
changes. Now, Ramanuja asks, 'nirvikArasya chinmAthra rupasya
prakrthidharmAdhyAs ahethubhootham prakrthisannidhAnam kim rupam ithi
vivechaneeyam. ' This means, it has to be made clear what exactly causes the
superimposition of the attributes of prakrthi on the changeless purusha. Is it the very
existence of prakrthi or any modifications in it or in purusha. It could not be due to
changes in purusha who is changeless. The prakrthi is said to undergo modifications
and create the world due to the superimposition on the purusha and therefore it is the
effect of the changes and hence cannot cause them. If on the other hand it is the mere
existence of prakrthi and its proximity that causes the superimposition, there would be
no question of release because of the permanent existence of prakrthi near
purusha.Hence the sankhyan view is not rational.

Suthra-11-tharkApra thishTAnAdhapi- 2-1-11

Because of defective reasoning (of sankhya and others)

Brahman is the cause of the world as established by sruthi because the reasoning of
sankhya is defective. The arguments of all the other schools like nyayavaiseshika,
buddhists, jaina and sankhya are mutually conflicting and have to be set aside.

Suthra-12- anyathAanumEyam ithi chethEvam api anirmOkshaprasangah -

Even if it is said that the discrepancies can be resolved by different arguments the
difficulty cannot be surmounted.

The opponent claims that the criticisms of other schools could be quashed by adopting a
different way of argumentation but this suthra refutes this. Any theory dependent on
reasoning ability can always be outdone by a cleverer opponent. In matters which
transcend the sensory perception only the sasthra can be authoritative. Ramanuja here
quotes from Manusmrithi which says ‘Arsham DharmOpadhesam chavedhasAsthra
aviroDHinA, yas tharkENa anusanDHatthE sa dharmam vedha nEtharah, (the same
text partly quoted at the outset by the poorvapakshin) he alone knows dharma, who can
support the teachings of the rshis on it, in accordance with the scriptures.' Hence,
concludes Ramanuja, the praDHANakAraNavadha of sankhya is to be dismissed being
contrary to the scriptures.

Thus ends vikajshaNathvADHika raNam.

sishtAparigrahADHIk araNam-2- 1-4

Suthra-13-EthEna sishtAparigrahA api vyAkhyAthah 2-1-13

By this the remaining systems of philosophy are also explained.

All the other schools, namely, nyAya, buddhism, jainism etc are also refuted by the
argument that mere reasoning cannot establish any theory against that of the vedas.
Although these systems are against sankhya, being based on the causality of atoms, the
nature of atoms and the process of creation are different in each and hence all are
refuted being contrary to the vedas.

BhOkthrApathyaDHika raNam-2-1- 5

Suthra-14-gothrApat thEh avibhAgascheth- -syAllOkavath- 2-1-14

If it is said that being the enjoyer will make Brahman non-different from the
individual self, no. as can be seen in the world.

The argument of the opponent is that if Brahman has the sentient and the insentient as
His body he will be embodied like the individual soul and will be the enjoyer of joy and
sorrow. If it is said that this has already been answered in the earlier suthra
'sambhOgaprApthirit hi chenna visEshyAth,'(BS.1-2-8) it was only with reference to
Brahman meditated as being with in the heart. But Brahman having a body like the jiva
the contingency of experiencing joy and sorrow will arise as in the case of the individual
self. This has been confirmed by the sruthi also saying 'na ha vai sasarirasya sathah
priyApriyayOh apahathirasthi, asariram vA va santhamna priyApriye sprsathah,'
that as long as the soul is in the body there is no escape from joy and sorrow but when
he leaves the body there is no contact with joy and sorrow.Brahman being the material
cause, the nature of cause and effect being the same, as in the case of mud and clay or
gold and ornaments, the imperfections of the world will affect Brahman also.Therefore
the theory of causality of pradhAna of sankhya alone is valid.

This view is refuted by the suthra saying that there is difference between the individual
soul and Brahman as we can see from the experience in the ordinary life. The joy and
sorrow are caused by merit and demerit and not due to the embodiment alone. Since
Brahman has no karma and hence no bondage resulting from karma even though
having the subtle and gross universe as HIs body, He is not the enjoyer of sukha and
duhkha.. We see that in ordinary life, the king is not affected by the punishment meted
out to his subjects though he is also embodied like them. Like wise the Lord also being
the dispenser of the fruit of actions to all, is not affected by them.

Ramanuja quotes from DhrmidabhAshyakAra to illustrate this point.
'yaTHAloke rAjaprachuradhantha sookE GHOrE anarTha sankatE api
pradhEsEvarthamAnah vyajanAdhyavaDHooth adhEhah,'
just as a prince staying in an uncomfortable infested with mosquitoes etc does not feel
the discomfort being fanned and given all comforts by his attendants, so too the Lord is
not touched by the defects of the world, His power acting as the fan,'thaTHA asou
lOkesvaah bhramathsAmarthya chAmarah dhOshairna sprsyathe.' As the sruthi
vakyas ascertain that brahman is free from imperfections and changes the comparison
with clay and gold is not applicable. Thus ends the bhokthrApathyADHika raNam.

ArambhaNADHikaraNam -2-1-6

Suthra-15-thadhanan yathvam ArambhaNa sabdhAdhibhyah- 2-1-15

The non-difference is known from the texts beginning with the word
After answering the criticism of sankhya of the causality of Brahman and establishing
that Brahman is the material and efficient cause of the world, now the view of Naiyayika,
logicians, is taken up.
According to the naiyayaikas the cause is totally different from the effect and hence this
school is diagonally opposite to that of sankhya. The arguments to show that the effect is
different from its cause are given as follows:
1. BuddhibhEdha the cause and the effect are two different concepts.
2. SabdhabEdha -the cause, thanthu, the thread and the effect. pata the cloth are
called by different names.So are the clay and the pot etc.
3. kAryabhEdha- the purpose is different for both. Water is not carried by clay nor the
hut is constructed by pot.
4. kAlabhEdha- the cause belongs to the past and the effect to the present.
5. AkAra bhEdha -the form is also different.
6. sankhyAbhEdha- difference in numbers, the lump of clay being one and the pots are
many and the cloth is one while the threads are many.
7. KAraka vyApara vyarThyam- If the cause and effect are one then there is no need
of the process of transformation of the cause into effect.

If the effect which is eternally existent in the cause requires a causal operation to make it
manifest, then as manifestation requires another manifestation it will run into infinite
regress or if the effect is independent of manifestation it will be perceived eternally. In
simple terms what this means is that if the effect exists already in the cause then it must
be perceived without the causal operation, the need of which proves that the effect is
something produced anew. To the argument that if the causal operation is for producing
something which did not exist before then the process of weaving can produce a pot,
naiyayaika replies that it is not so. The cause has the potentiality to produce only that
effect which it is capable of. What they mean is this. The potency of producing a pot
exists in the clay but the pot produced, that is, the effect, is something new and not a
mere transformation of the cause.

Advaitin here interrupts and says that there is identity between the cause and the
effect because the cause alone is true as claimed in the text
'vAchArambhaNam vikArah nAmadDHEyam mrtthikEthyEva sathyam,'(Chan.6-1-
4) because the effect is only an appearance due to avidhya. As the clay alone is real and
the pot etc. is only names and forms, similarly, the attribute less Brahman alone is real
and the effect, the world is unreal. It cannot be said that while in the case of shell-silver
and rope-snake which are proved to be unreal by later sublation the things of the world
are not sublated. Since it is only the clay etc which persists throughout while the effects
like pot are destroyed, it is said to be real. Similarly the cause, Brahman alone is real
and the effect the world is unreal. But it is not unreal in the sense of a non-existing thing
like the horn of a hare and hence it is said to be sadhasadhvilakshana, or
anirvachaneeya, indefinable.
Advaitin further says that only to show that the cause alone is real it is said that clay etc
are only real and the effects, pot etc. are unreal but strictly speaking even the causal
substances in the world are unreal as Brahman alone is real. This is confirmed by the
texts such as
’EthadhAthmyam idham sarvam thathsathyam, (Chan.6-8-7)
all this has that as self and that is true,
''nEha nAnAsthi kimchana,(Brhd.4-4-19)
there is no plurality,'
'Yathra hi dvaithamEva bhavathi thadhitharaitharam pasyathi, yathra thu asya
sarvam Athmaiva abhooth thath kEna kam pasyEth.(Brhd.2-4-13)
Where there is plurality there one sees another, but when all became the self how one
will see and whom?'
It could not be argued that the perception denies this because the sruthi is the stronger
means of cogntion of the two. The unreality of the world does not make the individual
soul also unreal because it is identical with Brahman as could be seen by texts such as
'anEna AthmanA anupravisya nAma rupe vyAkaravANi(Chan.6-3)
will enter with this self and make name and form,'
'Eko dhevassarvabhoothEs hu goodah sarvavyApee sarva bhoothAnthrAthmA,
That self is hidden in all beings, pervading all and the self of all
‘nAnyathO asthi dhrashtA,' (Brhd.3-3-23) there is no other seer.

The opponent of advaitin, here, naiyayika, says that if Brahman is the self of all, the joy
and sorrow of any one embodied being will be experienced by all and besides there will
not be any distinction between the teacher and student and released and bound souls
This is explained away by the advaitin saying that the individual souls are only the
reflections of Brahman as the faces reflected in the mirror. As the defects of the mirror
seem to adhere to the face reflected, the joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure etc. only
belong to the reflection on account of the reflecting medium, namely avidhya. In reality
the individual self is not different from Brahman and not different from each other and
free from impurities but seem to be so because of the limiting adjuncts due to avidhya.

Advaitin is questioned whether the illusion of the difference and the imperfections of the
reflection is due to the avidhya or to the individual self or Brahman.It cannot be avidhya
which is insentient. It cannot be the individual soul as the existence of the individuality of
the soul is itself the effect of avidhya. If it is Brahman then it would be the abode of
avidhya, which is contrary to the sruthis. Moreover to say that Brahman, which is pure,
non-differentiated and self-illumined, is affected by avidhya and sees plurality in itself is
contrary to all valid means of knowledge. There can be no valid argument to contradict
that the cause is different from the effect on the basis of the unreality of the effect.

The argument that the cause alone is real because it persists while the effect is unreal
because it is perceived and destructible is not sound, says the naiyayika. It has been
proved earlier that the absence in one place and time does not preclude the presence of
the object elsewhere at different time. And, the quality of being perceived and being
destructible is not the criterion for proving that it is unreal but it only shows its being not
permanent. A thing is unreal only if it is sublated at the same place and time and hence
the pots and other things as well as the individual self are real only.

If everything else except Brahman is unreal then even the scriptural learning is futile as
the scriptures also belong to the realm of avidhya and all endeavors to attain release will
also be in vain as it is based on the knowledge of the scriptures. So is all the reasoning,
put forth to prove that Brahman is undifferentiated, as it is based on avidhya. The vedic
declarations are claimed to be true on the basis of the absence of any sublation but that
alone cannot prove the validity because if there is a later declaration by some authority
that everything is a void, that will be taken to be true in the absence of any later
sublation. Hence the conclusion is that the effect is real and different from the cause
and, the world, the effect is real and different from Brahman, its cause.

Thus the poorvapakshin rests his argument and the refutation of it by the suthra
is explained by Ramanuja.

The suthra refers to the passages beginning with the word 'ArambhaNa,' namely
'vAchArambhaNam vikArah nAmadhEyam mrthikWEthyEva sathyam,' followed by
'sadhEva soumya idhamagra Aseeth,EkamEva adhvitheeyam, the Being only was at
the beginning ,one only without a second' and 'thadhaikshatha bahusyAm parajAyEya
thatthEjo asrjatha, it willed to become many and created fire,' and 'anEna rupEna
AthmanA anupravisya nAmarupE vyAkaravANi, I will enter along with this individual
self and make names and forms,' and the passage ends with 'EthadhAthmyam idham
sarvam thath sathyam thathvamasi svEtha kethO, all this is ensouled by Brahman
that is the truth that thou art svEtha kethu.' These texts confirm the non-difference of
Brahman from the world which exists in the relation of body and soul with Brahman.

This is the purport of the whole passage beginning with the question whether
Svethakethu has learnt all that is to be learnt and when he answered in the negative, the
father instructs him, saying that by knowing that everything is known as by knowing the
clay all its effects like pots are known etc., thus showing that Brahman is the cause of
the world and also non-different from the world, its effect.

For the sake of activities such as fetching water etc the clay attains a new name and
form but the substance persists as clay only. Therefore it is said that the clay alone is
true as it persists even when the name and form is lost. Ramanuja says that the

'mrtthikEthyEva sathyam' means 'pramANEna upalabhyatha ithyarTHah, na thu
dravyAntharathvEna; athah thasyaiva mrdhiraNyAdhEh dhravyasya
samsTHAnAntharabhAv athvamAthrENa buddhisabdhAnthrAdh ayah
upapadhyanthE, yaTHaikasyEva dhevadhatthasya avasTHA bhedhaih
bAlah,yuvA,sTHavira h ithi buddhisabdhAntharAd hayah kAryAvisEshAscha

This means as follows:

The clay or gold alone is known to be true through valid means of cognition because the
pots, ornaments etc are not different entities altogether but only another state of
existence of the causal substance just as the same individual Devadattha is seen to
change into different forms such as a boy, youth, old man etc according to different
stages in life.

When the pot is destroyed only the particular form is destroyed and not the substance,
as it exists as potsherds and other forms but the clay persists in all stages and hence the
argument that origination and destruction makes the effect a new substance is not
correct. To say that if the effect pre-existed in the cause then its origination is
meaningless, says Ramanuja, is the argument of the one who has no knowledge of
origination and destruction. What originates is only a different form of the cause and that
alone is destroyed. Hence the sathkAryavAdha, that is the effect is real and non-different
from the cause, is not affected. It is not also correct to say that if a nonexisting form of
the cause is originated it is asathkAryavAdha because the same sustance is cognised as
existing through out as when the clay becomes pot it gives up its previous form only and
again when broken assumes the form of potsherds.

Then Ramanuja proceeds to explain the passage beginning with 'sadhEva soumya
idham agra Aseeth,EkamEva adhvitheeyam, sath alone was in the beginning one
only without a second.' This means that the world of sentient and nonsentient beings
was in the beginning one only without names and forms. One only without a second
shows that Brahman which is denoted as 'sath' is the material as well as the efficient
cause. This and the next statement' it willed to become many,' proves that the world is
non-different from Brahman. Then 'anEna jivEna AthmanA anupravisya nAmarupE
yvAkaravANi, denotes that Brahman is the self of all. This is also stated in the text
'thath srshtvA thadhEva anuprAvisath thadhanupravisya saccha thyaccha

Brahman being the self of all the whole world of sentient and insentient beings
constitutes the body of Brahman and hence the imperfections of the body cannot adhere
to the soul, that is Brahman who is free form evil and the abode of all divine attributes.
Ramanuja quotes from other scriptural texts also to prove the non-difference between
Brahman and the world, that is, between the cause and the effect- 'sarvam khalu
idham brahma,'(Chan.3-14- 1) all this is brahman 'nEha nAnasthi kimchana' (Brhd.4-
4-19) there is no plurality here, 'yathra hi dvaitham iha bhavathi thadfhithara itharam
pasyathi,yathra thvasya sarvam Athmaiva abhooth thath kEna kam pasyEth,'
(Brhd.2-4-13) where there is plurality one sees another but when all has become his self
what he will see, by whom? That is, non-difference is only real.

Thus all words denote Brahman only as the sentient and insentient beings are His
modes being His sarira, says Ramanuja, 'chidhachitvasthu sarirathayA thatprakAram
brahmaivasarvadhA sarvasabdhAbhiDHEya m.' When the sentient and the insentient
are in subtle state nondistinguishable by name and form it is the causal state,
kAraNAvasTHA and when they are in gross state cognisable by name and form it is the
state of effect,kAryAvasThA. Hence the world is not different from Brahman.

Ramanuja dismisses the theory of unreality of the world saying that in that case the non-
difference between the cause and effect cannot be established. Like wise he sets aside
the views of bhEdhAbhEdhavAdhin also as being in conflict with the declarations of
sruthi smrithi and purANas.

All sruthi along with smrthi and puraNa proclaim in one voice that the Lord of Lords, all-
knowing all -powerful, of infallible will, free of blemish, not conditioned by place, time or
entity, of unlimited transcendental bliss, as the one supreme cause.

Ramanuja quotes from several texts to prove the above declaration especially from
Mahanarayana upanishad
‘EkO ha vai nArAyaNa Aseeth na brahmA nesAnO nEmE dhyAvaprthivee na
nakshatrANi nApOnAgnirna sOmO na sooryah,'
There was no other deity than Narayana in the beginning, as Brahman and narayana are
synonymous in visishtadvaita. Ithhasa and purana also confirm this, says Ramanuja,
quoting from Manu the text beginning with 'thathah svayambhoorbhagavAn, the self
manifested Lord,' and continuing to say, 'apa EVa sasarjAdhou thEshu veeryam
apAsrjath, He created waters and planted His seed into it.'
To the possible objection that the effects are known to be different on account of the
different terms and ideas and as such they cannot be merely different states of the same
entity. This is answered by the next suthra.

Suthra-16-bhAvE cha upalabDHEh-2- 1-16

Because the cause is seen in the effect

In the ornaments of gold, the cause, that is gold, is recognized and not any other cause
such as clay. Therefore as in the case of Devadatta, who is recognized in all his different
stages of childhood, youth and old age, the cause itself exists as the effect in a different
state. Even the naiyayika who claims that the effect is different, acknowledges the
different state of the effect as compared to the cause, which alone accounts for the
difference in name and form and hence there is no need to assume that the effect is a
new substance.

Ramanuja refutes the view that the similarity of the cause and the effect is due to the jati,
that is the generic property or due to the inherent cause, the samavayi karana, because
both disprove the origination of a different effect. While it is said that scorpion etc are
perceived to emerge from cow dung in which the opponent sees no continuation of the
causal substance, Ramanuja says that it is the earthen element which persists as the
body of the worms or scorpion. Then the opponent comes up with the argument that in
smoke there is no presence of fire to which Ramanuja replies that it is the contact with
wet fuel that is the cause of smoke, which is recognized to persist in the smoke through
smell, and not fire. Therefore it is proved that the cause and the effect are not different.

Suthra-17-satthvAth cha aparasya-2-1- 17

Because of the existence of the effect in the cause

The effect exists in the cause as proved by such statements as 'all these pots were clay
in the morning.' Similarly it is said that sath alone was in the beginning.

Suthra-18-asadvyapa dhEsAth na ithi chEth na; dhrmAnthrENa;
vAkyaseshAth yukthEh sabdhANhrAccha

It cannot be said that the effect was non-existent in the cause on account of the
declaration 'asadhEva idham Aseeth 'nonexistence was in the beginning because it
was due to another attribute, from another subsequent text, by reasoning and by other

The attribute of being the world of nama and rupa was alone nonexistent in the
beginning, as the pot was nonexistent as such, before its creation and by its name. From
the subsequent passage that the nonexistent created, willing to become,
'thadhasdhEva samabhavOakurutha syAm ithi, ' it is proved. Reasoning also makes
us say that the pot exists when it is seen in the particular shape and that it does not exist
before its creation when it is present in the form of clay or when it is broken into pot
sherds. Also from another text which says 'kuthasthu khalu soumya Evam syAth, how
can this come about,' thus dismissing the asath as the cause and establishing that the
existence only was there, 'sadhEva soumya idhmagra Aseeth.'

Suthra-19- patavaccha-2- 1-19

And like the piece of cloth.

As the threads alone bear the name of a cloth in their state of effect Brahman becomes
the world in its kAryAvasthA.

Suthra-20 yaTHA cha prANAdhih-2- 1-20

Like prANA etc'

Just as the same life breath assumes different names like prANA APana etc within the
body, Brahman being one only manifests as the variegated world. Therefore, concludes
Ramanuja, 'paramakAraNAth parasmAth brahmaNah ananyathvajagathah
siddham, the world is not different from the supreme cause, namely the supreme

Thus ends Arambhanadhikaranam

itharavyapadhEsAdhi karaNam-2- 1-7

Suthra21-itharavyap adhEsAth hithAkaraNAdhidhOsh aprasakthih- 2-1-21

The 'other' (individual soul) being stated (as non different from Brahman) the defects of
not doing what is beneficial will accrue.(to Brahman)

This suthra is of the nature of poorvapaksha. An objection is raised on the basis of the
texts such as 'thathvamasi','ayam Athma brahma,'etc. declaring identity of the
individual soul with Brahman. The opponent says that if the soul is identical with
Brahman, the latter would be responsible in creating a world not conducive to welfare to
its own self as the world contains the thApathraya,namely,, Adhidaivika,Adhibouthika
and AdhyAtmaika , the three ills arising out of destiny, elements and own attitude and

The sruthi texts denoting the difference have been relinquished by those who profess
identity. (This criticism seems to be directed against advaitin.) If it is said that the
difference is due to adjuncts, upADHi, which is denoted by the differential texts while the
natural identity (the view of the bhEdhAbhdhavAdhin) is stressed by the texts of identity,
the opponent puts a question. If Brahman is aware of the identity it could not have
created the world full of suffering for itself and if Brahman is unaware, it will be against
the sarvajnathva, omniscient nature of Brahman. If the difference is due to ajnAna,
ignorance, it should be real difference if the soul is the abode of ajnAna, and ajnana
cannot rest with Brahman, who is self-illumined, the light of which when concealed by
ajnana will result in self destruction of Brahman who is of the nature of light.

The next suthra answers this objection

Suthra-22-aDHikam thu bhEdha nirdhEsAth-2- 1-22

Because of the difference stated Brahman is something more

The sruthi refers to brahman as being something more than the individual soul by texts
such as 'ya Athmani thishTan Athmanah antharah yam AthmA na vedha yasya
AthmA sariram ya AthmAnam antharO yamayathi sa tha AthmA
antharyAmyamrthah, (Brhd.3-7-22) He who is in the Atman and whom Athma did not
know etc. and in the passage 'dvAsuparNA' it is said 'thayOh Ekah pippalam svAdhu
atthi,' of the two birds, Brahman and the individual self, the latter eats sour and sweet
fruit, meaning that it experiences joy and sorrow while the other, Brahman looks on,
without being affected. Hence Brahman is different from the individual self.

suthra -23-asmAdhivath cha thadhanupapatthih- 2-1-23

Identity is impossible as in the case of stones etc.

Just as the stones, logs and other inanimate things are different from Brahman in the
same way the individual self is also different. The nature of Brahman, says Ramanuja, is

'niravadhya- nirvikAra- nikhilahEyaprathyan eeka-kalyAnaikat hAna-svEtharasam
sthavasthuvilaks haNa-ananthajnAn Anandhaikasvarup a- nAnAvidha anantha
mahAvibhoothi brahmasvarupa, '
Faultless, changeless, free from all evil, abode of auspiciousness, of infinite bliss
and has such multifarious glory as His svarupa.
Both the insentient objects and the sentient souls are different from Brahman because
of, the imperfections of the insentient and joy and sorrow experienced by the sentient
soul. The non-difference of the cause and effect is true in respect of Brahman and the
world, on account of the world, devoid of names and forms existing in subtle state, which
is denoted by the causal state of Brahman, the same when manifested in gross state
with names and forms is Brahman in the state of effect. This is what is expressed by the
sathkAryavAdha by the passage beginning with 'sadhEva soumya idham agra
Thus ends the itharavyapadhEsADHi karaNam

Suthra-24-upasamhAr a dharsanAth na ithi cheth, na , ksheeravath hi-2-1-

If it is said that Brahman cannot create without external aid, it is not so, as can be
seen in the case of milk.

After establishing that Brahman, the inner self of all, having the chit and achit as HIs
body is not in any way hampers His omniscience, infallible will and being different from
everything, now, this suthra shows that the creation by mere will is not in any way

The opponent says that in the world it is always seen that the agent of production, who
represents the efficient cause, is able to produce anything only with the help of external
materials such as clay, gold etc. The material cause is always different from the efficient
cause and hence Brahman cannot be both material and efficient cause.

The suthra refutes this by citing the example of milk. It is seen that the milk changes
into curd without any extraneous material. Similarly water turns into ice without any
external aid. Any substance that is added to milk for instance to make curd out of it is
only to hasten the process. Likewise Brahman becomes the world, by itself.

Suthra-25-dhEvAdhiv adhapi lOkE-2-1-25

Even like devas in their own worlds.

As the devas create by their will in their own worlds Brahman can also create through his
will. upasamhAradharsanAD hikaraNam ends

krthsnaprasakthyaDH ikaraNam- 2-1-9

Suthra-26-krthsnapr asakthih niravayathva sabdakOpO vA-2-1-26

Brahman becoming the world is against the declaration of the sruthi that Brahman is
without parts.

This again is a poorvapaksha suthra. The opponent says that if Brahman, said to be
without parts from the texts like 'Eka Eva adhvitheeyam ' etc. becomes the world, it
would mean that either it has parts which become the sentient and the insentient or the
whole Brahman is transformed into the world. In either case it will oppose the texts that
say Brahman is without parts, one only without a second etc. hence Brahman cannot be
the cause of the world. This objection is set aside by the next suthra.

Suthra-27-sruthEsth u sabdhamoolathvAth- 2-1-27
There is no discrepancy because of the powers of Brahman declared in the

Brahman is declared by scriptures to be without parts and also of possessing wonderful
powers. So it cannot be generalized on the basis of worldly experience because in the
case of matters beyond the sensory perception scripture alone is the authority.

Suthra-28-Athmanich aivam vichithrAsch hi-2-1-28

The self also has different properties that the insentient matter.

It is seen in the world that fire and water have special characteristics different from each
other and so is the sentient self is different from the matter and possesses special
powers. Similarly Brahman has supreme powers.
In Vishnupurana ParAsara answers the question,
'nirgunasyApramEyas ya suddhasyApyamalAthm anah kaTHam sargAdhi
karthrthvam brahmaNObhyupagamya thE,
How can the creation be attributed to Brahman who is attribute less,
immeasurable and pure,' as follows
“sakthayah sarva bhAvAnAm achinthyajnAna gOcharah, yathO athO brahmaNah
thAsthu sargAdhyA bhAva sakthayah, bhavanthi thapathAm sreshTa pAvakasya
The numerous powers of Brahman beyond all thought are the nature of Brahman as the
heat is to the fire which makes the actions like creation possible.

The sruthi also says, 'kim svidvanam ka u sa vrkhsha Aseeth yathah
dhyAvAprthivee nishtathakshuh, ' which is the woods, what is the tree from which
the heaven and earth were created and supplies the answer as 'brahma vanam
brahma sa vrksha AseedhyathodhyAvApr thivee nishtathakshuh,' Brahman is the
woods and the tree from which the heaven and earth were fashioned. Hence the general
observations do not hold good in the case of Brahman whose power is supreme and
different from all else.

Suthra-29-svapaksha dhOshAccha- 2-1-29

Brahman as the cause is indisputable because of the defects of the view of the
opponent also.

The objection that Brahman cannot be the cause of the world because of being devoid of
parts holds good on the part of the opponents also. PraDHAna of sankhya and the
atoms of naiyayika are also without parts. This difficulty cannot be surmounted by the
sankhyan contention that the three guNas are the parts that combine to produce the
world, says Ramanuja, because if the gunas are constituents of praDHAna they must be
included under the thathvas giving rise to evolution, but they are not specified so, and if
praDHAna is the effect of the guNas then the claim that praDHAna is the primal cause
will be disproved.

Suthra-30-sarvOpEth A cha thaddharsanAth- 2-1-30

Brahman is denoted as being endowed with all powers.

The powers of Brahman are confirmed by the sruthi texts such as
'para asya sakthih viviDhaiva srooyathE svAbhAvikee jnanabalakriyAcha,
His powers are supreme and His knowledge, might and action are spontaneous.
'(Svet.6- 8) and that Brahman differs in nature from all else is denoted by the text
'apahathapApmA vijarOvimrthyuh vishOKO vijiGHathsO apipAsah,
Free from evil, oldage, death, grief, hunger and thirst,' and then
'sathyakAmah sathyasankalpah,
Of infallible will and wish,' which shows His supreme power.(Chan. 8-1-5)

Suthra-31-vikaraNat hvAth na ithi cheth thadhuktham 1-2-31

If it is objected on account of being without organs, it has been explained.

The objection is raised based on the declaration

' na thasya kAryam karaNam cha vidhyathE, there is no effect nor any instrument for
Him,' and Ramanuja says that the answer has been already given in the suthra
'sruthEsthu sabdamoolathvAth, ' (BS.2-1-27) the power of Brahman being based on
the sruthi which shows the difference of Brahman from all else. The text
'pasyathyachakshuh srNothyakarNah,' proves that Brahman has no need for sense
organs being omniscient and omnipotent.

This is the end of krthsnapraskthyaDHi karaNam

prayOjanathvADHikar aNam-2-1- 10

suthra-32-na pryOjanavathvAth- 2-1-32

Brahman is not the cause because of the absence of motive

This suthra is one of poorvapaksha. The opponent says that even though Brahman may
be endowed with supreme powers there is no motive for His creating the world, being
Himself avApathasamastha kAma, one who has no unfulfilled desire. Usually things are
produced in the world either for one's own use or for that of others. The first alternative is
shown to be absent because Brahman is avApthasamasthakAma and the second also
can be disproved. If Brahman creates for others it must be as an anugraha or for
showering grace in which case He would not have created this world full of sorrow, as
He is full of mercy. The next suthra replies to this.
Suthra-33- LOkavatthu leelAkaivalyam- 2-1-33

The creation is a leela, a sport as in the world.

A king who has everything undertakes some action as a mere sport, so also Brahman
creates sustains and annihilates this world as a mere sport.

Suthra-34-vaishamya nairGrNye na,sApEkshathvAth thaTHA hi
dharsayathi- 2-1-34

Partiality and cruelty cannot be, considering other reasons, also declared by

An objection is raised based on the previous suthra that if the creation is a mere sport for
Brahman He will be charged with partiality and cruelty in creating a world full of
inequalities and making the beings suffer. But the scripture declares that Brahman takes
into consideration the karmas of the souls in creating the different conditions of the
beings in the world.

'sAdhukAree sAdhurEva bhavathi pApakAree pApo bhavathi,,
'A man becomes good by good work and bad by bad work.' ('Brhd.3-2-13)

Suthra-35-na karma avibhAgAth ithi cheth na,anAdhithvAth
upapadhyathEcha apyupalaBhyathE cha-2-1-35

If it is said that there was no karma in the beginning, it is not so because karm is anAdhi,
beginning less, which is reasonable and according to scriptures’.

The objection that in the beginning only Brahman alone existed and hence no karma can
be attributed to the first being created is answered that the individual souls and their
karma are beginningless. The sruthi confirms this by saying 'na jAyathE mriyathE va
vipaschith. The sentient soul is neither born nor dies,'(KatO. 1-2-18) and
'sooryAchandhramaso u DHAtha yaTHA poorvam akalpayath, (Brhd.3-4-7) the
creator created the sun and the moon as before. In the Bhagavatgita we find he verse
'prkrthim purusham chaiva viddhyanAdhee ubou api, know that the prakrthi,
insentient nature and purusha, the sentient self to be beginningless.

Ramanuja concludes the argument by saying,
'athah sarvavilakshaNathvA th sarvasakthithvAth leelaika prayOjanathvAth
kshEthrajnakarmAnug uNyEna vichithrasrshtiyOgA th brahmaiva jagathkAraNam.

That is, Brahman alone is the cause of the world, because of being different from all,
being all powerful, having sport as the sole purpose and created the world in accordance
with the karma of the individual souls.
Suthra-36-sarvadhar mOpapatthescha- 2-1-36

Because all the attributes are proved in Brahman

Since all the attributes essential for being the cause of the world are proved in Brahman
which are shown as being absent in praDHAna or atoms, Brahman is the cause of the
world of the sentient and the insentient.

Thus ends the prayojanathvADHikar aNam

The end of the first pAdha of the second aaDhyAya of sribhAshya

RachanAnupapatthi aDHIkaraNam 2-2-1

RachanAnupapatthEsc ha nAnumAnam pravrtthEscha- 2-2-1

That which is inferred cannot be the cause because of the impossibility of
construction and of the activity.

In the previous sections the objections raised against the causality of Brahman were
refuted and the cause of the world of the sentient and the insentient has been
established as being Brahman only. Now the theories of the nonvedantic schools are
examined and refuted in order to establish firmly the view that Brahman is the only
cause of the world.

Ramanuja gives the reason for demolishing the views of others whose theories
are nonconforming to that set out in the scriptures as otherwise through clever
reasoning it might lead some dullwitted persons to believe that these views are

First the theory of sankhya is taken up which, Ramanuja says, is in accordance with
the sathkAryavAdha of the scriptures and hence may lead to misconceptions.

Ramanuja quotes from Sankhya kArika of Isvarakrishna, whcih is at present the basic
authority on Sankhya philosophy.

moolaprakrthih avikrthih mahadhAdhyAh prakrthivikrthayah saptha
shodasakascha vikArO na prakrthirnavikrthir purushah (SK.kArika-3)
The meaning of the karika is as follows: the moolaprakrthi, premordial nature, which
is changeless, is the cause and not the effect of anything. There are seven entities which
are both evolvents and evolutes..Namely, mahath, ahamkara, and the five thanmathras,
while the indhriyas, eleven in number and the five gross elements are only evolutes,
totalling to sixteen and the purusa, the sentient soul is neither an evolvent nor an evolute

The prakrthi or pradhana of sankhya is constituted of three gunas, satthva, rajas and
thamas, which are of the nature of light, action and inertia respectively. The three
attributes are in a state of equilibrium before creation and the purusha has no action or
attributes.The prakrthi by the sheer nearness of the purusha starts the creation which
results in the intermingling of the gunas which are otherwise in equilibrium. From the
moola prakrthi the mahat or buddhi is produced and from that the ahamkara. According
to the three gunas the ahamkara is of three kinds sathvik, rajasik and thamasik. From
the sathvik ahamkara, the five jnnendhriyas and the five karmendhriyas and the manas
are created. From the thamasik ahamkara the five thanmathras, that is, the five
elements in their subtle form are created which in their turn produce the five gross
elements. The rajasika ahamkara is only assisting the other two being the fountainhead
of activity.

Purusha is the sentient soul different in each sarira. Due to ignorance the attributes of
prakrthi are superimposed on the purusha who imagines himself as the doer and enjoyer
identifying himself with the three gunas of prakrthi. Just as the crystal appears red due to
the nearness of a red flower the activity of prakrthi is identified with purushsa, whose
sentiency is superimposed on prkrthi in its turn. By the knowledge of the prakrthi and its
evolutes the purusha understands that he is different from it and this is the apavarga,
release of Sankhya. The causality of pradhana is based on anumana, inference and by
demolishing of the reasoning of Sankhya thus dismisses the whole theory of the
causality of pradhana. This adhuikarana of first padha of the second chapter of the
Brahmasuthra sets out to accomplish just that.

The argument of the sankhyas to prove that pradhana is the cause of the world is as

There must be one primal cause for everything as otherwise there will be infinite regress
because a causal substance producing an effect through its parts is itself created from
its parts which in turn from their parts etc. The process does not end even in the case of
atoms which also must have parts to combine. So a primal cause such as pradhana
which has for its constituents the three gunas in equilibrium alone will have the power to
produce this variegated world by the combinationf of the gunas. This is shown in the

bhEdhAnAm parimAnathsamnvayAt h sakthithah pravrtthEschakAraNa kArya
vibhAghAth avibhAghAth vaisva roopyasya, kAraNam asthi avyaktham (SK.karika-
15, 16)
The unmanifest cause (prkrthi) exists because of the finite nature of specal objects,
homogeneity, evolution being due to the efficiency of the cause, the differentiation
between the cause and effect and the merging of the whole world of effects in the cause
in dissolution.

The world being an effect it must have a cause which is similar to its nature and hence
the unmanifest prakrthi constituted of the three gunas must be the cause, as everything
in the world is made up of three gunas. Sankhyan justifies this by saying that it is always
seen the the effect is of the nature of cause as in the case of pots and ornaments.since
the thathvas like mahath and ahamkara are also finite it points out to a cause which is
unmanifest with gunas in equilibrium, that is, before their combining to produce the finite

This suthra refutes the argument of sankhya by saying that the pradhana of sankhya,
referred to as 'that which is inferred' is not the cause because of the impossibility of
construction and of the activity.

Pradhana being insentient cannot be the cause of the world as it is seen that any causal
activity involves a sentient being. Wood and other materials cannot transform
themselves into palaces or chariots without the operatiion of a sentient soul. The three
gunas, sathva rajas and thamas are only the causes of light, action or inertia and they
cannot produce effects. The whiteness of a cow is not its cause but a quality. Similarly
sathva rajas and thamas are also qualities and not substances. And that is why they are
called gunas.

The contention that there must be only one cause is also disproved by their own theory
that the world is created from the three gunas and not one.The gunas are also said to be
unlimited and hence being all pervading they cannot become less or more to combine
and create the world.

Suthra2-payOmbuvacc hEth thathrApi-2- 2-2

If it is said that it is like milk or water there also.

Sankhyan answers to the above objection that it needs a sentient principle to create,
that in the case of milk and water it is seen to transform without any aid of sentient
principle. That is, the milk becomes curd and the water which is of same taste being
discharged from the clouds, when taken in by the plants, is transformed into juices of
different tastes in cocoanut, palm ,woodapple and other fruits. Similarly the pradhana
also, though of homogeneous before creation changes into different objects due to the
disturbance in the equilibrium of the gunas. This is indicated in the sankhya karika as
'pariNAmathah salilavath prathiprathiguNAsra yaviseshAth'

(SK-16) the pradhana changes according to the gunas like water.Therefore pradhana is
capable of creation unaided by a sentient principle.
This is refuted by the suthra. Even on the case of milk and water there is no creational
activity without the intelligent agent, meaning that even the plants need some one to
take care of them and milk does not become curd without someone adding curd into
it.Moreover, that there is a sentient principle even in inanimate things has already been
shown by the scriptural texts such as those which say that it is Brahman who is inside
earth and other entities as their inner controller and self. Even the suthra 'upasamhAra
dharsanAth na ithichETh na ksheeravath' (BS.-2-1-24) where it is said that Brahman
does not need any external aid like milk turning into curd is only to denote the supreme
power of Brahman and not to dismiss the presence of sentient principle as Brahman is
the sentient principle required for creational activity.

Suthra-3- vyathirekAnavasTHIT Heh cha anpEKshathvam- 2-2-3

Pradhana being independent of any guiding sentient principle there will always be
creation and no possibility of pralaya at all. So pradhana must be controlled by brahman
and hence cannot be the sole cause of the world. But the opponent says that if Brahman
who is described as avAPthasamasthakAma, with no desire, of nature of bliss etc. is
the cause of the world the defects like cruelty and partiality will accrue to Brahman. But,
says Ramanuja, which the creation is like sport and the inequalities are due to the karma
of the individual souls, is already explained in the earlier suthra.

The opponent now comes with the question, if the state of bondage and release and
the inequalities in various beings are all due to karma then what is the function of
Brahman in creation and annihilation? On the other hand it is pradhana which acquires
different forms and states according to the karma of the individual self which explains the
differences in experiences and hence pradhana is fit to be the cause of the world.

To this Ramanuja says, the opponent is ignorant of the nature of merit and demerit,
puNya and pApa, which are responsible for the karmaphala. This cannot be understood
unless one learns the sathras. It is said in the scriptures that the puNya and pApa
consists of the actions like worship etc which please the LOrd and the actions that
displease HIm are pApa.His grace and retribution are the fruits of action resulting in joy
and sorrow
'Paramapurusha aArAdhana rupEkarmaNee puNyApuNyE;thadhanu
grahanigrahAyatt hE cha thathphale sukah duhkE'
Hence the Lord who has infallible will, with no desires, omniscient omnipotent and of the
nature of bliss etc. is the dispenser of the fruits of actions and bestows on all beings the
body and other instruments to work out their karma, as effortlessly as a sport. There is
no question of cruelty or partiality in administrating justice. As the punishment for a crime
is to check the tendencty of evil, so too His retribution is for redemption, as it is said in
the Bhagavatgita,
'thEshAm sathatha yukthAnAm bajathAm preethipurvakam dhadhami
buddhiyogam tham yEna mAm upayAnthi thE;thesham EvAnukampArTHam aham
ajnAnajam thamah nAsayAmyAthmabhAvas THah jnANadheepEna bhAsvathA.'
The lord says that He gives jnana to those who resort to Him with devortion by
destroying their darkness of ignorance out of compassion by the light of wisdom.
Therefore pradhana cannot be the cause of the world. The opponent argues that
pradhana can transform itself without a sentient principle like grass and water changes
into milk in a cow. The next suthra answers this.

Suthra-4-anyathraab hAvAccha thrnAdhivath- 2-2-4

Not like grass etc because milk does not exist other than cow.

The example is not correct as the grass etc does not turn into milk when eaten by a bull
or when not eaten at all. It is the sentient agent, the cow which turns the grass into milk.

Suthra-5-purAsmavat h ithi cheth thaTHApi-2-2- 5

If it is said like man and the stone that also

It is argued by the opponent that even though the pradhana is insentient and the
purusha is actionless, the creation takes place by the mere proximity of purusha which
induces the pradhana to is commonly found in the world also as a blind man
who could not see is able to move about with the help of a lame person whom he carries
on his shoulders.Similarly the magnetic stone, though actionless attracts the iron by its
mere proximity. In the sankhykarika it is said
'purushasya dharsanArTHam kaivalyArTHam thaTHA praDHAnasya,
pangvanDHavath ubhayOrapi samyogah thathkrthassargah.'
In order that the individual self, purusha may perceive pradhana and (knowing himslf
different from it) obtain his release the two are connected like a lame and a blind
persons would and hence the creation.

The suthra refutes this also as being inappropriate. The examples cited do not prove
the point. The lame and the blind persons are both sentient souls, one is able to guide
and the other is able to move.In the case of the magnetic stone and the iron they need to
be brought close by someone in order that attraction will result.Moreover the pradhana
and purusha being always near to each other there will always be creation which will be
eternal and no release.. If the purusha is ever free there will not be any creation at all.

Suthra-6-angithva anupapathescha- 2-2-6

The relationship of principal and subordinate is not appropriate.

It is maintained by the opponent that the creation takes place by the overpowering of
one guna of the others resuting in the variegated world. But in pralaya all the three
gunas are in equilibrium and hence cretion cannot take place.If there is inequality even
then there willbe creation always. So the prdhana cannot create without a sentient
Suthra-7-anyaTHA anumithou cha jna sakthi viroDHAth-2- 2-7

Any other inference is futile as pradhan is insentient

This suthra dismisses all reasoning to establish the causality of pradhana by saying that
since pradhana can never be the cogniser, that is, not sentient, it cannot be the cause.

Suthra-8-abhyupagam E api arTHAbhAvAth- 2-2-8

Even so because of absence of purpose

The purpose of pradhana as being working for the enjoyment and release of the purusha
is inadmissible. Purusha is actionless, pure intelligence, immutable and pure. Thus it is
not possible for him to get bound or to get released. If it is due to the nearness of
pradhana, its being always near, there will never be release for the purusha.

Suthra-9-viprathish EdhAth asamanjasam- 2-2-9

sankhyan theory is untenable because of contradictions

The theory of sankhya is summarily dismissed by this suthra as being full of

1. Purusha who is pure intelligence, free in reality, actionless and changeless is said to
get bound by the gunas of prakrthi which is the cause of both the bondage and release
of purusha.

'sanGHAtha parArTHathvAth thriguNAdhiviparyay aaDHIshTAnATH
purushoasthi bhOkthrbhAvAth kaivalyArTHapravrtt hEScha' (SK.17)

The purusha exists because the the aggregates of the gunas are created for the sake of
another,that is purusha,who is free from the gunas and is the controlling agency of the
gunas and their enjoyer and who aspires for release.

2. The prakrthi alone is said to be bound and released and not purusha.
’ThasmAnna baDHyathE asou na muchyathE nApisamsararthi kaschith,
samsarathi baDhyathE cha nAnAsrayA prakrthih' (SK62)
As mentioned earlier the prakrthi and purusha are connected like the lame and the blind
where the prakrthi creates for the sake of enjoyment of purusha and for his release,
while the purusha who is indifferent becomes the doer due to mutual superimposition of
the gunas of prakrthi and the sentiency of purusha.

Ramanuja now explains the discrepancies in the theory of sankkhya
1. The doership etc due to superimposition cannot happen with respect to purusha due
to his being changeless and indifferent because even the illusion of superimposition is a
change Prakrti also cannot be the doer and enjoyer because it is insentient.
2. Purusha being changeless, mere proximity of the prakrthi will not result in
superimpostion as, if it happens, it will be permanent on account of the prakrthi being
always proximate.

3. The prakrthi is said to be benevolent,and acts for the good of the purusha in many
ways with her three gunas while purusha is devoid of attributes and does not confer any
benefits on praskrthi, that is he is indifferent.
'nAnAvdhArupAyaihup akArNi anupakAriNah pumsah,gunavathagun asyasathah
thasyARTHamapArTHak am charathi.' (SK.60)
Ramanuja asks, if the prakrthi alone is bound and released (vide kArikA62) then why is
the prakrthi said to be helping purusha who is ever free?

4. The prakrthi .as a dancer after exhibiting herself on the stage for the sak of purusha
withdraws as the dancer would after she has been seen.
rangasya dharsayithvA nivarthathE narthakee yaTHA nrthyAth, purushasya
thTHAthmAnamprakAsy avinivartthathE prkrthih.' (sk.59)
Ramanuja says this is inappropriate because purusha being ever free and changeless
will never perceive the prakrthi nor experiences superimposition. prakrthi being
inanimate cannot see itself. If all this is attributed to the mere proximity, which exists
always there, will be eternal perception of each other as both purusha and prakrthi are

Therfore concludes Ramanuja that due to all these discrepancies the theory of causation
of the sankhyas is refuted. This is the end of rachanAnupapathyaDH ikaraNam.

MahddheerGHADhikara Nam-2-2-2

Suthra-10-mahaddhee rGHavathvA hrasva parimandalAbhyAm- 2-2-10

Even so the theory of big and long produced from short and atomic (of the nyaya
vaiseshaikas) is untenable.

The theory of causation of sankhya has been disproved on the basis of being fallacious
and now the causality of atoms are taken up for refutation. The school of
Nyayavaiseshaikas claim that the atoms are the cause of the world and the atom is
invisible and indivisible and are the ultimate cause which creates the world by combining
into dyads and triads. Two atoms combine and become a dyad which is also invisible
and denoted by the term hrasva 'short.' three dyads combine to make a thrayaNuka or
thrasarENu at which stage it becomes perceivable and acquires magnitude and hence
referred to as dheerGHa and mahath, long and big. In this manner gross elements are
created and the process goes on till the world of objects is produced.
The suthra refutes the theory of atoms itself and hence the view of
Nyayavaiseshika that the world has originated from atoms. They say that the atoms
have no dimension and no parts in which case they cannot combine and even if they do,
since atoms do not have dimension there would not be any question of short,long etc.
Ramanuja explains this as follows:

The things consisting of parts like threads combine in all their six sides with each other
to produce a piece of cloth. So also the atoms must have parts in order to combine to
become dyads etc. Otherwise the atoms being without dimension even a thousand
atoms combining would not produce any magnitude of long, short etc. If on the other
hand it is admitted that they have parts, then those parts must have originated from
other parts and thus will result in infinite regress.

Vaiseshika may object that since this would mean the atoms having infinite parts there
would not be any difference between a mustard seed and a mountain to which
Ramanuja replies that the atoms having no dimension the very idea of a mustard seed
or a mountain itself is impossible as nothing bigger than a paramanu can be produced.
Then the vaiseshika asks 'what is the solution,' to which Ramanuja replies

'vaidhikah pakshah parigrhyathAm !' meaning, they have no alternative than to accept
the view of the vedanta that Brahman is the cause of the world.

Suthra-11- ubhayathAhapi na karmAthah thadhAbhAvah- 2-2-11

On both assumptions there can be no motion and hence no creation.

The atoms are supposed to be set in motion by adhrshta or unseen principle which must
abide either in the atoms or in the individual soul and this suthra says that both
assumptions are untenable.

Adhrshta, the unseen principle is the effect of karma on the part of the individuals which
is causal for the creation and this cannot abide in the atoms. Adhrshta abiding in the
individual cannot be responsible for the motion in atoms. If it is due to the contact of the
atoms with the individual soul, the adhrshta being beginningless there will be always
creation. But the opponent may say that since the fruition of karma differs in respect of
time there cannot be creation forever. This presents a difficulty as the pralaya cannot be
explained as all the karma of all the souls cannot fructify at the same time for the
creatiion to stop. The will of the Lord also cannot be cited as the cause of this because
the Isvara of Nyayavaiseshika is inferred, and cannot be proved, as already shown in the
suthra 'sAsthraonithvath' (BS.1-1-3) Therefore the causality of atoms is disproved.

Suthra-12-samavAyAb hyupagamAccha sAmyAdhanavasTHitjh Eh-2-2-12

Because of the concept of samavaya there results an infinite regress.

SamavAya or inherence is one of the seven catagories, padhArTh as of
nyayavaiseshikas. Categories are the classification of everything in the world which falls
into one of the seven, namely, substance, quality, action, genarality, peculiarity,
inherence and non-existence. Out of these, samavaya, inherence, is a concept peculiar
to the system of Nyayavaiseshika. It is explained thus. Samavaya, inherence, is the
eternal relation between two things inseparable as the substance and quality, motion
and moving object, genus, jati and the individual belonging to the jati,etc.
The suthra refutes the concept of samavaya on the basis of infinite regress. As
samavaya explains the relation between two things inseparable the relation of samavaya
to the things that are made inseparable by its presence must be also by samvaya and
thus it results in infinite regress, anavasTHA. If it is said that the inseparable connection
is the nature of samavaya and hence does not need another connection to explain it,
Ramanuja argues that the same naure of connection can be attributed to the two things
which are inseparable by nature.

Suthra-13-nithyamEv a cha bhAvAth-2-2- 13

Because (the world) would be eternal

According to the nyayavaiseshikas samavaya is eternal and if the connection is eternal
the things connected are also eternal and hence the world will be eternal.

Suthra-14-rupAdhima thvAccha viparyayO dharsanATH-2- 2-14

Because the atoms possessing colour etc. will prove the contrary.

The atoms of four kinds are said to create the world, namely those of air, fire, water and
earth, which possess the peculiar characterstics of the four elements, thaat is, touch,
colour, taste and smell. And the atoms are claimed to be eternal and partless. If they
possess the characterestics of colour etc they cease to be eternal and partless as all the
things that have these qualities are found to be non-eternal and have parts. This is
contradictory to the concept of atoms professed by the nyayavaiseshakas.

Suthra-15-ubhayaHA cha dhOshAth-2-2- 15

As there is objection in either case

On the other hand if the atoms do not have colour and other qualities they cannot be the
cause of earth and other elements. So either way the theory of atoms being the cause of
the world is refuted.

Suthra-16-aparigrah Athcha athyantham anapEkshA-2- 2-2-16

Since it is not accepted it is completely rejected

The thoery of sankhyas advocated by KAPILA, is accepted partly by the followers of the
Vedas because of its sathkaryavAdha, though it has been proved to be contrary to the
vedic concepts. But the theory of atoms, expounded by KaNadha, the founder of
vaiseshika, is totally rejected. Thus ends the mahaddheerGhADHikar aNam.
SamudhAyADHikaraNam -2-2-3

Suthra-17-samudhAya ubhayahEthukE api thadhaprApthih- 2-2-17

Even with the aggregate with two causes it is unestablished.
After refuting the atomic theory of the nyayavaiseshika the Buddhist realist school who
also believe that the atoms are the cause of the world is taken up. There are four
schools of Buddhism first two being realists and the other two being idealists and
nihilists. The realists belong to the hinayana sect of buddhism while the other two belong
to the mahayana school. The realist theory is taken up now and refuted.
Ramanuja himself classifies the four schools of Buddhism by saying,
'the chathurviDhAh; kechith pArthiva Apya thaijasa vAyaveeya
paramAnusangGHAthar upAn bhoothabouthikAn bAhyAn chitthachaaittharup
Amscha abhyantharAn arTHAn prathyaksha anumAna siddhAnabhyupayanth i'.
They are of four kinds.
Some hold the view that all external things, elements and their products, and all internal
like mind and the mental experiences are all made up of the four atoms of earth,water,
fire and air and they are perceptible and inferrable and real.( vibhAshikas)
'anyE thu bAhyAn arTHAn sarvAnprthivyAdheen vijnAna anumEyAn vadhanthi.'
Others say that the external things like earth etc. are also only inferred.(sauthrAnt hikas)
'aparE thu-arTHa sunyam vijnAnamEva paramARTHa sath, bAhyArTHAsthu
svapnArTHa kalpAh ithyAhuh.'
Yet others say that the reality is only ideas with no corresponding things outward which
are all like things seen in a dream.(vijnAnavAdhi ns or yOgAchAras)
'ThrayOpyEthe svApyupagatham vasthu kshaNikam AchcchakshathE’
All three of them hold the view that all things experienced are momentary. That is, they
do not accept a permanent soul or any permanent entity like AkAsa.
The fourth school, says, Ramanuja, consider everything as non-existent'sarvasunyam.
'(mADhyamikas or sunyavAdhins)
The suthra refutes the view of the first two, sarvAstivAdhins, the realists who
consider everything as the product of the aggregates of atoms and real.

According to the realist schools, there are four kinds of atoms corresponding to that of
earth possessing the qualities of smell, taste, colour and touch, of water which has all
the qualities except smell, of fire which has got only colour and touch, of air with touch
alone. These atoms join in aggregates and produce the four elements which further
forming aggregates to become bodies, sense organs and sense objects. The self is only
the flow of ideas, imagined as the agent of action and enjoyment. This is how the whole
empirical world is created.

The suthra refutes this theory saying that the theory of the aggregates of the atoms
forms the elements and the aggregates of the latter forming the bodies, sense organs
etc., both are untenable. As everything has only momentary existence it is impossible for
the atoms to combine to form an aggregate. Similarly the elements being momentary
cannot form aggregates.Even the ideas being imagined as the knower, is not possible as
the known is lost in a moment and so is the knower,and the one who perceives is not the
one who knows, as both are momentary.Even if it is said the flow of ideas are continous
the idea that exists this moment is not the one that appears in the next moment. That is,
the cognisor and the experincer are not the same.

Suthra-18-itharEtha ra prathyayathvAth upapannam ithi chEth na,
sanGHAtha bhAva animitthathvAth- 2-2-18

If it is said that this could be explained through successive causality, no, because
they cannot be the cause of aggregation

It is argued by the opponent that though all things are momentary avidhya or
nescience is the cause of everything.
Avidhya consists in the wrong notion of permanence in things that are momentary.
From this avidhya springs the samskaras which are mental impressions like raga and
From these arise vijnAna or consciousness through provocation of the mind and from
this chittha, mind and chaittha, mental, the name and form like earth and other
elements possessing rupa, rasa, ganda and sparsa, colour, taste, smell and touch and
from these the shadAyathana or sense organs from which the body called sparsa and
from that vEdhana or feelings arise.This is how Ramanuja explains the theory of the
wheel of causation of the buddhists called pratheethya samuthpAdha. According to
Ramanuja from feelings,vEdhana, the cycle of samsara starts again with avidhya.But the
buddhista add five more to the cycle,thrishNA, desire. upAdhAna, clinging towards the
object of desire, bhAva,beginning of existence,which causes janma,birth,succeeded by
jarAmaraNa,old age and death.All these cannot happen without the aggregates and
hence the theory of aggregates is proved.
The suthra refutes this saying that the concept of successive causality cannot be the
cause of aggregation. Avidhya causing the sense of permanency in things that are not,
and the subsequent causes of avidhya cannot be responsible for forming of aggregates,
no more that the misconception of the shell as silver can cause the formation of
aggregates of shell.Moreover the perceiver of the momentary things as permanent, is
himself momentary and there is no permanent subject to whom the avidhya and its
effects like samskaras,such as desire etc will belong . Ramanuja says that those who do
not accept a permanent abode of samskaras have no right to assume the permanency
of samskaras, 'samskArAsrayam sTHiramEkam dhravyam anabhyupagacchathAm
samskArAnuvritthira pi na sakyam kalpayithum. '

Suthra-19-uttharOth pAdhE cha poorvanirOdhAth- 2-2-19

Because of the cessation of the previous one at the origination of the next

The preceding existence being momentary ceases to exist when the subsequent
existence arises and hence cannot be the cause of the first.Otherwise if the origination
comes about from non-existence anything may be the cause of anything else, like the
pot having momentary existence can give rise to a cow etc. Even if it is said that the
momentarily existing thing can be the cause of only something belonging to the same
species, then the pot that exists momentarily will be the cause of all subsequent pots.
Moreover the thing perceived being momentary no cognition is possible in the next
moment when the thing no longer exists.

Suthra-20-asathi prathijnA uparOdhou yougapadhyam anyaTHA-2-2- 20
If the cause is nonexistent it will be contrary to the proposition. Otherwise there
will be simultaneity.

The difficulty cannot be surmounted by saying that the effect could be produced without
the cause.According to the sauthranthika school of buddhism perpetual cognition is said
to result from four kinds of causes, Alambanaprathyaya, aDHipathi prathyaya,
sahakAri prathyaya and samananthara prathyaya.

Alambanaprathyaya- In the cognition of the object the object should be present.
aDHipathi prathyaya- The sense organ should be in contact with the sense object.
sahakAri prathyaya- The light which illumines the object
samananthara prathyaya-The impression of earlier perception to recognise the object.
Ramanuja says that if there can be effect without a cause everything may originate
from everything else and everywhere and always. Further the proposition of the four
causes will also be contradicted. The principle of aDHipathi prathyaya requires that the
sense organ should perceive the object which is momentary. If the effect comes into
being before the cause is destroyed in order that it is perceived it would result in
simultaneity of the cause and effect, which does not happen as they are not perceived
simultaneously and the concept of momentariness should be given up. If the
momentariness of objects is retained then the contact of the sense organ and the
cognition must be simultaneous.

Suthra-21-prathisan khyA aprathisankhyA nirODha aprApthih avicchEdhAth- 2-2-

Prathiasankhya is not estalished because of the absence of interruption.

The theory of origination of the Buddhists has been refuted in the foregoing suthras and
now their theory of destruction is shown to be untenable.

According to Buddhism the destruction is of two kinds, prathisankhyAnirODHa and
aprathisankhyAnirOD Ha.
The former is the destruction which is perceived such as when the pot is broken by a
hammer. The second kind is that which is not perceived because of the momentariness
of things.
That is, an object is destroyed every moment and another originated in its place but the
destruction is not seen and hence appears to be continous like the flame of a lamp.
The suthra refutes this because of the impossibility of such destruction. Ramanuja
says that the impossible of complete destruction has been proved in the suthra
'thadhanyathvam' (BS.2-1-14) it was shown that the origination and destruction is only
different states of one and the same permanent substance which proves the oneness of
cause and effect. When a pot is smashed it exists as potsherds etc. in another form.
Even in the case of flame the light extinguished exists in another form but being too
subtle, is not perceived.

Suthra-22-ubhayaTHA cha dhOshAth-2-2- 22

In bothcases it is defective.

Neither origination from nothing nor destruction into nothing can be proved.If the effect
originates from nothing it will also be nothing as the effects like pots and ornaments are
seen to be of the same nature of their causes. If the dsetruction is absolute, the world
when destroyed will pass into nothingness and the origination of the world again will be
impossible and even if it is possible a world out of nothingness will not be real. So in
either case the theory of the sauthranthika Buddhism is untenable.

Suthra-23-AKasE cha AVISeSHaTH-2- 2-23

In the case of AkAsa also not being different from others

AkAsa is not a separate element according to Buddhism. This is refuted by the suthra
saying that AkAsa is also proved to be a positive entity as like earth and other elements
the cognition of AkAsa is not sublated and is real.By the expressions 'there flies the
eagle, there flies the hawk' etc denotes the difference in spaces in the AkAsa.

Akasa cannot be mere non-existence of earth and other things because the non-
existence, abhAva must be either antecedent, prAgabhAva or subsequent,
praDHvamsAbhAva or mutual, anyOnyAbhAva or absolute, athyanthAbhAva.The
first is the non-existence of a thing before its origination and the second is its non-
existence after destruction. The mutual nonexistence is when we say ’a pot is not a cloth'
the last one is the non-existence of a thing in the past, future and present

AKasa cannot be the antecedent nonexistrence of things like earth etc. because when
they come into existence there would not be any space at all on the absence of AkAsa.
Neither can it be subsequent non-existence for the same reason as the whole world will
be without space. Mutual nonexistence is also impossible in which case there should not
be any space between two things, but there is. Absolute non-existence is not AkAsa as
the earth and other things are not non-existing absolutely.Moreover the non-existence of
a thing is the counter correlate of a thing which exists.

Suthra-24-anusmrthE scha-2-2- 24

Because of recognition
The theory of momentariness is rejected because of recognition. A thing seen is
remembered and it is recognised as such when perceived again. It cannot be said that
as in the case of a flame the recognition is due to similarity.In the perception of a flame,
it is known to be momentary and different through valid means of cognition but a pot is
not cognised as such. Moreover for the Buddhists even the perceiver is momentary and
if so, a thing perceived by one person cannot be recognised by another. Those who
claim that the recognition is due to similarity must necessarily accept a perceiver who is
not momentary.

The opponent may say that the momentariness is proved by perception and inference in
as much as the thing seen a present moment is different from the one seen in the past
moment as the two have had existence in different times. Moreover, says the Buddhist,
the momentariness can be proved through existence and purposefulness. What does
not exist and not purposeful like the horn of the hare is not momentary on account of

But Ramanuja says that the very arguments given to support the momentariness
serve only to prove the contrary. That which exists and serves a purpose is
permanent while those which are not so like the horn of a hare are not permenent
because they do not exist.Also the perception does not prove the difference of the
present object from the past but only that of the time.

Further the purposefulness will only disprove the momentariness as the thing which
perishes in a moment cannot serve any purpose.When it is seen that at the last moment
of existence of an object like pot, the destruction is due to a visible cause such as
hammer, it means that the object continues to exist till that moment. Also the destruction
is not total but only a change of the state of existence.Therefore the theory of
momentariness cannot explain the recognition, more so because the cogniser is different
from the recogniser, both being momentary. Ramanuja clinches the argument by saying
that the opponent cannot prove his theory at all because the speaker himself is

Suthra-25-nAsathO adhrshtathvAth- 2-2-25

Not from non entity as this is not seen

The theory of momentariness is common to both vaibhAShikas and sauthranthikas for
whom the external things are real. But to the latter the reality is not perceived due to
momentariness but inferred. They now come with an argument that even though a thing
perishes it leaves its impression behind, which causes cognition as in the case of the
cognition of blueness continues even after the blue thing perishes.They argue that the
prior state of knowledge is not always necessary for the subsequent knowledge as
otherwise the knowledge of yellowness will not arise after that of blueness.So the
knowledge of external objects are through inference which can arise evenwhen the
object is non-existent at the moment of cognition.
This view is refuted by the suthra saying that cognition cannot arise from non-existence
because it is not perceived.Ramanuja explains this as follows: It is not the common
experience that a thing, when it ceases to exist, leaves its attributes on another. Even a
reflection lasts only as long as the image remains in front.

Suthra-26-udhAseenA nAm api chaivam siddhih-2-2- 26

And thus there will be attainment without effort

This suthra refutes both the realistic schools of buddhism by saying that if everything is
momentary,the result would be attained without effort as the one who experiences the
result would be different from the one who acts.Therefore the doctrines of these two
schools are untenable. Thus ends the samudhAyADHikaraNam.

UpalabDhyaDHikaraNa m-2-2-4

Suthra-27-nAbhAva upalabDHEh-2- 2-27

Non-existence is not true because of experience

The two hinayAna schools of buddhism have been refuted by the foregoing
adhikaranam. Now the yOgachAras or vijnAnavAdhins, one of the two schools of
mahayAna buddhism is refuted by this suthra.Both the two branches of buddhism are
similar as far as the theory of momentariness is concerned but to the hinaYana
buddhists the external things are real while for the mahAyAna schools they are not.
While the mADHymikas or sunyavadhins follow the middle path the yOgAchAras declare
that no external objects exist in reality and all that exists is consciousness. Ramanuja
calls them vijnAnamAthraasthit hvavAdhins and starts refuting their view in this suthra
which says that the non-existence of external things is not accepted because they are

Ramanuja says that it is not possible to deny the existence of the external objects
because they are experienced. The cognition in the form of "I know the pot" serves as a
means to realise the object in the practical sense. It is ridiculous,says Ramanuja, to
claim that the knowledge alone is real when the very verb 'jna', to know, is related to a
subject and an object.This fact is also confirmed in the worldly experience. Here
Ramanuja equates the buddhistic view with that of advaitin, whom he calls pracchanna
bauddha, buddhist in disguise, though he appears to support the veda and says that the
claim that only consciousness is real has been refuted already in the cricicism of

Further, Ramanuja declares that the contention of the vijnAnavAdhin that the
sahOpalamBHa or the simultaneous perception of the object and its knowledge implies
that they are one which disproves his own statement.
The external objects according to the vijnAnavAdhin appear as real being illuminated by
the light of knowledge because, he says, the knowledge always shines in the form of
object only. That is, the knowledge is objective. But we are always conscious of the
object along with the cognition of it.In other words the idea of an object and the object
are one and the same and hence the idea alone is real which appears as though it is
external. This is what Ramanuja criticises by saying that by this the buddhist disproves
his own statement since two things being together only means that they are real and
different.So it is meaningless to say that the cognition of a thing is not different from that
thing itself.

The contention that the cognition of external objects arises from a ceaseless flow of
mental impressions is not acceptable because the continuity of mental impresssions
cannot be established. The theory of momentariness means that the knowledge is also
momentary and hence undergoes continous destruction. Therefore the knowledge
existing at the previous moment cannot produce that of the subsequent moment. This
shows that the variety in knowledge can only be due to the variety of externally existent

Suthra-28-vaiDHrmyA ccha na svapnAdhivath- 2-2-28

Because of difference in nature, not like dream

Buddhist says that the reality of objects is not proved by perception. As the object in
dream appear to be real to the dreamer so also the objects in the waking state appear
as real but they are not.This view is refuted by the suthra.
Commenting on this suthra Ramanuja says that the knowledge of the things in the
waking state is different from that in the dream because the latter is sublated in the
waking state. The knowledge is inferred by the Buddhist to be devoid of objects because
it is knowledge, but Ramanuja points out that even this inference is knowledge and it has
an object. So it cannot be concluded that the knowledge has no object in general.
Suthra-29-na bhAva anupalabDHEh- 2-2-29

The existence is not on account of non-perception

The existence of mere cognition devoid of objects is never perceived. Moreover such
knowledge will never be cognised as even in the dream the knowledge exists only with a
subject and an object.Thus the view of the yOgachAra or vijnAnavAdhin is refuted.This
is the end of upalabDhyadhikaraNa m.

SarvaTHA anupapatthyaDHikara Nam2-2-5

Suthra-30-sarvaTHA anupapatthEscha- 2-2-30

Because it is not proved in any way
The nihilist, mADHyamika comes forward to present his view that everything is a void.He
professes that this is the true meaning of Buddha's teachings and the theory of
momentariness which implies the reality of external things were admitted in order to suit
the limited intellect of his disciples..Since Buddha said that the world has no beginning
and no end, the mADHyamika argues that it has no middle either.In other words this
world is non existent. Causality is only an illusion because creaqtion is not possible
either from existence or from non-existence.

The mADHyamaika’s theory of causation is that nothing is created because a thing
cannot be created anywhere out of itself or out of another thing or from itself as well as
another nor can it be causeless. This is explained as follows:

A pot cannot be produced from mud unless it is destroyed and also production is not
possible from a non- existent cause.

A thing cannot be produced from itself since it already exists in the cause and needs no
further action to produce it.

If a thing cannot be produced from an entirely different cause as in that case anything
may be produced from anything else. So everything is sunya.

Ramanuja proceeds to examine the arguments of the mADHyamika inorder to refute
them in accordance with the above suthra 'sarvaTHA anupapatthEscha. ‘That is, the
view is unproved in all ways.

Ramanuja does not agree with the view that sunya is the only reality.Saying
everything is sunya, 'sarvam sunyam'they disprove their own theory because the word
sarvam, all, denotes the existence of things only. In worldly experience, the expressions
like existence, non-existence and the respective knowledge regarding them are all
reated to the different conditions of existent things only.

Sudarsanasuri elucidates this point further in his commentary to sribhashaya by saying
that potness is existent with respect to pot but non-existent with respect to potsherds
and vice versa.

Ramanuja concludes by saying that the sunyavada cannot be proved by any pramAna
as this would mean accepting the existence of the pramAna which goes against the
theory that everything is nonexistent, sunya. So, he says, the view of the mADHyamika
is summarily rejected.

Thus ends the sarvaTHAanupapatthy aDHikaraNam and with it the refutation of
Buddhist theories of causation

Ekasmin asambhavADHikaraNam -2-2-6

Suthra-31-naikasmin asambhavAth- 2-2-31
Jaina theory is refuted because of impossibility of contrary attributes being in
same place.

After the refutation of the Buddhist theory of causation the Jaina view is taken up next as
they too believe in atoms being the cause of the world.

The Jaina theory of causation is based on their concept of jiva, individual soul and
pudgala, matter and the interaction between the two. The universe is made up of jivas
and ajivas. Pudgala or matter is the material cause and the different bhAvakarmas or
thought processes are the efficient cause of the world.As jivas are sentient beings they
cause the bhAvakarmas. As a result of interaction between the souls and matter the
creation takes place.The world consisting of jiva and ajiva, sentient and insentient, is
without Isvara and consists of six components, namely, jiva, ajiva, dharma, adharma,
pudgala, and AkAsa.

The jivas are classified as baddha, bound, yOgasiddha, perfect through yOga and
muktha, released. Dharma is the all-pervading substance which is the cause of motion
while adhrma is that which causes rest. Pudgala is the matter consisting of substances
with attributes of colour, taste, smell and touch. It is of two kinds, paramANurupa, in the
form of atoms and sanGHAtharupa, in the form of the four elements and bodies of living
creatures etc. Time, kAla is also atomic and the cause of the concept of past, future and
present.AkAsa is one occupying infinite space.

The substances other than those that are atomic are called asthikAyas and five in
mumber, namely, jiva, dharma, adharma, pudgala and AKAsa.These are called
astikayas because they have form and occupy several parts of space.

The unity of the matter and soul is the cause of bondage.The process of bondage and
liberation is as follows. It is termed as 'jivAjivAsravabandh a nirjarasamvar mokshAh'
to quote Ramanuja. The attitude of the mind resulting in the four passions of krOdha,
anger, lObha, greed, mAna, pride and mAyA, delusion is the bhAvabhanDha, and the
actual influx of karma into the soul is called dravyabanDha. This state when the kArmic
particles flow to the soul through the passions is known as Asrava, and when they
actually bind the soul it iscalled banDha. By following right faith and right conducy and
acquiring right knowledge it is possible to stop the fresh karma from flowing in, which
stage is called samvAra and exhausting the already existing karma is nirjara. When the
last particle of karma is exhausted and the soul becomes separated from matter and
shines in its pristine nature of infinite knowledge and bliss.These five stages together
with jiva and ajiva are described as the seven thatthvas of Jainism.

The atoms are not distinct belonging to the four elements as in vaiseshaika doctrine but
all are of the same nature and the particular characterestics of the elements like smell,
taste etc. are through pariNAma, modification.

The concept of reality according to jainas is based on anaikAntha vAdha or
syAthvAdha as it is called because they believe in viewing a thing from many of its
aspects. The picture of complete reality, accrding to them, is prsented only when all the
view- points are taken as a whole like so many threads woven into a cloth.

The syAtvAdha consists of seven propositions which point out different aspects
of an entity.

1. SyAdhasthi - a thing exists.
A thing exists from a particular point of view.For example a pot exists as a substance at
a particular time and place.
2. syannasthi- a thing does not exist.
It is nonexistent from another point of view for example a pot does not exist as a cloth.
3. syAdhasthi cha nAsthi cha-a thing exist and does not exists.
Considering the positive and negative aspects of an entity together (ie. 2and3)
4. SyAdhavakthavyam-a thing is inexpressible.
When the aspects 2and 3 taken together simultaneously.
5. SyAdhasthiacha avakthavyam-a thing exists and is inexpressible.
Combination of 1 and 4
6. syAnnAsthi cha acakthavyam- a thing does not exists and is inexpressible.
Combination of 2 and 4
7. SyAdhasthi cha nAsthi cha avakthavyam- a thing exists and does not esist and is
inexpressible, a combination of 3 and 4.
This is also known as the sapthabhanginyAya.
Ramanuja criticises the syAthvAdha saying that contradictory qualities like existence
and nonexistence cannot be found to co-exist in one place because they are like light
and shadow which cannot be together. A substance which is qualified by one attribute
cannot possibly be associated with an opposite attribute. Ramanuja further says that this
point has been explained already on the refutation of the view of bhEdhAbhEdhavAdhin
when it is said that the difference and non-difference cannot exist simultaneously. The
difference and non-difference claimed to existin one entity is actually that of the
subsatance and its mode which are different and not identical.But two contradictory
attributes cannot co-exist in one substance.
Next Ramanuja cricticises the jaa concept of kAla, time. It is not an independent
substance, says Ramanuja, just as, the generic quality, jati cannot be an independent
substance.Atomic nature of kAla is also not acceptable.It is eternal and all -pervading
and is only an adjunct of substances.
Jaina comes with an objection that according to vedantin one Brahman is the self of all
in which case the difference between the jivas and Brahman or between the jivas cannot
be explained. Ramanuja replies that the relationship between Brahman and the jivas
being one of body and soul this can be explained easily as the body and the soul are of
different nature and Brahman who is omniscient etc is different from the sentient and the
insentient which form His body. Ramanuja concludes by saying that the same objections
advanced against the theory of atoms can also be applicable here.

Suthra-32-Evam cha Athmakarthsnyam- 2-2-32

And non entirety of the soul
The jainas say that the soul is of the size of the body it occupies. If so, the soul of an
elephant will not have sufficient space when it is born as an ant in next life. Similarly that
of an ant will not be able to fill the body of an elephant in next birth. If it is said that the
soul contracts and expands accordingly it is refuted in the next suthra.

Suthra-33 - na cha paryAyAdhapi avirODHahvikArAdhib hyah 2-2-33

Nor consistency because of change

If the soul goes on changing it will be no different than other things like pot and will ot be
superior to them.

Suthra-34-anthyAvas THithEh cha ubhayanithyathvAth aviseshah-2- 2-34

Thereis no difference in the size because of permanency and and eternity.

The soul is said to be eternal and to attain permanency at the time of release and hence
there cannot be any difference in the state of bondage.

Thus ends EkasminnasambhavADH ikaraNam and the refutation of jaina theory of

PasupathyaDHikaraNa m2-2-7

Suthra-35-pathyuras AmanjasyAth

The views of pAsupathas are discarded owing to inconsistency.

The Pasupathas accept Isvara but only as the efficient cause and cite pradhana as the
material cause and hence their theory of causation is refuted in this suthra.
Ramanuja classified the schools of Sankhya, buddhism, vaiseshika and jaina as
vedabAhyas, being outside the pale of the vedas and refuted their thoeries of
causation, following the suthras of BAdharAyaNa, in accordance with the tenets of
visishtadvaita. Now he says that the system of pAsupatha is also contrary to the vedas
because 'sarvE cha EthE vEdhaviruddhAm thatthvaprakriyAm aihika Amushmika
nissrEyasa sAdhankalpanAscha kalpayanthi,' because all of them invent various
means of attaining happiness in this life and the next which are against the teachings of
the vedas about reality and hence their views are taken up by this suthra and refuted.
Pasupathas are fourfold, namely, kApAlas, kAlAmukhas, pAsupathas and saivas.
The practices of the different sects are mutually contradicting. Their theory, practices of
meditation and their forms of devotion which follow theirr own Agamas are in conflict with
the vedas.

The upanishads declare that the supreme reality, Brahman can be known only through
the Vedanta texts and not by any other authority. The Vedanta texts clearly show that
Brahman is both material and the efficient cause. As it can be seen from the exposition
on the suthra 'janmAdhyasaya yathah,' the terms sath, Brahman and Athman are
synonymous and so are the epithets like Siva or sambhu. Ramanuja quotes profusely
from the upanishads to show that the term Brahman denotes only Narayana.

Suthra-36-aDHishTAn a anupapatthEscha- 2-2-36

Because of the impossibility of rulership

The concept of Isvara as only the efficient cause is supported by arguments based on
inference, which according to Ramanuja, is ficctitious. If it is contended that Pasupathi is
the efficient cause like a potter then he must have a body and creates the world from
pradhAna as the potter creates the pot from mud. But to them Pasupathi is asarira as
embodiment cannot be attributed to Isvara in which case He will be finite.

Suthra-37-karaNavac cheth na bhOgadhibhyah- 2-2-37

It is not as jiva rules the body and senses from within, because of the enjoyment

If it is said that the Lord rules over pradhAna as the soul rules over the body and the
senses, it is not so, because the soul gets embodiment due to adhrshta as a result of
karma and the same cannot apply to Isvara.

Suthra-38-anthavath vam asarvajnathAva- 2-2-38

Isvara will be subject to diisolution and will not be omniscient.

The pAsupatha theory of causation is dicarded being inconsistent. Thus ends the

PAncharAthrADhikara Nam-2-2-8

Suthra-39-uthpattha sambhavath- 2-2-39

Origination being impossible

Since PAsupatha system was refuted on account of being contrary to the vedas because
it is based on their own Agama the opponent may argue that even the
pAncharAthra agama, held to be auhtoritative by the visishtadvaitin cannot be
authoritative. This aDhikarana is started to remove such doubts and to establish the
authority of pAncharathra system.the first two suthras are of the nature of poorvapaksha
while the other two refutes the poorvapaksha view and proves that the pAnchrAthra
system is authoritative.

This suthra points out that even though the pAnchrAthra system accepts the Vedic
concept of Brahman being both material and efficient cause there are other aspects in it
which are objectionable.
The theory of bhagavathas claim that
'paramakAraNAth prabrahmabhoothavas udEath sankarshaNah nAma jivO
jAyathe sankarshaNAth pradhyumnasajnam manO jAyathE thasmAth
aniruddhasajnO ahamkArO jAyathe,'
From the supreme cause, the Brahman who is vasudEva, sankarshaNa the jiva is born;
from him pradhyumna the mind and from him aniruddha the ego.

Now the opponent says that the jiva is said to be unborn by the sruthi 'najAyathE
mriyathE vA vipaschith, (Kato.II-18) the sentint being is never born nor dies.' so this
statement that sankarshana, the jiva is born from Vasudeva, Brahman is contrary to the

Suthra-40-na cha karthuh karaNam-2-2- 40

No origination of the intrument from the doer.

Pradhyumna, the mind is said to be born from sankarshaNa, the jiva, but the mind being
the instrument of cognition cannot originate from the jiva, the doer.

Suthra-41-vijnAnAdh ibhAvE va thadhaprathishEdhah -2-2-41

There is no contradiction if they all are the nature of intelligence, that is, Brahman.

Ramanuja says that the cricism of bhagavatha doctrine is made by those who do
not understand it properly. Brahman Himself who is vAsudeva, out of kindness, comes
to reside in four forms as vasudeva, sankarshaNa, pradhyumna and aniruddha,
which are called His vyuhas. It is said in Poushkarasamhitha

'KarthavyathvEna vai yathra chAthurAthmyam upAsyathE; kramAgath aih sva
sajnAbhih brAhmaNairAgamam thu thath,'
This is the authoritative doctrine which brahmanas are enjoined to worship of that which
is the four fold nature of the self. The worship of the four forms of vAsudeva etc is the
worship of that Brahman who is called vAsudeva, says sAthvatha samhitha also.

The Brahman who is complete with the six qualities that go to signify the meaning of
BhagavAn, namely, aisvarya,rulership, tejas, brilliance,veerya,prowess, shakthi,
power, bala, might and jnAna knowledge, is worshippd by the devotees according to
their capacity as subtle, sukshma, vibhava, incarnations and vyuha, the fourfold
It is said that by worshipping the Lord in His vibhava form, the devotee reaches the
vyuha form, worshipping which he reaches the subtle form of vAsudeva. Of these,
vibhavas are the incarnations like Rama and Krishna. Vyuhas are the four forms,
vAsudeva, sankarshaN a, pradhyumna and aniruddha. The subtle form is the Brahman
known as vAsudeva, with six qualities.

Therefore the vyuha forms like sankarshaNa are also the manifestations of Brahman by
His own will and hence there is no contradiction with sruthi texts which declare clearly
'ajAyamAno bahuDhA vijayathE.' These manifestations are ssumed through
boundless love towards devotees.

The sankarshaNa and the others are termed as jiva, mind and ahamkAra in the same
way Brahman is denoted by the words AkAsa and prANa.

Suthra-42-viprathis hEDHAccha- 2-2-42

And because of denial of the origination of Jiva

Ramanuja says that in pAncharAthara as well as in all other Agamas the origination of
the individual soul, jiva is denied. Therefore the objection on account of the origination of
the soul is dismissed.

Another objection is put forth that the pAncharAthra Agama was said to have been
taught to sAndilya, who did not get the knowledge from the vedas. This is opposed to the
vedas and hence the agama cannot be held authoritative. But Ramanuja replies that it is
like the utterance of Narada that he has learnt all the vedas with their angas, ithihasas
and puraNas but yet came to grief and was taught bhumAvidhya. That was not to
undermine the vedas but to extoll bhumAvidhya. Similarly here also it is to praise the
system of pAncharAthra through which one can understsand the meaning of reality as
declared in the vedas easily. It is for this purpose the Lord Narayana out of
compassion taught the essence of vedas in the form of pAncharAthra Agama.
Hence it is not vedaviruddha, opposed to vedas.

Ramanuja claims the authority of PanchrAthra in his own style thus:

'athah sa bhagavAnvedhaaikave dhyahparabrahmAb hiDhanah vasudevo
nikhilahEya prathyaneeka kalyANa gunaika thana ananthajnanAnandhAd
hyaparimitha udhAra gunasAgarah sathyasankalpah chAthurvarnya
chAthurAsramayavyav asThayA vyavasTHithAn dharmArThakAma mOkshAkhya
purushArThAbhimukhA n bhakthAn avalokya apAra kAruNya souseelya vathsalya
oudhArya mahOdhaDHih svasvarupa svavibhoothi thadhArAdhana
thathphalayAtTHAthm ya avaboDHinah vedhAn rkyajussAmATharva
bhedhabinnAnaparimi tha shAkhan viDhyarTHavAdhamant hrarupAn svEthar
sakala suranara duravagAhAn cha avaDHArya thadharTHa yATHAthmyAvaboDHi
panchrAthrasasthram svayamEva niramimeetha ithi niravadhyam. '
The meaning of the long passage is as follows:
The Lord Vasudeva, who is Brahman, known only through the vedas,who is free from
evil,possessor of auspicious qualities, the ocean of limitless generous attributes,of
infinite knowledge and bliss,of infallible will, seeing his devotees engaged in the duties of
varanasrama and pursuing the four purusharthas , out of compassion, being the ocean
of love,and other qualities , taught the pancharathra, the essence of the vedas, to those
who were bent on worshipping his glorious forms and who were incapable of
comprehending the teaching of the vedas.
Ramanuja says that Vyasa, the author of brahmasuthras, the codifier of vedas explains
the pAnchrAthra system in mahabharatha and ends with
'idham mahOpanishadham chathurvedasamanvit ham;sAnkhyayOgak rthAnthEna
pancharAthrAnusabdh itham.' ,
Meaning, this great Upanishad comprising of the four vedas, Sankhya and yOga is
called PAncharAthra. Further he extolls the Agama as
'idhamsrEyam idham brahma idham hithamanutthamam; rgyajussAmabhirjush
tam aTharvAngirasaistha THA.'
It means that this agama is the best, this is Brahman and this is the most beneficial and
is in accordance with the four vedas. Here he terms Sankhya and yOga do not mean the
respective systems but they refer to jnanayOga and karmayOga as mentioned in the
Gita, jnAnayOgEna sAnkhyAnAm karmayOgEna yOginAm.

Ramanuja concludes the chapter on the refutation of the non-vedantaic schools of
philosophy by saying that the other systems being expounded by humans are liable to
be contradictory and with limitations. But the pAncharAthra is taught by Narayana
Himself, who is professed as Brahman by all the scriptural texts and hence it is

Finally Ramanuja says that the sAriraka sAsthra does not deny the systems of Sankhya,
yoga, vaiseshika and pasupatha in toto, as it does with repect to Buddhism and Jainism
but refutes only their theories of causation and concept of reality. Sankhyan principles
like the 24 thathvas and the techniques of yoga are accepted as well as the
argumetative techniques and the means of cognition etc of the viseshikas and the
concept of pasupati is not rejected. These systems do not accept Brahman as the sole
cause of the universe and the inner self of all and only these points are criticised. Thus
ends the pAncharAthrADhikara Nam.

This is the end of the second padha of the second aDhyAya

ViyadhaDHikaraNam- 2-3-1

Suthra-1-na viyadhasruthEh- 2-3-1

AkAsa is notcreated because it is not so stated in the sruthi.
In the first adhyaya it was shown that all scriptural texts denote Brahman as the only
cause of the world and
In the first padha of the second adhyaya all the objections raised against this view are
refuted. In the second padha of the second adhyaya the theories of causation forwarded
by the nonvedantic schools are refuted.
Now the next two padhas the possible discrepencies that may be cited from the
scriptures regarding the theory of creation are examined and the objections based on
them are refuted.

A doubt is raised in the above suthra by the poorvapakshin as to whether the AkAsa is
created or not.The opponent says that it is not -na viyadh- because it is not stated so in
the scriptures-asruthEh. They quote the Chandhogya text which says 'thadhaikshatha
bahusyAm prajAyEya thatthEjO asrjatha'(Chan.6-2-3) it willed to become many and
created fire and goes on to mention the creation of other elements but the AjkAsa was
not mentioned. AkAsa being all-pervading and without parts like the individual self could
not have been created. But there is discrepency when it is said in the taiitiriya
text ’thasmAth VA EthasmAth Athmanah AkAsah sambhoothah, '(Taitt.2-1) from that
self AkAsa was created and it goes on to say that from AkAsa vAyu was produced etc.
To this the next suthra replies.

Suthra-2-asthi thu-2-3-2

But there is.
There is scriptural reference to the creation of AkAsa. Sruthi which deals with matters
beyond the perception through the senses are capable of validating the creation of
AkAsa which cannot be proved by any pramANa. The fact that AkAsa is without parts is
not sufficient to contradict the decalation of its xcreation by the sruthi because even in
the case of the individual self its unorigination is not based on its being without parts,
which point will be made clear later, says Ramanuja.

Suthra-3-gounyasamb havAth sabdhAccha-2- 3-3

The creation of AkAsa is to be taken in secondary sense because of the
impossibility and also from the texts.

The poorvapakshin now says that the texts referring to the creation of AkAsa must be
taken in the secondary sense because there are texts declaring that AkAsa is eternal
such as 'vAyuschAnthriksham chaithadhamrtham' (Brhd.2-3-3) vayu and AkAsa both
are eternal.'

Suthra-4-syAth chaikasya brahmasabdhavath- 2-3-4

There may be primaray and secondary meaning for a word as in the case of

The opponent anticipaties the objection that in the statement 'from the self AkAsa
originated and from Akasa, vayu etc. the origination of AkAsa alone cannot be taken in
the secondary sense while that of vayu etc is in the primary sense.

It is possible, he says, as in the sentence 'thasmAth Ethadh brahma nAmarupam
annam cha jAyathE,(Mund.1-1-9) from Him is born brahma,name form and matter
,'where the word brahma is used to denote the creator Hiranyagarbha while in the
previous text 'thapasAcheeyathE brahma, meaning the Brahman swells by
knowledge,' the word brahma is used in the primary sense.

Suthra-5- pratijnAhAnih avyathirEkAth- 2-3-5

Non-abandonment of the promissory statement only from non-difference

This suthra refutes the objection expressed in the previous two suthras. Secondary
meaning cannot be assumed for the Chandhogya text because the promissory
statement that by knowing one everything else becomes known will be true only if the
AkAsa is the effect of Brahman.


From texts

Chandhogya declaration that the sath alone was in the beginning and that it is the self of
everything denotes that AkAsa, as everything else, is the effect of and non-different from
Brahman. Moreover the statement 'it created fire ' is not sufficient to disprove the
origination of AkAsa mentioned in other texts.

Suthra-7-yAvathvikA ramthuvibhAgO lokavath-2-3- 7

The origination extends to all as in the world.

All being said to be the effect of Brahman; it includes the origination of Aksa also as in
the world when we say all these men are the sons of Devadattha, similar to
'EthadhAthmyam idham sarvam, all these have Brahman as their self. The statement
that AkAsa is immortal or vAyu is immortal is used in the same sense as devas are
immortal whereas they are also created by Brahman, meaning only that they exist for
longer duration as compared to the mortals.

Suthra-8-EthEna mAthrisvA vyAkhyathah- 2-3-8

By this the air is also explained.

The origination of the air is also explained in the similar manner.

Suthra-9-asambhavas thu sathah anupapattheh- 2-3-9

Unorigination pertains to Brahman only.

All the rest are the effects of Brahman. The origination of AkAsa and air are to illustrate
the general truth. This is the end of viyadhDHikaraNam.

ThEjoDHikaraNam 2-3-2

Suthra-10-thEjO athah thaTHA Aha-2-3-10

Sruthi declares that fire is produced.

It is said that everything riginated from Brahman. But from the statement such as
'vAyoragnih,'etc. a doubt arises whether the susequent effects are produced from the
precedent ones or from Brahman directly. The poorvapakshin claims that in the above
statement 'from air fire' (originated) it shows that fire is the effect of air.

Suthra-11-Apah- 2-3-11

Water from fire

From the text 'agnEh Apah, water from fire, the fire is the cause of water.

Suthra-12-prthivee- 2-3-12

Earth from water

From the texts 'adhbhyah prthivee,' 'thA annam asrjantha, (Chand.6-2- 3) meaning,
the waters created (food) earth, and it is shown that water is the cause of earth.

Suthra13-aDHikAraru pasabdhAnthrEbhy ah-2-3-13

By food, earth is meant from subject matter, form and other sruthi texts.
The word food means earth for the following reasons:
1.'adhaneeyasya sarvasya prthiveevikArathvAt h kAraNE kAryasabdhah’ -As all
that is eaten is a modification of earth, the term denoting the effect is applied to the
2. The subsequent passage to that referring to the creation of prthivee from water
mentioning the colours respective to fire, water and earth, refers to earth as annam.
'yadhagnErOhitham rupam,thEjasasthdhr upam,yacchuklam thadhapAm,
yadhkrshnam thadhannasya, (6-4-6)
In fire, what appears red belongs to fire the white colour belongs to water and what is
black belongs to earth and earth is referred to as Annam, food.'

The poorvapakshin says that as the evolution from mahath etc happens from the
preceding principle only the elements are described as each being originated from the
preceding one.

Suthra-14-thadhabhi DHyAnAdhEva thu thallingAth sah-2-3-14

He is known (to be the cause of everything) from the indicatory mark, that is,

In all the effects Brahman is the inherent cause and this is known through the indicatory
mark supplied by reflection. The word reflection means the phrase 'bahu syam'
repeated in the passage on creation.From 'thadhaikshatha bahusyAm
prajAyEya,(Chan.6-2-3) it willed to become many,meaning Brahman,in describing the
creation of each element proceeding from the preceding one such as 'thatthEja
aikshatha bahusyAm prajAyeya, fire willed to become many,' and 'thA Apa
aikshantha bahusyAma prajAyEmahi the waters willed to become many' etc. the
phrase is repeated. So the act of willing denotes it is Brahman only, which is the cause
of everything. Moreover Brahman is mentioned as the inner self of all in
BrhadhAraNyaka upanishad, 'yah prthivyAm thishTan,yasthEjasi thishTan, yO
vayou thishTan,ya AkAsE thishTan and so on(Brhd.3-7- 3) which also shows that
everything is the effect of Brahman only.

Suthra-15-viparyayE Na thu kramO atha upapadhyathEcha- 2-3-15

The reverse order of creation is possible only if the effects proceed from

In Mundaka Upanishad the order of creation is quite the reverse of that found in the
Taiitiriya text quoted by the poorvapakshin. (Taitt.2- 1) the Mundaka text 'EthasmAth
jAyathe prANO manssarvEndhriyANi cha, kham vAyurjyothirApahprt hvee
sarvasya DHAriNee,from Him are born prANa ,mind,senses, AkAsa,air, fire, waterand
earth which bears all.So unless Brahman is the direct cause both the texts would be
conflicting each other.
Suthra16-antharA vijnAnamanasee kramENa thallingAth ithi chEth Na,
aviseshAth 2- 3-16

If it is said it is the same order only with indhriyas and mind in between, it is not
so because of non-difference.
It is argued by the opponent that the vijnAna ,knowledge which is denoted by the term
indhriyas, being the instruments of knowledge, and the mind found in between prANa
and the elements are in the same order of creation presented elsewhere , only prAna
and other things are added and hence there is no reverse order.

The suthra refutes this view saying that the words 'EthasmaAth jAyathE prAnah
manas sarvEndhriyANi etc only denotes that everything originated from Brahman and
not the order of creation.

But the opponent objects that to say that everything is denoted by Brahman only is
contrary to their separate connotations to which the next suthra gives the reply.

Suthra17-charAchara vyapAsrayasthu syath thadhvyapadhesah
bhAkthasthadhbhAvab hAvithvAth- 2-3-17

The words denoting the moving and immobile things are not secondary because
they depend on Brahman for their denotating power.

The view of the opponent is that the words fire etc can denote Brahman only in the
secondary sense since their primary meaning is to denote their individual entity.This is
refuted by this suthra, saying that their denotation is based on Brahman only as shown
in the text 'anEna rupENa AthmanA anupravisya nAmrupe vyAkaravANi. '(Chan.6-
3-2) thus ends the thEjODhikaraNam.

AthmADHikaraNam- 2-3-3

Suthra-18-nAtmA struthEh nithyathvAccha thAbhyah-2-3- 18

Not self because of scriptural texts and the eternity from them.

After confirming the creation of AkAsa and others from Brahman now the question is
about the individual self. The poorvapakshin says that it is originated, as known from the
texts such as 'sanmoolAh soumya imAh sarvAh prajAh sadhAyathanAh
sathprathishTAh,(Chan.VI-8- 6)all these beings, have their root in'sath', abide in it and
rest in it, and 'yathO vA imAni bhoothAni jAyanthe,(Tait.3-1-1) from whom all these
beings originate,' etc. they say that the texts such as 'that thou art' professing the unity
of the Atman with Brahman cannot be taken to mean that the Atman is eternal since
Brahman is so, because from the texts such as 'EthadhAtmyam idham sarvam, all this
is ensouled by Brahman' and 'sarvam khalu idham brahma, all this is Brahman,' it
would mean that everything is eternal and hence unoriginated. Therefore the individual
self is created.

The suthra refutes this saying that the individual self is not originated as could be shown
from the sruthi. The texts such as 'na jAyathE mriyathE vA vipaschith,(KatO.1-2-18)
the intelligent self is neither born nor dies.' and ' ajO nithyam sAsvathO ayam
purANah na hanyathE hanyamAnE sarirE, this self is unborn,eternal, ever existent
and ancient who is not killed when the body is destroyed.'(KatO.1-2- 18)

The opponent asks that if the soul is not originated how the promissory statement
EkavijAnEna sarvavijnAnam can be true. Ramanuja replies that the soul also being the
effect, the non-difference between the cause and effect is indicated by the promissory
statement. But being an effect does not mean that the soul is originated because the
effect is only avasTHAnthara or another state of the causal substance. This
avasTHAnthara of the individual self is different from that of AkAsa etc. Because the
state of being the effect consists in the inteligence becoming expanded with respect to
the individual self whereas it is a change of essential nature in the case of AkAsa etc.

In the causal state Brahman has the sentient and the insentient in their subtle form as its
sarira while in the state of effect the insentient changes in its essential nature attaining
name and form and becomes the object of enjoyment and the sentient soul attains an
expansion of itntelligence enabling it to experience the fruit of actions.The texts that
speak of origination of soul only mean its embodiment and not origination while those
which deny the origination declare that there is no change in the essential nature of the
soul. Thus the soul is also the effect of Brahman and it is not contraditory to the
promissory statement.Thus ends AtMADHikaraNam.

JnADHikaraNam- 2-3-4

Therefore the knower

Now the nature of the soul is examined. Buddhists and sankhyans hold the view that the
soul is pure consciousness while for the vaiseshikas it is inert having knowledge as its
adventitous quality.The opponent who holds the former view quotes from sruthi texts
such as ’vijnAnam yajnam thanuthE, karmANi thanuthEpi cha,(Taitt.2-5-1) the
knowledge performs sacrifice and the actions.

Others say that knowledge is only an adventitious quality as there is no intelligence
present in the state of deep sleep etc. The knowledge, they say, is present only when
the soul is connected with the body, as the sruthi also declares that 'na prEthya sajnA
asthi, there is no consciousness when he soul leaves the body.'

The suthra refutes this by saying that the self is of the nature of knower and not mere
knowledge nor inert. This is proved from the sruthi itself. In ChAndhOgya text in the
section where prajApathi describes the released and unreleased souls by saying 'aTHa
yo vedha jiGHrANeethi sa AthmA, one who knows "I smell" he is the self.Similarly in
BrhadhAraNyaka it is said as a reply to the question 'kathama AthmA,who is the self,'
that 'yO ayam vijnAnamayah prANEshu hrdhyanthrjyothirpu rushah,(Brhd.4-3-7) he
who is consisting of knowledge is the light within the heart in the prAnas.' and 'Esha hi
dhrashtA srothA GHrAtha rasayithA manthA bOdDHA karthA vijnAnAthmA
purushah,(Pras.IV-9)this person is the seer,hearer smeller,taster thinker knower doer
and the knowing self.

To the objection that if the self is a knower, it being infinite and all pervading, there will
always be cognition everywhere the next suthra replies.

Suthra-20-uthkrAnth igathyAgatheenAm -2-3-20

Because of passingout, going and returning, the self is atomic.
The sruthi mentions the soul going out, and coming in etc. which is not possible if it is all
pervading. In BrhadhAraNyaka upanishad '
'Esha AthmanishkrAmathi chakshushO VA murDHnO vAanyEbhyO VA
sariradhEsebhyah,(Brhad.4- 4-2)
This self departs through the eyes or the skull or any other part of the body,' and the
return likewise 'thasmAth lokAth punarEthi asmai lOkaya karmaNE, from those
worlds, returns to this world for karma.'

Suthra-21-svAthmanA cha uttharayOh-2- 3-21

And as the going and coming being effected directly by the self it is atomic.

Passing out of the body, meaning separation from the body, is applicable even if the soul
is infinite but going and coming indicates that it is atomic.

Suthra-22-na aNuh athathsruthEh ithi cheth na itharADHikArAth- 2-3-22

If it is said that it is not atomic because of scriptural statement as otherwise, it is not so,
as the subject matter of those texts is Brahman.

The opponent quotes the text 'sa vA Esha mahAn aja AthmA, (Brhd.4-4-22) that self is
infinite and unborn,' to prove that it is not atomic but this suthra refutes the view saying
that it is Brahman who is referred to in those texts as can be understood from the text
'yasya anuvitthah prathbuddha Athma, he who knows the sentient self,' meaning
Brahman, which was the topic introduced in the section.

Suthra-23-svasabdhO nmAnAbhyAm cha-2-3-23

Because the very word anu is used
'EshO aNurAthmA chEthsAvedhithavyah, (Mund. 3-1-9)
This atomic self should be known,'and
'ArAgramAthrOhyvarO pi dhrshtah, (Svet.5-8)
The lower one, (meaning the individual self) is seen to be of the measure of the tip of the
goad, show that the self is atomic.

Suthra-24-avirODHas chandhanavath- 2-3-24

Like the sandalpaste, no contradiction.

The self though atomic is able to prevade the whole body like the sandalpaste that
creates coolness for the whole body though applied in one place.

Suthra-25-avasTHith i vaiseshyAth ithi cheth na,abhyupagamATH hrdhi hi-

If it is due to particular position the analogy is said to be inappropriate, not so because
the heart is accepted as the seat of the soul.

The sruthi text 'yO ayam vijnAnamayah prANEshu hrdhanthrjyothih, '(Brhd.4-3-7)
shows that the self is found in the heart.

Suthra-26-gunAthvA AlOkavath-2- 3-26

Or due to its quality like light.

As the light placed in one corner lights up the whole room so does the AtmA in the heart
spreads consciousness all over.

Suthra-27-vyathirEk O gandhavath thaTHA cha dharsayathi- 2-3-27

There is distinction as in the case of smell as shown by the sruthi.

To the objection that if the essence of self is knowledge how can it be the quality of the

The reply is given that, as the smell is the quality of the earth yet inseparable from it, so
too knowledge is the quality of the self.

Suthra -28-prthagupadhEsAt h-2-3-28

By separate mention

The text 'na thu vijnAthuh vijnAthEh viparilOpO vidhyathE, (Brhd. 4-3-30) there is
no absence of knowing on the part of the knower,'shows the distinction between the
knower, the self and the knowledge.
Suthra-29-thadguNas ArathvAth thu hadvyapadhEsah prAjnavath-2- 3-29

The declaration is due to knowledge being the essential quality as Brahman is said to be

As the text 'sathyam jnAnam anantham Brahma,' denotes Brahman as truth,
knowledge and infinity on account of the fact that these are HIs essential qualities.

Suthra-30-yAvath AthmabhAvithvAth cha na dhOshah thaddharsanAth- 2-3-30

There is no defect so long as the soul exists because it is so seen.

As knowledge is the quality that persists through out life there is nothing wrong in
denoting the soul by it. Ramanuja says that a cow with broken horns is still called a cow
because the cowness persists even if the parts of the body are lost.Moreover the self
also like knowledge is self illumined and hence it is depicted as self.The objection that
knowledge is not an inseparable quality of the soul as it is not seen to exist in deep sleep
etc. is replied by the next suthra.

Suthra-31-pumsvAdhi vathvasya sathah aBhivyakthiyOgAth- 2-3-31

Because manifestation is possible only if it exists in deep sleep like virility etc

As virility which is potential in a male child manifests only on youth, similarly knowledge
existing in the deep sleep only manifests in the waking state.Otherwise it cannot
manifest on waking up. Therefore the self is knower and is of atomic size.The text "na
prEthyasya samjnA asthi'(Brhd.2-4-12) only means that in release, the self does not
experience birth,death and pain as in the bound state and does not mean that the self
has no knowledge.

Suthra32-nithyaupal abDhi anupalabDHimprasang ahanyatharaniyam ah vA
anyaTHA-2-3- 32

Otherwise there will be perpetual perception or nonperception or limitations of either of
the two.

The self being omnipresent and all knowledge as some assume there will be permanent
perception or nonperception. but experience proves otherwise as there is perception at
times and nonperception at other times.If the self is omnipresent there will be 'I"
consciousness always everywhere. Hence to avoid these difficulties the self iis taken as
atomic and has knowledge for its quality. Thus ends jnADHikaraNam.

KarthraDHikaraNam- 2-3-5

Suthra-33-kartha sAsthrArTHathvAth- 2-3-33
The individual self is an agent according to sasthra

The self has been shown as the knower and now the question is whether it is the doer
also. The opponent says it is not, as the self has been shown to be action less and the
actions are said to be only pertaining to the gunas. In Katopanishad while describing the
self as having no birth and death 'na jAyathE mriyathE vA vipaschith,' the acts of
killing and get killed etc. are denied of the self .
'hanthA cheth manyathE hanthum hathaschEth manyathE hatham, ubou thou na
vijAneethou nAyam hanthi na hanyathE.'(Kata.I-2-19),
meaning, one who thinks that the self kills or get killed do not know the truth because
the self neither kills nor gets killed Even in the Gita it is said
'prakrthEh kriyamANAni guNairkarmANi sarvasah, ahamkAravimooDAthmA
karthAham ithi manyathE, (BG.3-27)
All actions are done by the gunas and the one who is deluded by ego thinks that he is
the doer.'

This suthra refutes the above view. Only the self is the kartha and not gunas. This is in
accordance with the sasthras. It is found in the sruthi texts like 'yajEtha svargakAmah,
one desirous of heaven should perform sacrifice ' and 'mumukshurbrahma upAseetha,
one aspiring for release should meditate on Brahman,' that the agency of action is
ascribed only to the individual self. The word sasthra means scriptural injunction
originated from the word sAsana, command. Sasthras induce action by giving certain
instructions and it is possible only in the case of a sentient soul and not insentient
pradhana that is the gunas. That is why the purvamimamsa declares 'sAsthraphalam
prayokthari, the fruit of the injunctions is only to the agent.' (III-7-18)

Ramanuja clarifies the point by saying that the text about the self not killing or
getting killed etc. is to show that it is eternal and not to deny the agency. Similarly
the sloka quoted from Gita only means that the activity during the state of bondage is
induced by the gunas and not natural to the self as it is mentioned there itself 'kAraNam
gunasangOasya sadhasath yOnijanmasu, the cause of the embodiment in good and
evil wombs is the association of the self with the gunas.' (BG.18-21)

Suthra-34-upAdhAnAt h vihArOpadhEsAccha- 2-3-34

Because of the teaching of the self taking the senses and wandering about.

In BrhadhAraNyaka upanishad there is a passage
'yaTHA maharAjah jAnapadhAn grheethva sve janapadhe yaTHAkAmam
parivarthEtha , EvamEva EthathprANAn grheethvA svE sarirE yaTHA
kAmamaparivarthathE ,(Brhd.2-1-18)
This means, as a king will take his subjects and wander around in his kingdom, so too,
the self taking the pranas (sense organs) wander around in the body.
Suthra-35-vyapadhes ATh cha kriyAyAm na cheth nirdhEsaviparyayah- 2-3-

The self mentioned as the agent in scriptures and if not so it would have been

The self has been definitely mentioned as the agent in texts such as
'vijnAnam yajnam thanuthE karmANi thanuthEpicha.' (Tait.2-5) .
Meaning that the self denoted as vijnAnam is the performer of sacrifice and actions If it
is said that the word vijnAna means the intellect, it being the instrument of action and not
the agent, the text would have been 'vijAnEna ' by the intellect and not 'vijnAnam,' the

Suthra-36- upalabDHivath aniyamah-2-3- 36

There will be no definite rule as in the case of consciousness

If the self is not the doer then the same difficulty as mentioned in the case of
consciousness (vide.suthra- 2-3-32) will result. That is, if the agency of action is ascribed
to pradhana, all souls being equally associated with it, all actions will result in the
enjoyment of all. If the souls are omnipresent no internal organ will be exclusive to one
soul and hence distribution of different results to difference souls will not be possible.

Suthra-37-shakthivi paryayAth- 2-3-37

On account of inversion of power

If the intellect is the agent it must also be the enjoyer as both the doer and enjoyer of an
action must be the same, in which case there will not be any proof for the existence of
the individual self, contrary to the statement 'purusho asthi bhOkthrbhAvAth,(SK.17)
the soul exists because there must be some experience.

Suthra-38-samAdhyab hAvAcccha- 2-3-38

Because of impossibility of samADHi

If intellect is the agent of action it will be so even in samADHi which is the state prior to
release, in which, the knowledge of the difference of the soul from the prakrthi dawns. As
the intellect is itself is a product of prakrthi, this will not happen.

Suthra-39-yaTHA cha thakshObhayathA- 2-3-39

And even as a carpenter are both.
This suthra is in reply to the objection that if the soul is the doer, the instruments of
action being always present there will be perpetual action. It is replied that like a
carpenter who has the will to use his instruments or not, the soul also, being sentient,
has the power to act or not to act.On the other hand only if the intellect is the doer, there
will be action always as it lacks the power of discrimination being insentient. Thus ends
the karthraDHikaraNam.

parAyatthADHikaraNA m-2-3-6

Suthra-40-parAtthu thacchruthEh- 2-3-40

From the highest only as declared in the scriptures.

The question raised is that whether the agency of action on the part of the individual self
is independent or dependent on the supreme self. The opponent says that it is
independent as otherwise the injunctions and prohibitions by the scriptures will be
meaningless if the individual self is not free to act by itself.

The suthra refutes this by saying that only the supreme self is the cause of all actions as
declared by the sruthi 'anthah pravishtah sAsthA janAnAm sarvAthmA, He is the
ruler of all entering inside as their inner self.' and the passage in BrhadhAranyaka which
mentions Brahman as the inner ruler and self of all etc by enumerating each category
ending with 'yah Atmani thishTan atmanah antharah yam AthmA na vedha yasya
AthmA sariram ya AthmAnam antharO yamayathi sa tha AthmA
antharyAmyamrthah,'who dwelling in the Self is different from the Self, whom the Self
does not know, whose body the Self is, who rules the Self from within, He is thy Self, the
inward ruler, the immortal one.'

Even in Bhagavatgita the Lord declares, 'sarvasya chAham hrdhi sannivishtO, I am in
the heart of all,' and says that He is whirling them with action by His MAya, as though
mounted on a machine,'bhrAmayan sarvabhoothAni yanthrArooDAni mAyayA.'

Suthra-41-krthapray atnApEkshasthu vihithaprathishiddh a
avaiyarTHyAdhibhyah -2-3-41

Since the effort is taken by the individual soul the injunctions and prohibitions are

The objection that if the soul is not independent the injunctions and prohibitions will have
no value it is replied in this suthra that the effort is taken only by the individual self but it
cannot act without the sanction of the supreme self, who is the anumantha, one who
gives permission to act. If the soul does good karma the Lord bestows His grace and if
indulges in evil deeds He gives punishment. That this does not indicate that He is
merciless has been already proved, says Ramanuja , while explaining the doctrine of

The opponent comes with an objection that the text in Kouseetaki upanishad which says
'Esha hyEva sAdhukarma kArayathi tham yamEbhyO lOkEshu unnineeshathi,
Esha Eva asAdhu karma kArayathi tham yam aDHo nineeshathi,
He makes those whom He wishes to raise to the higher worlds to do good deeds and
whom He wishes to send down from these worlds He makes them do bad deeds,'
means that only the Lord Himself makes one to do good and bad deeds and this goes
contrary to the independent effort of the individual self. Ramanuja replies that this does
not apply to all beings but only means that when one chooses to proceed along the path
approved by the Lord, He helps the soul to rise further and when one pursues the path
that leads away from the Lord, He makes the soul descend further so that the propensity
for evil will be exhausted. In the Gita the Lord says
'thEshAm sathatha yukthAnAm bajathAm preethipoorvakam dhadhAmi
buddhiyOgam tham yEna mAmupayAnthi thE.'
It means that the Lord gives the wisdom to those who worship Him with love so that they
can attain Him. And He hurls those who are evil, He says, into demonical wombs in
perpetual transmigration,
'thAn aham dvishadhah kroorAn samsArEshu narAdhamAn, kshipAmi ajasram
ashubAnAm aAsureeshvEva yOnishu.'

Thus ends the parAyatthADHikaraNam.

amsAdhikaraNam- 2-3-7

Suthra42-amsO nAnA vyapadhEsAth anyaTHA chApi dAsa kithavAdhithvamaDHe
eyatha EkE-2-3-42

The individual self is a part of Brahman as the difference being declared and
otherwise the mention of fisherman, slave etc.

The foregoing SÃstras have declared that the individual soul is an agent, and as such
dependent on the supreme self. Now the question is, whether the individual self is
absolutely different from Brahman or Brahman itself under the influence of avidhya or
Brahman determined by a limiting adjunct (upÃdhi) or is it a part (amsa) of Brahman.

The texts that speak of absolute difference are 'jna ajnou dvou eesa aneesou, (Svet.1-
9) the two, one knowing the other not knowing, both unborn one the master the other
servile.' Those who hold this view say that the knower and ignorant are entirely different
and to ascribe any unity between them involves contradiction like saying 'sprinkle with
fire. So the texts that speak of unity should be interpreted as conveying secondary
meaning. This is the contention of the dualist,dvaitha school. Nondualist view is that the
jiva is Brahman deluded by avidhya and imagines difference. They quote the texts like
'ayam AthmA brahma,this self is Brahman,' and 'thathvamasi' etc.

The third view is that the jiva is Brahman limited by adjuncts

The suthra refutes all these views and says that jiva is a part of Brahman since
there is declaration of both difference and unity. Some texts speak of Brahman and
the individual self as having the relationship of the creator and created, ruler and the
ruled, omniscient and ignorant, independent and dependent, pure and impure,
possessing auspicious qualities and the opposite of it, master and the servant etc. Other
texts like thathvamasi etc declare unity. There is yet another text 'Brahman are the
slaves, Brahman are these fishermen,' and so on, implying the all pervading quality of
Brahman. To consider the both types of texts to be true the jiva must be accepted as an
amsa, part of Brahman.

Neither the texts that describe the individual soul being the creation of, under the control
of, belonging to, being the sarira of, supported, protected and annihilate by, Brahman
nor being a devotee through which the jiva obtains,, by the grace of Brahman, the
purushArTHas and moksha ultimately, all of which declare the difference between the
jiva and Brahman can be denied. In the same manner the texts that describe the 'willing'
of Brahman to become many and after creating the world entering into everything as the
indwelling soul cannot be dismissed as illusion. From the above it also becomes clear
that the jiva cannot be Brahman conditioned by adjuncts. Therefore to reconcile the
both kinds of texts the jiva is the amsa of Brahman.

Suthra-43-manthrava rNAth-2-3- 43

Also from the words of manthra

In chandhOgya upanishad it is declared
'pAdhOasyavisvAbhoo thAni thripAdhasyAmrtham dhivi,(Chan.3-12- 6)
All beings and the world constitute one part (quarter) of the supreme self and the rest of
the three quarters are immortal in heaven.' The word pAdha denotes amsa. The plural
term bhoothani, is used as souls are many.

Suthra-44-api smaryathE-2- 3-44

It is also stated in the smrithi.

In Bhagavatgita the Lord declares
'mamaivAmsO jivalOkE jivabhoothah sanathanah,(BG.15-7)
an eternal part of Myself has become the individual soul.'
An objection is raised that if the soul is part of Brahman all imperfections of the soul will
be of Brahman too. The next sutra answers that

Suthra-45-prakAsAdh ivatthu naivam parah-2-3-45
As in the case of light it is not so

As the light of a luminous body, the generic character(jati) of an entity and the colour of
an object, though being part of the object they qualify are different from it so also
Brahman is different from the individual self which forms its mode. A visEshaNa,
attribute and the visEshya the object having the attribute are inseparable yet different.
The declarations of identity and difference denote the two aspects, the inseparability of
the substance and its attribute and the distinctness of the substance and the attribute,

Suthra-46-smaranthi cha-2-3-46

The smrthis also state this.

In VishnupurANa ParAsara states
'EkadhEsasTHithasyA gnEh jyothsnA visthAriNee yaTHA,parsyabrahmaN ah
sakthih thTHEdham akhilam jagath,(VP.1-22-56)
Just as the light of a luminous body that exists in one place spreads around, the power
of Brahman pervades the whole world. Also the individual self is declared to be the body
of the Lord.'thasyasrjyasya sambhoothou thath sarvE vai harEsthanuh, ' all these
created are the body of Hari.

To the objection that if all souls are the amsa of the Lord why should there be inequality
such as some are qualified to study the vedas and some are not etc. The next suthra

Suthra-47-anujnApar ihAraoudhehasamb ahDHAth jyothirAdhivath- 2-3-47

Permission and exclusion is due to the connection with the body.

Like the fire which is from the household of a brahmana is accepted while that from
cremation ground is not, though the fire is the same everywhere, the difference in
qualification is due to the purity or otherwise of the body the soul occupies.

suthra-48-asanthath Eh cha avyathikarah- 2-3-48

Because of non-connection there is no confusion.

Even though all souls are part of Brahman they being atomic and different from each
other the result of the karma is different for each. This would not have been possible,
says Ramanuja if the individual soul is identical with Brahman but under the influence of
ignorance or conditioned by upADhis.

Suthra-49-AbhAsa Eva cha-2-3-49

The arguments (of others) are fallacious.
Since Brahman is self illumined if it does not shine because of avidhya it will result in the
destruction of the svarupa of Brahman as already shown in the arguments against the
advaita view. And it is against sruthi also, as indicated by the' cha 'kAra in the suthra,as
the texts 'prthagAthmAnam prErithAram cha mathvA,’ (Svet.1-6)
thinking himself to be different from the ruler, and
'thayOranyah pippalam svAdhu atthi anasnan anyah parichAkaseethi,(Svet.4-6)
Of the two, one eats the fruits sweet and sour and the other looks on without eating,'
clearly show that the individual self is different from Brahman.

Suthra-50-adhrshta aniyamAth-2- 3-50

Because of non-determination of adhrshtas

The opponent, bhEdhAbhedhavAdhin says that this difficulty can be surmounted if the
upAdhis are real and the differences are taken to be the cause of beginning less
adhrshta, unseen principle, which cause upAdhis.

But this suthra refutes it by saying that since the upadhis have their substratum as
Brahman, who appears as though different from the jiva due to upADHis, there can be
no rule that a particular adhrshta acts for the particular soul and hence there will be

Suthra-51-abhisanDh yAdhishvapi chaivam-2-3- 51

Similarly there can be no restriction in the case of purpose etc.

Neither can there be any definite rule regarding the purpose of adhrshtas.

Suthra-52-pradhEsab hEdhAth ithi cheth na, antharbhAvAth- 2-3-52

If it is claimed that plurality of upADHi is due to difference of place it is not so,
because they are all within.
Brahman being limited by upADHis which occupy different places the difference of
experience is possible, says the opponent who is refuted by the suthra saying that the
upADHis move here and there and also Brahman being one, the suffering in one place
will affect the whole.
The last three suthras refute the view of those who profess the absolute unity of the soul
with Brahman. Thus ends amsADHikaraNam.

The end of the third pAdha of the second aDHyAya of sribhAshya

prAnOthpatthyaDHika raNam-2-4- 1

Suthra-1-thaTHA prANAh-2-4-1

Likewise the organs

Here the word prAna refers to the vital airs and the senses.After discussuing the
origination of the insentient world and the individual self now the the creation of vital
breath and the sense organs are taken up in this pAdha.

The opponent quotes the text,
'asadhvA idhamagra Aseeth; thadhAhuh kim thadhAseeth ith;rshayO vAva thE
agrE Aseeth; thadhAhuh ke thE rshayah ithi;prANA vAva rshayah,'(sathapatha
brAhmaNa VI-i-1-1-)
Meaning, non-being was at the beginning; rshis are the non-being said to be present in
the beginning; the rshis are the prANas, and says that it shows that the sesnses existed
before creation. The word prAnAs used in plural denotes all the sense organs as well.
This cannot be construed to mean the long duration of existence as in the case of air
and AkAsa as explained in the previous section because the sentence asadhvA
idhamagra Aseeth clearly denotes the time before creation.

This suthra refutes the above view saying that like the AkAsa etc. the prANas are also
created as declared by the texts such as 'sadhEva soumya idhamagra Aseeth
EkamEva adhvitEEyam, ' (Chan.6-2-1) which declare that the Self, Brahman only was
at the beginning, one only without a second, and 'EthasmAth jAyathE prAnah manah
sarvendhriyANi cha,(Mund.2-3-1) from this vital airs, mind and senses are created,'
which specifically mention the origination of these.Moreover there is no mention of
eternity for the senses as in the case of the individual soul.In the the passage quoted at
the outset, only Brahman is denoted by the word prANa because it has been used in the
same sense elsewhere also as in 'sarvANi ha imAni bhoothAni prANamEva
abhisamvisanthi prANamabhyujjihvath E, (Chan.1-11-5) all these beings merge in
prANa and emerge from that, which could be only Brahman, and also the word rshi
used in the passage quoted denotes only Brahman because of the meaning 'all-
knowing' attributed to the rshis.

Suthra-2-gounyasamb havAth thathprAkrtsruthesc ha-2-4-2

The plural is to be taken in the secondary sense because of the impossibility and the
earlier declaration.
Since it has been mentioned that sath alone existed, the plural form of the word prANa is
to be taken in the secondary sense.

Suthra-3-thathpoorv akathvAth vAchah-2-4-3

Because of speech having for its antecedent the creation of the senses

There is an additional reason to know that the senses were created, says this suthra.
The text 'thddhedham tharhi avyAkrtham Aseeth thannAmarupAbhyam
vyAkriyatha, this world was then unmanifested and then was differentiated by names
and forms. So, as there was no function to perform before differentiation into name and
form, they were created later.

Thus ends the prANOthpathyaDHikar aNam.

SapthagathyaDHikara Nam-2-4-2

Suthra-1-sapthagath Eh cvisEshithathvAccha 2-4-1

The organs are seen in number as known from their going with the soul at death and
from being specified so.

The senses are usually counted as eleven, five jnAnendhriyas, five karmEndhriyas and
the mind. But the opponent comes with an argument that they are only seven as given in
the sruthi.He quotes the text 'saptha imE lOkA Eshu haranthi prAnA guhAsayA
nihithAh saptha saptha, (Mund.2-1-8) (fromHim) these seven worlds (Seats of sense
life) are born seven and seven where placed lying in the cave (of heart) the prAnas
move.' The word seven and seven does not mean fourteen but the repetition is to
indicate the plurality of souls. the prANas are also mentioned as moving in the text
'yadhA panchAvathishTanthE jnAnAni mansA saha, buddhischa na vichEshtitha
thAmAhuh paramAmgathim,
When the five instruments of knowledge along with mind rest and the buddhi also does
not act that they call the highest state.'
The highest state means the state of release. This shows that the jnAnendhriyas, eye,
ear, nose, tongue and skin, (that is the power behind them and not the gross organs,)
mind and intellect moving with the soul when it departs from the body. The next suthra
answers this.

Suthra-5-hasthAdhay asthu sThithE athah naivam-2-4-5

It is not so on account of hands and feet etc assist the soul residing in the body.
Indhriyas are eleven only which are the five jnAnEndhriyas and five karmEndhriyas and
manas, the mind, because the karmendhriyas, hands, feet, organ of speech and the
organs of reproduction and excretion are also assisting the soul residing in the body.The
text 'dasEmE purushE prANAh Athma EkAdhasa,(Brhd.2-4-2) these are the ten
organs in man and the self is the eleventh,' confirm this. The view that the
karmEndhriyas are referred to as prAnas only in the secondary sense is not correct and
on the other hand the inclusion of buddhi,chittha and ahamkAra are all different states of
mind only, says Ramanuja, 'adhyavasAyAbhimAna chinthabuddhibhEdhA th mana
EvebuddhyahankArach ittha sabdhaihvtapadhisya tha,' according to the functions of
the mind,namely, deciding, egoistic and thinking. Even in the smrthi it is said 'indhriyANi
dhasaikancha (BG.XIII-5) the ten indhriyas and the one. Where more number is
mentioned it is to denote the functions of the mind wnd where less number is given it
refers to the particular aspects such as accompanying the soul etc.

Thus ends the sapthagathyaDHikara Nam

PrANANuthvADHikaraN am-2-4-3

Suthra-6-aNavascha- 2-4-6

And they are atomic.

From the text ' tha EthE sarva cha Eva samAh sarvE ananthAh,' (Brhd.1-5-13) which
says all these (speech, mind and prAna) are equal and infinite,' it looks as though they
are all pervading but this suthra confirms that they are atomic. This is known from
'prANam anoothkrAmantham sarvE prANA anoothkrAmanthi, when the vital breath
passes out of the body all the organs depart with it,' the first prana meaning the vital air
and the latter meaning the organs. The mention of infinite character is for the sake of
meditation as shown by 'aTHa yO hyEthAnananthAn upAsthE, he who meditates on
them as infinite.


And the best

The oppoent holds the view that the chief vital air, prANa is not created as stated in
the sruthi,'AneedhavAtham svaDHaya thadhEkam, by its own law it was alone
breathing without wind.' (Rk.V.X-129- 2) Since the word breathing refers to the
mukhyaprANa, as indicated by 'prANO vai jyEshTascha srEshTascha, ' (Brhd.6-1) the
passage quoted shows that the prANA existed before creation.

This suthra refutes the view citing the evidence of sruthi that the prANA was created.In
MundakOpanishad it is specifically mentioned that the prANA was created from
Brahman. 'EthasmATH jAyathE prANah, from this the prANA was born.' Hence the
reference to the one breathing without wind is to Brahman, who only existed in the
Thus ends the prANANuthvADHikaraNam.

VAyukriyADHikaraNam 2-4-4

Suthra-8-na vAyukriyE prthagupadhEsAth- 2-4-8

Neither air nor function.

A doubt is raised regarding prANa as to whether it is only air, the element or the motion
of air or is it some specific condition of air. The poorvapakshin states that it is air as
known from the text 'yah prANah sa vAyuh, prANa is air.' Or as the word breath is
adopted to indicate prANa and it is the motion of inhalation and exhalation it could be the
motion of air.

Both these views are refuted by the suthra on the basis of separate statement of the
scriptures that the breath and air are two different things.'EthasmAth jAyathE prANah
mansasarvEndhriyANi cha, kham vAyuh, (Mund.2-1-3) from HIm prAna originated,
mind and the sense organs and AkAsa and VAyu,' The text prANa is air does not mean
that breath is identical with air but only that it has assumed a special form and not
altogether different from air like any ther substance like fire. Also the breath is not only
motion but a substance having motion.

Suthra-9-chakshurAd hivatthu thathsahasishtyAdhu bhyah-2-4- 9

But like the eye and the rest, being taught with them and other reasons.

Breath is not a boothavisesha, a special element but like other senses like the eye it is
also an instrument of the soul. This is shown by the text which mentions it along with the
other organs, 'EthasmAth jAyathE prAnah manssarvEndhriyANi cha,' the phrase 'for
other reasons ' refer to the mention of sense organs as prANas and the vital breath as

To the objection that if the prANa is also helpful to the soul like the sense organs then
there must be some function ascribred to it but it is not so, the next suthra gives a reply.

Suthra-10-akaraNath vAth cha na dhOshah thaTHA hi dharsayathi- 2-4-10

It is no defect as shown in the scripture.

The word akaraNathva denotes akriyathva, absence of action.The objection that the
prANa has no function is not correct as the scripture mentions the action of prANa as
supporting the soul. In Chandogya upanishad there is an account of a dispute among
the senses, mind and prANa as to who is the superior among them and when each one
departed from the body the body remained active though without that particular faculty
but when the vital air started to leave it pulled all the others with it and they had to accept
that prANa is the best among them. Therefore prANa, like the other organs
is subservient to the soul and hence instrumental like eye and other organs.
Suthra-11-panchvrtt hirmanOvath vyapadhisyathE- 2-4-11

It is said to have five functions like the mind

The desire etc though different in their functions is not different from mind,
'kAmasankalpO vichikithsA sraddha asraddha dhrthiradhrthih
hreerdheerbheeerith yEvam sarvam mana Eva, (Brhd.1-7-3)
desire, will,doubt, faith, faithlessness, courage and the lack of it,shyness, wisdom and
fear all are of mind only.' Similarly the five prANas, namely, pprANa,apAna, udana,vyana
and samana are only five functions of the same breath. Thus ends the

SrEshTANuthvADHikar aNam-2-4- 5

Suthra-12-aNuscha- 2-4-12

PrANa is also atomic like the sense organs as shown from the text '
thamuthkrAmantham prANO anukrAmathi, (Brhd.4-4-2) the prANa follows the soul
when it goes out.' The view that it is all pervading according to the texts like
'sarvamheedham prANENa Avrtham, all these are covered with prANa,' are only to
indicate that all life depends on it.Thus ends the srEshTANuthvADGikar aNam.

JyOthrAdhyaDHishTAn ADHikaraNam2- 4-6

Suthra-13-jyOthiraD HishTAnam thu thadhAmananAth prANAvathA sabdhATH-2-
4- 13

Ruling over the senses by fire and others and of the soul is due to the will of the
supreme self.

In a previous suthra 'abhimANivyapadhEsa sthu visEshAnugathibhyAm,' (BS.II-1-5)
it has been shown that the fire and oher deities rule over the sense organs and the rule
of the soul over the senses is known from the text

'EvamEva Esha EthAn prANAn grheethvA svE sarirE yaTHA kAmam
parivarthathe,(Brhd.2-1-18) taking these prANas he moves within the body as he

The doubt is that whether the ruling by the presiding deities and by the soul is by their
own independent power or depends on some other higher authority. The opponent says
that they are independent which the suthra refutes on the basis of the scriptural
declaration that it depends on the will of the supremeself.'yO vAyou thishTAn', 'ya
AdhithyE thishTan', 'ya Athmani thishTAn' etc. (Brhd.II- 1-18) which declare the
supreme self to be the inner ruler and the self of all. Also the text, 'BheeshA asmAth
vAthah pavathe, bheeshAdhEt hi suryah, bheeshASmAth agnischendhrascha
mrthyurdhAvathi panchamah,' (Taitt.II-8- 1) which means that out of fear from Him the
air the Sun, fire, Moon and the Lord of death discharge their duties. In BrhadhAraNyaka
upanishad also we have the following text, 'Ethasya vA aksharasya prasAsanE gArgi
suryAchandhramasou viDHrthou thishTathah, (Brhd.III-8- 9) by the command of this,
the imperishable, the sun and the moon stand, held apart.'

Suthra-14-thasya cha nithyathvAth- 2-4-14

The ruling of all by the supreme self is permanent.

The sruthi texts like 'thathsrshtvA thadhEva anuprAvisath, (Tait.2-6) after creating the
world He entered into it,’. and of smrithi also 'vishtabhyAham idham krtsnam
EkAmsEna sThithO jagath,(BG.10-42) where the Lord declares that He pervades the
whole world by a part of Himself, all show that the ruling by the supreme self is
permanent and His essential nature.

IndhriyADhikaraNam- 2-4-7

Suthra-15-tha indhriyANi thadhvyapadhEsAth anyathra sreshTAth-2- 4-15

With the exception of the sreshTa, (the mukhyaprANa) all the others denoted by
the word prANa are the organs because they are so mentioned.

As declared in the BrhadhAraNyaka text 'thasmAth Etha EthEna AkhyAyanthE
prANA ithi (Brhd.1-5-21) therefore they are all called by its name as prANA,' the senses
are denoted by the name prANAh. This suthra differentiates the mukhyaprANa from the
others saying that except the srEshTa, as prANa is so called in the passage; all the
others are organs, that is, instruments of cognition. This is confirmed by the smrthi also
as 'indhriyANi dhasaikam cha pancha chEndhriyagOcharAh, the indhriyas are ten
with the mind as the eleventh.'

Suthra-16-bhEdhsrut hEh vailakshaNyAccha- 2-4-16

Because of statement of difference and the difference in characterestics

The text 'EthasmAth jAyathE prANO manssarvENdhriyAni cha, from this (Brahman)
prANa, mind and all indhriyas are born,' (Mund.2-1-3) mentions prANa separately from
indhriyas and the mind. But the mind has been included among the indhriyas elsewhere.
'manas shashTAneendhriyANi,' says the Gita.(BG.15- 7) The function of the indhriyas
and manas is to act as instruments of cognition while that of prANa is to support the
body and senses, which is why the indhriyas are denoted by the term prANAh. Hence
by specific mention and funcion the prANa is different from others.Thus ends the

SajnAmurthyklrpthya DHikaraNam- 2-4-8

Suthra-17-sajnAmurt hyklrpthisthu thrivrthkurvatha upadhEsAth-2- 4-17
The creation of names and forms are by the one who effects the tripartite because
scripture says so.

To the question that whether the names and forms were created by the supreme self or
by HiraNyagarbha who stands for the collective aggregate of individual selves, the
suthra answers that it is only the supreme self.The One only without a second who willed
to become many and created fire etc. is said to enter into all beings and gave them
names and forms says the sruthi. 'anEna jivENa AthmanA anupravisya nAmarupE
vyAkaravANi,(Chan.6-3-2) I will enter along with the soul as the inner self and give
names and forms.'

The opponent claims that the designation of names and forms is by the HiraNyagarbha
only because anEna jeevEna indicates the agency of the jiva which means that the
supreme self did not do the differentiation of name and form by itself but through the jiva
only.But on account of this the first person singular used in the passage, namely
vyAkaravANi (let me differentiate) is not to be taken in the secondary sense as in the
case of a king functioning through his spies who represent him because, the two are
distinct whereas in this case the jiva is a part of Brahman and the first person singular
can be taken literally.

But this view is refuted by the suthra saying that the differentiation of names and form
can be ascribed only to the one who effected the tripartite as shown in the text
'sEyam dhEvathaikshatha hanthAham imASthisrah dhEvathA anEna jivEna
AthmanA anupravisya nAmarupe vyAkaravANi; thAsAm thrivrtham
thivrthamEkaikAm karavANi, (Chan.6-3-2)
that divinity thought, let me, having entered these three beings with this lself,
differentiate names and forms ;let me make each of these three tripartite.'

The tripartition of each means this. Of the three elements mentioned as being
created, in each, the one which is the primary constituent dominates while the other two
remain as secondary. For instance the gross element fire consists of half fire and
rest being made up of water and earths each forming a quarter. Similarly in the other two
the primary element forming one half of it and other two a quarter each.This can be the
action of the supremeself only and not the Hiranyagarbha because he himself resides
inside the cosmic egg made up of the three elements.Hence the word Athma in the
passage means only Brahman having the individual self as His body.

Sythra-18-mAmsAdhi boumam yaTHAsabdam itharayOscha- 2-4-18

Flesh etc are of earthly nature and so are the other two according to the texts.

The opponent comes up with an objection that though the differentiation into names and
forms and the tripartition may be the act of one agent it need not necessarily be the
supreme self but could be Hiranyagarbha as there is evidence from sruthi that the nama
rupa were evolved first and then the tripartite creation came about.In the text quoted in
the previous suthra it clearly shows that this was the order of creation because the
nAmarupa vyAkarNam is mentioned before the thrivrthkaraNam. Since the texts refer
to a tripartete process with respect to the food taken by an individual whcih cannot be
prior to the differentiation into name and form.The text quoted by the opponent is from
ChAndhOgya passage 'annam asitham thrEDHA viDHeeyathE, the food deaten
becomes threefold.' similarly the other two, water and fire are referred to in this manner.

The suthra refutes this saying that the tripartite process described in the passage is
only a description of the transformation of the three elements into different parts of
human body and has nothing to do with the tripartition explained earlier regarding the

Suthra-19-vaisEshyA sthu thadhvAdhasthadhvAd hah-2-4-19

The designation of the elements as such is due to the preponderance of that
particular element.

Though all the three elements mentioned are presemt on each of the three they are
called by the name of that element which is predominant. This is the end of
sajnAmurthyklrpthya DHikaraNam.

End of the second chapter of Sribhashya of Ramanuja.

Sribhashya -- adhyaya-3

Padha- 1

Thadhanantharaprath ipathyaDHikaraNa m-3-1-1

Suthra-1-thadhantha raprathipatthou ramhathi samparishvakthah
prasnanirupaNAhyAm- 3-1-1

The soul goes out enveloped by the subtle elements with a view of obtaining
another body which is known from question and answer.

In the first two adhyayas it has been established that Brahman, who is free from
imperfections , abode of infinite auspicious qualities and of different nature from
everything else is the first cause and the views of the opponents were refuted on the
basis of sruthi, smrthi and reasoning. The next two adhyayas deal with the means
and the methods of attaining Brahman.
The third adhyaya is about the meditation as the means of release which consists
of the absence of desire in anything except the desired object, namely Brahman.
To attain this the imperfections of the individual self moving about in different states of
waking, dreaming , deep sleep and swoon and the absence of it in Brahman, the abode
of auspicious attributes, is to be understood, which forms the subject matter of the first
two padhas of the third adhyaya.

The suthra affirms that the soul leaving the body takes with it the subtle elements from
which the new body is created as against the poorvapaksha view that the soul can
produce a new body wherever it goes. This is known from question and explanation
found in the sruthi.

In the instruction of the panchAgnividhya in ChandhOgya upanishad where PravahaNa.
king of PAnchAlas after putting several questions to SvEthakEthu regarding the
destination of the soul after death and the two paths, one of which leads to the point of
no return and the other by which the soul returns taking rebirth says

'vEtTHa yaTHA panchamyAHuthAvApah purushavachasO bhavanthi, (Chan-5-3-3)
do you know how at the fifth oblation the liquid oblations come to be designated as man.'

The answer is given later in the passage that the heavens is the fire into which the
deities, the prANas(indhriyas) of the sacrificer and their presiding deities, namely fire etc
offer sraddha, faith as the oblation.( This means that a sacrificer who is competent and
strong in his faith offers himself as the oblation.)This is the first fire. The next is
parjanya, the rain cloud. Into this fire the deities offer king Soma, the moon as the
oblation. That is the liquid oblation in the form of faith develops into the form of the moon
and when it reaches the second stage, that of parjanya, it turns into rain. The third fire
is the earth in to which the oblation of rain is offered. The fourth fire is the man into
whom the oblation of food is offered. The fifth fire is the woman into whom the
oblation of the seed is offered.

The answer to the question at the outset is given as 'ithi thu panchamyAhuthAvApah
purushavachasO bhavanthi, (Chan.5-9-1) thus at the fifth oblation the waters come to
be designated as man because it turns into a child.

But the opponent raises a doubt that since only water is said to accompany the soul to
the next birth how can it be said that the soul takes with it the essence of all the
elements. The next suthra gives an answer.

Suthra-2-thrayAthma kathvAth thu bhooyasthvAth- 3-1-2

Because water consists of three elements but predominantly water.
It is not only water but as shown in the process of tripartite is only predominantly made
up of water consisting of fire and earth in lesser proportions.

Suthra-3-prANagathE scha-3-1- 3

Because of the going of the organs with the soul

In the text
'thamuthkrAmantham prANah anuthkrAmathi; prANam anuthkrAMantham sarvE
prANA anuthkrAmanthi, (Brhd.4-4-2)
The organs leaving with the soul is mentioned and also in Bhagavatgita it is said that
when the soul leaves the body it takes with it the organs.
'manasshashaTAneend hriyANi prakrthisTHAni karshathi; sariram
yadhavApnOthiyadhAP yuthkrAmtheesvar ah, grheethvaithAni
samyAthivAyurganDHA nivAsayAth.'(BG.15-8)
'It draws to itself the organs of sense, with the mind for the sixth. When the ruler (soul)
obtains a new body, and passes out of another, he takes with him those organs and then
moves on, as the wind takes the odors from their abodes.'

Suthra-4-agnyAdhiga thisruthEh ithi cheth na bHakthathvAth- 3-1-4

The organs entering into fire etc is to be taken in the secondary sense.

'yathrAsya purushasya mrthasya agnim vAk apyEthi,'(Brhd.3-2- 13)
Since it is said that when a man dies his speech enters into the fire, it is objected that the
soul carries the subtle elements with it but the suthra refutes it saying that this statement
is to be taken in the secondary sense as in the later text
'oushadheerlOmAni vanaspatheen kEsAh, the hairs of the body enters the herbs and
the hairs of the head enter the trees.'

Suthra-5-prathamE asravaNAth ithi cheth nathA EVa hyupapatthEh- 3-1-5

If it is said that there is no mention of water, it is not so because water is that
which is meant.

The opponent says that in the first oblation it is sraddha which is the offering and not
water and sraddha is known to be an attitude of mind. Hence it is not correct to say that
the soul goes out carrying the subtle element of water.

The suthra refutes this saying that by sraddha only water is meant as otherwise
there will be discrepancy between the question and the answer. sraddha is mentioned
as transformed into moon, rain etc and finally becoming the foetus and in the end it is
said 'EvamApahpurushavac hasah.' Moreover the word sraddha has been used in the
sense of water in the scriptures, ' apah praNayathi, sraddhAvA Apah ithi, (Tait.sam.I-
vi-8-1) he carries water sraddha is water.'
Suthra-6-asruthathv Ath ithi chEth na,ishtADHIkAriNAm pratheethEh- 3-1-6

If it is said that the jiva is not mentioned in the passage, it is not so because the
sacrificer is jiva only. Later in the same chapter it is said that those who perform
meritorious deeds go to the world of devas and become Somaraja, (king moon) and on
the exhaustion of their merits return to the earth. This is exactly what has been
described in the previous section by mentioning the offering of sraddha from which
arises king sOma etc. So the entity which is denoted as having the body of sraddha is
the same which becomes the nature of the moon, both denoting the individual soul.

Suthra-7-bhAktham vA anAthmavithvAthn thaTHA hi dharsayathi- 3-1-7

Soma being food of devas is meant in the secondary sense because of not
knowing the self and so the sruthi declares.

The opponent argues that from the text 'Esha sOmO rAjA thaddhEvAnAm annam
;tham dhEvA bakshayanthi, (Chan.5-10-4) this king soma is the food of devas and
they eat him,' it is evident that the individual soul cannot be denoted as king soma.

The suthra refutes the above saying that because of the absence of knowledge on the
part of the sacrificer regarding his real nature he is said to be the food of devas. By the
sacrificial offerings, worship etc devas are pleased and they enjoy them and hence the
word food is used in the sense of that which is enjoyed. As a result of sacrifice etc the
individual self is also able to enjoy the company of devas, the one devoid of the
knowledge of Self is mentioned as 'yaTHA pasuh EVam sa dhEvAnAm, (Brhd.1-4-10)
he is like a beast to the devas, meaning object of enjoyment. Eating for the devas mean
satisfaction and not actual act of eating which is shown from the text,' 'na vai dhEvA
asnanthi na pibanthi;EthadhEvAm rtham dhrshtvA thrpyanthi,(Chan.3-6-1)

Ramanuja concludes by saying that it is settled that the soul moves from one body to
another taking the subtle elements with it. 'thasmAth bhoothasukshmaih
samparishvakthah jivo ramhathiithi siddham.'

Thus ends the thadhantharprathipa tthyadDhikaraNam

krthAthyayADHikaraN am-3-1-2

Suthra-8-krthAthyay E anusayavAn dhrshtasmrthibhyAm yaTHEhamanEvam cha-


When the merit is exhausted the soul returns with the remainder of karma as declared
by sruthi and smrthi along the path it went by but with a difference.
The sruthi says 'yAvath sampAtham ushithvA aTHaitham Eva adhvAnam
Having stayed there till their karma is exhausted they return by the same path by which
they went.' The question is whether they return with any residual karma or not.
The poorvapkshin says that there is no residual karma as it has been exhausted as
declared by the above text.
The suthra refutes this view and says that only the merit, that is, the good karma by
which the soul has earned the divyalOKa, is exhausted and the soul returns to
experience the result of the remaining karma. This is shown by both sruthi and smrthi.
'thadh ya iha ramaNeeyacharaNA abhyAsO ha yatthEramaNeeyAm
yonimApadhyEran, '(Chan.5-10-7)
Those whose conduct has been good return to obtain a good birth like brahmin etc and
'aTha ya iha kapooyacharaNAabhyA so ha yatthEkapooyAm yOnim ApadhyEran,'
(Chan.5-10-7) those who have been doing sinful deeds obtain a low birth such as
animals or a low caste. Also smrthis like dharmasathras confirm this.

The soul descends in the same way as it went up but with a difference.

While ascending the soul is said to go by smoke, night, the dark fortnight,
dhakshiNAyana, pithrlOka and the moon. But while descending it does not touch the

Suthra-3-1-9- charaNAdhithi chEth na thadhupalakshaNArTH Ethi
kArshNAjinih- 3-1-9

The word 'charaNa' indirectly denotes karma and not conduct.

The text quoted in the previous suthra says that those whose conduct is good attain
good birth etc. and the opponent claims that the word charaNa or conduct is not karma
but denotes good conduct in general and not the acts enjoined in the vedas as
producing merit or demerit.

This suthra refutes this saying that the word charaNa denotes karma indirectly, as
opined by KarshnAjina AchArya.

Suthra-10-AnarTHaky am ithi cheth na thadhpEkshathvAth- 3-1-10

Good conduct is not purposeless as karma depends on good conduct.

The objection is that if good conduct, charaNa denotes karma then there will be no
purpose served by good conduct as such because it fetches no result but only karma

The suthra replies that it is not so because only a person with a good conduct is
entitled to perform the karma enjoined in the vedas like yajna etc. This is indicated by
the texts such as 'AchAraheenam na punanthi vedhAh, him who is devoid of good
conduct the vedas do not purify,' meaning that there can be no result to the vaidhika
karma if the good conduct is not observed. Therefore KarshnAjina considers good
conduct is implying karma.

Suthra-11-sukrthadu shkrthE Eva ithi thu bAdharih- 3-1-11

But charaNa is merit and demerit (in the direct sense)

The word charaNa means only conduct as the common expressions such as 'he
practices dharma' denote the good karma only as is meant by good conduct and hence
there is no need to assume secondary sense. This is the opinion of BAdhari and it is
approved by suthrakARa also, says Ramanuja, though the opinion of KArshnAjina is
partially accepted as much as the vedic acts like sandhyAvandhana as meritorious acts,
qualify for acquiring merit. Therefore the souls descend with residual karma. Thus ends
the krthAthyayADhikaraNam.

anishtADHikAryaDHik araNam-3- 1-3

Suthra-12-anishtADH ikAriNAmapi cha srutham-3-1- 12

The sruthi mentions that even those who do not perform sacrifices etc go to the
world of moon.

The sruthi declares 'yE vai kE chAsmAth lOkAth prayanthi chandhrmasamEva thE
sarve gacchanthi, whoever leaves this world go to the moon.' So there will be no
difference between those who do not perform the acts enjoined in the vedas or do what
is forbidden and those who follow the vedas.

The next suthra replies to this.

Suthra-13-samyamanE thu anubhooya ithrEshAm ArOhAvarOhou
thadgathi dharsanAth-3- 1-13

For them, (AchAraheenas) only after experiencing the punishment in the realm of Yama
there is ascent to and descent from moon. It is declared in the sruthi 'ayam lOkO
nASthi na parahithi mAnee punafpunarvasamApad hyathE mE.' (Kato.1-2-6) He
who thinks, this is the world there is no other, falls again and again under my sway,' says

Suthra-14-smaranthi cha-3-1-14

The smrthis also declare this.
Parasara and others declare that all are under the sway of Yama.

Suthra-15-api saptha-3-1-15

There are seven hells mentioned.

Seven hells are mentioned for the sinners to go and expiate their sins.

Suthra-16-thathrApi thadhvyApArAth avirODhah-3- 1-16

To the objection that if the sinners go to the seven hells how is it said that they go to the
realm of Yama, the suthra replies that even the seven hells are only under the rule of
Yama and hence there is no discrepancy.

Suthra-17-vidhyAkar maNOrithi thu prakrthathvAth- 3-1-17

The two paths are the result of jnAna and karma as they are the subject under

The path of devas, devayAna is prescribed for those who have knowledge of Brahman
and the path of the manes,
pithryANa is that of those who do the karmas enjoined in the Vedas

So the evildoers do not go by either of the paths and do not reach the realm of the
moon. The two paths form the subject matter of the passage mentioned. In Chandhogya
Upanishad, where the fifth oblation, called water is said to be designated as man, the
next section deals with the progress of the soul after death.
There it is said 'thadhya ittham vidhuryE chEmE aranyE sraddhA thapa
ithyupAsathE, 'those who know this, (meaning the knowledge of the five fires) and
those who in the forest
(Meaning those with jnAna) follow faith and austerities, go to light, (the path of light-
devayAna) 'thE archisham abhisambhavanthiarc hishO ahah,'
And 'aTha ya imEgrAmE ishtApoortham dhattahmithupAsathe,
Those who in villages (meaning those who follow karmmarga) perform sacrifice and
other karma enjoined in the vedas,'thE DHoomam abhisambhavanthi, they follow the
path of smoke,' that is pithryANa.
And it is further mentioned that all of them go to the realm of the moon.
For the evil doers neither the devayAna on account of their lack of knowledge nor
pithryANa is prescribed as they have not done any good deeds.

But the opponent objects that since the fifth oblation is the origin of the new body
even the evildoers must go through the first four oblations which necessitate their going
to the realm of the moon. (Chan.5- 7) The next sutra refutes this.

suthra-18-na thrtheeyE thaTHOpalabDHEh 3-1-18
Not with respect to third (evildoers) because it is seen to be so from the

The third class of souls, namely the evil doers do not depend on the fifth oblation for the
origination of a new body.
In ChAndhOgya upanishad it is said that those who return to the evil wombs do not go
by either of these paths because they keep repeatedly revolving between birth and
'thena asou lOKah na sampoorryathE, hence this realm of moon is never filled up.' So
the evildoers never progress as far as the moon.

Suthra-19- smaryathE api cha lOkE-3-1-19

Instances without the fifth oblation are known in the smrthi.

In Mahabharatha for example the bodies of Drshtadhyumna and Draupadhi were
created without depending on the fifth oblation that is not through the process of

Sutra- 20-dharsanAccha- 3-1-20

Also by observation

Sruthi also declares that in some cases bodies originate without depending on the fifth
oblation. 'theshAm khalu EshAm bhoothAnAmthreeNyEv a beejAni bhavanthiAndajam
jeevajam udbijjam, (Chan.6-3-1)

Of those mentioned there are only three kinds of origination, those from egg, those from
living being and those by germination. ‘The third kind do not depend on the fifth oblation
as they originate without mating. But the opponent comes up with an objection that there
is no mention of the beings born from sweat or moisture. To this the next suthra replies.

Suthra-21-thrtheeya sabdhAvarODHah sam sOkajasya-3- 1-21

The third class includes those born from moisture etc.

The word samsokaja means svedhaja or those born from sweat or moisture. This is
included in those that germinate, udbijja.

Therefore for the evildoers there is no attainment of the realm of the moon.

Thus ends the anishtADhikAryaDHik araNam.
thathsvAbhAvyApatth yadhikaraNam- 3-1-4

suthra-22-thathsvAb hAvyApatthirupap atthEh 3-1-22

The soul attains similarity of nature descending from the world of the moon with
AkAsa etc. that being reasonable.

The descent of the soul from the realm of the moon is described as
'yaThEtham Akasam AkAsAth vAyum vAyurbhoothvA DHoomO bhavathi DHoomO
bhoothvA abhram bhavathi,
They come to AkAsa, from AkAsa to air. Having become air they become smoke.'

Now the question is whether the souls becomes embodied in these elements or attain
similarity. The opponent claims that it become embodied in AkAsa etc since the soul is
said to become the moon in the srAdhha state and

The suthra refutes this saying that the soul attains only similarity. When the soul
becomes the moon or a man, embodiment is needed for enjoying the result of karma
whereas in reaching the AkAsa etc. there is no such need. So it only means that the soul
becomes like AkAsa, air,etc when it reaches the respective spheres.

This is the end of thathsvAbhAvyApathh yaDHikaraNam

nAthichirADhikaraNa m-3-1-5

Suthra-23-nAthichir ENa visEshAth-3- 1-23

The soul’s descent does not take very long time because of declaration as such.

To the question that on reaching each realm whether the soul remains there for
indefinite time before taking another embodiment the suthra replies that it is not so.
There is a special statement 'athO vai khalu dhurnishprapatharam ,' from there the
escape is set with many more difficulties, ' meaning that the passing of the soul into the
realm of AkAsA etc are not difficult and hence accomplished easily but when the soul
takes the form of rice, corn etc it is not easy to pass on from that state. From this it could
be inferred that the soul stays in the previous stages for a short time only.
Thus ends the nathichiraDhikaraNam

anyADhishTithAdhika raNam-3-1- 6

Suthra-24-anyADHish TithE purvavath abhilApAth-3- 1-24
The soul is only in contact with the bodies of plants etc. which are ruled by other souls
for the same reason as stated in the previous suthra.

To the question that whether the soul is born as rice etc in the primary sense of the term
the suthra replies that it is merely in contact with the bodies of the plants as they are
embodied by other souls. The reason for this is the same as that given before, namely,
there is no result of karma to be experienced in those bodies. In the interval between
leaving the heavenly regions after enjoying the result of good deeds and the next
embodiment awaiting as the result of the residual karma there is no karma earned and
hence no embodiment.

Suthra-25-asuddham ithi cheth na sabdhAth- 3-1-25

If it is said that the karma like sacrifices are unholy (on account of himsa involved)
it is not so, according to scriptures.

The view of the previous suthra is not accepted by the opponent who says that acquiring
bodies of plants etc. is possible because the karma enjoined in the vedas like animal
sacrifices involve himsa since the scripture itself prohibits killing by 'na himsyAth
sarvabhoothAni'. If it is argued that the killing in the sacrifices is not sin because there
is no desire motivation for cruelty because, even the sacrifices are undertaken with a
desire only, such as attaining heaven. So the soul after enjoying the beneficial result of
good karma descends into plant life to work out the bad karma.

This view is refuted by the suthra. The sruthi says ’hiraNyasarira oorDhvah
svargalOkam Ethi, attaining golden body it goes to heaven,' of the animal killed in
sacrifice. As it releases the soul from body of the lower species and makes it ascend to
heaven it is beneficial and not himsa. That action which secures exalted status even if it
involves a little pain it is beneficial.

The manthra which is pronounced while sacrificing the animal also declares
‘na vA u EthanmriyasE na ripyasi dhEvAn idhEshi paTHibhih sugEbhih; yathra
santhi sukrthO nApi dhushkrthah,
Thou dost not die; thou goest to the gods on easy paths; where virtuous men go, not
Just as a treatment for an injury, even if involves a little pain does a lot of good so too
the animal sacrifice in yajnas benefit the soul that inhabits the body of the animal.

Suthra-26-rEthassig YOgO aTha-3-1-26

Then the soul gets connected with the one who performs the act of generation.

After reaching the stage of plant the soul enters into the one who eats and through him
gets connected with the act of generation, that is through him it reaches the human
womb. So from this it can be understood that the embodiment starts only after reaching
the human womb.
Suthra-27-yOnEh sariram-3-1- 27

From the womb a new body is acquired. When the soul reaches the womb it
acquires a body according to the residual karma for experiencing pain and


sandhyADHikaraNam- 3-2-1

Suthra-1-sanDHyE srshtirAha hi-3-2-1

In the previous adhyaya the wakeful state of the soul is described. In this adhyaya
the dream state is described along with the auspicious qualities and wonderful
powers of the Lord.

The sruthi says about the dream world
‘na thathra raTHA na raTHayOgA na panTHAnO bhavanthi;aTHa raTHAn
raTHayOgAnpaTHah srjathE,(Brhd.4-3-10)

Which means that there are no chariots nor horses nor roads and everything is created
by the soul? To the question whether this creation is done by the individual self or
Isvara, the opponent answers that it is the jiva which creates in the intermediate stage,
sanDHya , so called because it is in between this world and next world. 'sanDhyam
thrtheeyam svapnasTHAnam,(Brhd.4-3-9) the state of dream is the third intermediary
stage. It is created by the jiva only. as said 'srjathE sa hi karthA,' meaning, he is the
creator who creates all these. It is said to connect the two worlds because the dreamer
not only sees what he experienced in the wakeful state but also gets new experiences
that can only belong to another world.

Suthra-2-nirmAthAra m cha EkE puthrAdhayascha- 3-2-2

Some shAkhas say clearly that the jiva is the creator of dream world.

In kaTopanishadit is said
'ya Eshu supthEshu jAgarthi kAmam kAmam purushO nirmimANah, (Kata.2-2-8 )
The one who is awake in those who sleep, fashions the desired objects. The word kAma
means the objects of desire like sons etc. It is used in similar sense in other places also
as in
'sarvAn kAmAn cchandhathah prarTHayasva; sathAyushah puthrapouthrAn
vrNeeshva,(Kata.1-1-25- 23)
Ask for all kAmas according to your wish, ask for sons and grandsons who will live up to
100 years.' This view is refuted in the next suthra.

Suthra-3-mAyAmAthra m thu kArthsyEna anabhivyaktha svarupathvAth- 3-

It is only the mAyA (of Isvara) as the real nature of the self is not manifested in

The word mAyAmAthram here does not mean illusion but means IsvaramAyA, the
wonderful power of Isvara. It is wonderful because it is present only for the particular
soul and lasts only for a short time. The word mAyA is used to denote wonder even in
other places such as in the passage 'janakasya kulE jAthA dhEvamAyEva nirmithA,'
where Sita is described as being like the wonderful power of the Lord.

This wonderful creation is possible only for the Lord who is sathyasanlkalpa, of infallible
will and not jiva, in whom the full powers become manifest only in the released state.
The creator of desired objects is only denoted as Isvara in 'kAmam kAmam
purushonirmimANah, '(Kata.2-2-8) the subsequent texts that follow the one which
mentions him, that keeps awake in those who sleep, indicate that it is the supreme self
only. It goes like this. 'thadhEvasukram thadhbrahma thadhEvAmrtham uchyathE,
that is white, that is Brahman, that alone is called immortal.' Since these characterestics
apply to Brahman only the creator in the passage cited earlier (Brhd. 4-3-10) must be
interpreted in accordance with this.

Suthra-4-parAbhiDHy AnAtthu thirOhitham thathOhyasya
banDhaviparyayaou- 3-2-4

Due to the divine will the real nature of the individual self is concealed.

To the question that if the real nature of the soul is pure why should it not manifest the
suthra replies that it is according to the will of the supreme self, because of the
beginning less karma, causing the commission of sin, so that the soul will exhaust the
sinful karma by experiencing the result of it. The bondage and the release both are
effected by the Lord only, as mentioned by sruthi
'yadhA hyEvaishaEthaminnad hrshyeanatghmyE anirukthEanilayanE abhayam
prathishTAm vindhathE aTha sO abhayamgathO bhavathi;,(Tait.2-7)
Whenever an aspirant gets fearlessly established in Brahman, the unperceivable,
formless, indescribable unsupported by anything else, he attains the state of

Suthra-5-dhEhayOgAd hvA sOapi-3-2-5

Also due to the connection with the body
The concealment of real nature of the soul occurs due to its connection with the body
made of gross elements at the time creation and of subtle elements at the time of
dissolution when there is no manifestation into name and form. Therefore its real nature
being obscured by karma, the soul is not capable of creating the dream objects. The
Lord creates the dream world in order to dispense the results of the acts of very little
importance, not considerably large to be exhausted in the waking state.

Suthra-6-suchakasch ahi sruthEh AchckshathE cha thadvidhah-3- 2-6

As dreams serve as omens for a future events which is also substantiated by

Certain dreams serve as premonitions for events to come and hence they could not be
the creation of the dreamer. In ChAndhOgya upanishad it is said
'yadhA karmasu kAmyEshusthriyam svapnEshu pasyathi samrddhim thathra
jAneeyAth thasmin svapnanidharsanE, (Chan.5-2-8)
While performing rites for desired results if one sees a woman in his dream then he
should recognize the fulfillment of his desire in this vision of a dream.

Those who are proficient with the science of dreams also predict good and bad results
according to the dreams. The dreams that predict bad results cannot be the creation of
the dreamer and hence it is the creation of the Lord only.

Thus ends sandhyADHikaraNam. .

thaDHabhAvADHikaraN am-3-2-2

Suthra-7-thadhabhAv O nAdeeshu thacchrutherAthmani cha-3-2-7

The absence of dream takes place in the nerves and it is declared by sruthi also.

Now the deep sleep stage is examined. In the sruthi it is said
'yathraithathsuptha h samsthah samprasannah svapnam na vijAnAthi Asu thadhA
nAdeeshu supthO bhavathi,
When a man sleeps (meaning deep sleep) he does not know any dream and rests well
and peacefully he enters into the nAdis.' (Chan.-8-6-3) In BrhdArNyaka also it is said that
the soul rests in the region of the heart in deep sleep. Also in the text it is said
'yathraithath purushah svapithi nAma sathA soumya thadhA sampannO bhavathi,
when a man sleeps he becomes united with the sath,' Hence the poorvapkshin argues
that as one cannot sleep in different places at the same time, either they become the
resting places for the soul alternatively or they are collectively mentioned.
The suthra replies that the places mentioned are in the collective sense. as in the
_expression 'he sleeps in the palace, in a couch and on a bed,'the three are taken to be
in one place only, here also the nAdias are like the palace, the region of heart is the
couch and the Brahman is the bed. This explanation alone will be in accordance with the
alternate sruthi texts since they have to be interpreted so as not be in conflict with each
other. Therefore Brahman is the sushupthisTHAnam, the resting place in deep sleep.

Suthra-8-athahprabh ODHO asmAth-3-2-8

Hence the awakening from that (Brahman)

Since Brahman is the resting place in deep sleep the scriptures declare that the soul
awakens form Brahman. The text 'satha Agaccha na vidhuh sathaAgacchAmahe,
'(Chan.6-10-2) having come from Brahman they do not know that they have come from
it.' thus ends thadhabhAvADHikaraN am.


viDHyaDHIkaraNam- 3-2-3

Suthra-9-sa Eva thu karamAnusabdhavidhi bhyah-3-2- 9

The same person wakes up due to karma, remembrance and according to the
sruthi and injunction.

To the question whether the soul having rested in Brahman wakes up as before or does
it become emancipated and a different soul wakes up, the suthra answers that the same
soul wakes up. The remaining karma has to be worked out by the same soul and on
waking up one remembers that he is the one who slept (anusmrthi). The sruthi also
supports this. The text

'sa iha vyAgro vA simhO vA vrkO vAvarAhO vA keetO vA pathangO vA dhamsO
vA masakO vA yadhyadhbhavanthi thadhAbhavanthi,
'Whatever these creatures are here, whether a lion, or tiger, or wolf,boar,worm,
fly,,gad- fly or mosquito, that they become again' (Chan.. VI, io, 2).

Also the injunctions regarding attainment of release will be purposeless if a soul
becomes free in sleep.

The sleeping person is different from a released soul as he is not free from limiting
adjuncts of waking state even then. It is shown in the text where Indhra was instructed
by Prajapathi about the real Self. He was told that the one who is full asleep is the Self
but Indhra is not satisfied and says
'nAha khalu ayam EvamsamprathyAthmAb am jAnAthi ayam aham asmi ithi nO
Eva imAni bhoothAni;vinAsam Eva apeethO bhavathi, (Chan.8-11-1)
Meaning, he does not know in deep sleep who he is or any of these things and hence
he goes into annihilation. '

On the other hand the released soul is described as 'param jyOthirupasampadhya
svEna rupENa abhinishpadhyathE, having attained the supreme light (Brahman) he
manifests in his real nature,' in which state he becomes all knowing 'sarvam ha pasyah
pasyathi sarvam ApnOthi sarvasah, he sees everything and knows everything.'
Therefore the soul in sleep having rested in Brahman for a while comes back to work out
the remaining karma. Thus ends the karmAnusmrthisabdhy aDHikaraNam.

MugDHADHikaraNam- 3-2-4

Suthra-10-mugDHE arDHasampatthih parisEshAth- 3-2-10

In swoon it is partial death as it is the only alternative left.

To the question whether the swoon is to be included in one of the three, namely,
wakeful, dream or deep sleep states or akin to death, the suthra replies that it is partial
death. It is not the wakeful or dream states as there is no knowledge, neither it has the
character of deep sleep because of the absence of peace and rest and nor is it death as
the soul returns to consciousness .So it could be only described as partial death.

ubhayalingADHikaraN am-3-2-5

Suthra-11-na sTHAnathopi parasya ubhayalingam sarvathra hi 3-2-11

There is no imperfection in Brahman because of place as it is said to have two
fold characteristics.

The condition of the jiva in different states of consciousness has been brought out by the
previous suthras in order to arouse dispassion in the mind of an aspirant and now the
nature of Brahman is described as being free from defects and an abode of auspicious
qualities in order to induce desire for attaining Brahman.

The poorvapkshin says that the defects of the different places such as wakeful state,
dream etc. will adhere to Brahman who is said to abide in them. He argues that the soul
by nature is pure but only due to the connection with a body it acquires imperfections
caused by karma. Even though Brahman abides in different states with the soul
voluntarily as its inner self, embodiment should create imperfections, just as a person,
though clean will become impure if he falls into filth. The texts such as 'yah prthivyAm
thishTan,' etc which describe Brahman being present in all entities as their inner self
proves only that like an embodied soul getting contaminated by the imperfections of the
body Brahman also will be so due to the body it enters in .
This view is refuted in the suthra saying that the supreme self is not contaminated
because through out Brahman is said to have twofold characteristics by the sruthi,
namely, being free from all imperfections and possessing infinite auspicious qualities.

Here Ramanuja quotes from sruthi texts such as,
'apahathapApma, vijarO vimrthyuHvishokO vijiGHathsOapipAsah sathyakAmah
sathyasankalpah, (Chan.8-1-5)
free from evil, free from old age, free from death, free from grief, free from hunger and
thirst; of infallible will and wish,' and from smrthi
'samasthakalyAna gunAthmakOasou svashakthilEsAth dhrtha bhootha sargah,
thEjObalaisvarya mahAvabODHasuveerya shakthyAdhicuNai karAsih;parah
parANAm sakalA na yathra klEsAdhayah santhi parAvarEse,(VP-6-5-84/85)
He possesses all auspicious qualities, by a fraction of his power supporting all beings. In
Him there are energy, strength, might, wisdom, valor, and all other noble qualities. He is
the supreme being the Lord of all, high and low, whom no imperfections affect.’
From these passages the twofold characteristics of Brahman can be understood.

Suthra-12-bhEdhAth ithi cheth na prtyhEkam athadhvachanAth- 3-2-12

If it is said that Brahman cannot avoid contamination on account of different
bodies, it is not so because of assertion to the contrary in each text.

To the objection that Brahman should also be affected by the imperfections of the
different bodies ensouled by it like divine, human etc. the suthra answers that each text
where Brahman is described as the inner self like 'ya prthivyAm thishTan , ya
Athmani thishTan' etc. ends with the assertion 'sa tha ASthmA antharyAmyamrthah,
that is the Self ,the indweller who is immortal.'

It cannot be argued that even if the entry into the different bodies is self-willed, Brahman
cannot escape being connected with the imperfections which are the nature of the
Ramanuja points out that even the inanimate objects are not good or bad by nature
but gives joy or sorrow according to the karma of the individual who experiences them.
In VishnupurANa it is said
'thadhEva preethayE bhoothvA ApunardhuhkhAya jAyathE;thadhEva kOpAya
yathah prasAdhAya cha jAyathe;thasmAth dhuhjhAthmakam nAsthi na cha
kimchith sukhAthmakam,'(VP.2-6-48)
which means that the same thing which gives pleasure turns into a source of sorrow and
vice versa and hence nothing is of the nature of pleasure or pain.
So the connection with bodies, while causes joy and sorrow for the jiva according to his
karma, to the supreme self it is a matter of sport only.

Suthra-13-api chaivamEkE-3- 2-13
Some also teach thus.

The text:
'dhvA suparNA sayujA sakhAyA samAnam vrksham parishasvajAthE;
thayOranyah pippalam svAdhu atthi anasnananyah abhichAkaseethi,
two birds of beautiful plumage, inseparable friends cling to the same tree; while one eats
the fruits sour and sweet the other looks on without eating,' declares that though the
individual soul experiences pain and pleasure as the result of embodiment Brahman
abiding in the same body as its inner self is not affected.
But the poorvapakshin quotes the text 'anEna jeevEna AthmanA anupravisya
nAmarupE vyAkaravANI,I will enter in with this soul and provide name and form,' and
says that this shows that Brahman also comes under the sphere of names and forms
and hence when the embodiment causes pain and pleasure to the jiva due to karma how
can Brahman be not affected being in the same body. The next suthra replies to this.

Suthra-14-arupavadh Eva hi thath praDHAnathvAth- 3-2-14

Brahman is by nature formless though the agent of names and forms.

Brahman is formless as there is no embodiment as in the case of jiva due to karma and
is superior being instrumental for the names and form. This is evident from the text

'AkAsO vai nAma nAmarupayOh nirvahithA thE yadhantharA thadhbrahma,
AkAsa (meaning Brahman) is the agent of names and forms; that without these is

The soul is connected with the respective name and form according to its karma and for
Brahman this is not the case and hence no form, though abiding in the soul and its body
as the antharyami, indweller, and hence, says Ramanuja, retains the dual
characteristics, namely nirastha nikhila dhOshathvam, absence of all imperfections
and kalyANAgunAkarathva m , abode of all auspicious qualities.

Suthra-15-prakAsava th cha avaiyarTHyAth- 3-2-15

Even as Brahman is regarded as being essentially of light so too the twofold
characteristics to be taken as true so that the texts will not be devoid of meaning

The concept of ubhayalingathvam is questioned on the basis of abhedha texts. The text
'sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma, truth, knowledge and infinity is Brahman,'
denotes Brahman to be nirvisesha, undifferentiated, (that is, according to advaita
only) while mentioning the qualities sarvajnathvam, omniscience,
sathyasankalpathvam, true willed, jagathkAraNathvam, being the cause of the world,
and sarvAntharyAmithvam, being the inner Self of all, and again denying all attributes
by the texts saying ' nethi nethi, not this, not this. The opponent asks that how can
Brahman be attributed with the ubhayalinga, namely, being free from imperfections and
being the abode of auspicious qualities on the face of evidence to the contrary.

The suthra replies to this saying that just as the attribute of consciousness
(prakAsathvam) is to be understood in order to make the text 'sathyam jnAnam
anantham,' meaningful so too the ubhayalingathvam has to be affirmed so that the
texts mentioning sarvajnathvam etc. will not be devoid of meaning.

Suthra-16-Aha cha thanmAthram- 3-2-16

And the text quoted says so much only.

The text 'sathyam jnAnam anantham brahma,' specifies only this being the nature of
Brahman and not negates the other qualities.

Suthra-17-dharsayat hi cha athO api smaryathE-3- 2-17

This is shown by sruthi and smrthi.

The twofold characteristics of Brahman is shown buy sruthi texts such as :

'thameesvarANAmpara mam mahEsvaram tham dhaivathAnAAm paramam cha
He is the Lord of lord as and supreme deity of all the deities,

'yah sarvajnah sarvavith yasya jnAnamayam thapah,' (Mund.1-1-9)
He is omniscient and knows all and His creative thought is knowledge itself, and

'nishkalamm nishkriyam shAntham niravadhyam niranjanam,'
He who is without parts, without action, tranquil, without fault, without taint. (Svet. Up.
VI, l9)

Smrthi also says that the Lord is the cause of the world and pervades all but unaffected
by anything, 'utthamah purushah thu anyah paramAthmA ithi udhAhrthah;yO
lOkathrayam Avisya bibarthyavyaya isvarah,' (BG.15-17)

Suthra-18-aTha Eva chOpamA suryakAdhivath- 3-2-18

Therefore the comparisons of Brahman with the images of the sun etc.

Brahman is compared to the sun which though reflected in different mediums is not
affected by the imperfections of the image which belong to the reflecting medium only.

Suthra-19-ambuvatha grahaaNAth thu na thaTHAthvam- 3-2-19
But there is no comparison as Brahman is not apprehended as the reflection of the sun
in water etc.

THis suthra presents an objection that Brahman is not apprehended in the places He
abides as the reflection of the sun in water, mirror etc. Moreover the reflection is an
illusion. But the scripture tells us that Brahman exists in prthivee etc. in reality. So the
comparison is not valid.

Suthra-20-vrddhihrA sabhAkthvamantha rbhAvAth ubhaya sAmanjasyath
Evam dharsanAth cha-3-2-20

The participation in imperfections like increase and decrease alone is denied
making the comparison appropriate and thus it is seen.

Brahman is compared to AkASa in a pot and other things and also to sun reflected in
different sources of water in order to show that his imperfections of the place of abode
do not affect Brahman. While the sun is not present in water the air exists in the pots.
Both the examples are for indicating the same characteristic of Brahman, namely not
being affected by the imperfections of the residing place.

Ramanuja explains it thus:

yaTHA jalAdhishu vasthuthah anavasTHithasya amsumathah hethvabhAvAth
jalAdhidhOshAnabhis hvangah thaTHA prthivyAdhishu avasTHithasyApi
paramAthmanah dhOshprathyaneekAkA rathayA dhOshahEthvabhAvAth na
dhOshasambhanDHah ithi
This means, just as the imperfections of the reflecting medium do not affect the sun
because it does not exist in water etc. in reality, likewise the Supreme self ,though
existing in the entities like earth, is not affected by their imperfections, being free from
defects by nature.

Suthra-21-prkrthath Avathvam hi prathishEDHathi thathO braveethi cha
bhooyah-3-2- 21

The text denies only that-muchness of Brahman and declares more than that.

The poorvapakshin quoting the text 'nethi nethi,' says that Brahman is defined as pure
being and hence the ubhayalinga is not applicable, to which the suthra replies that the
text quoted does not deny the attributes of Brahman but only denies limiting
Brahman to this -much. Otherwise sruthi cannot negate what has already said earlier
and more so because of the declaration of more qualities later and hence the texts have
to be interpreted so as not conflict with each other. It is said by sruthi
nahyEthasmAth ithi na ithi anyath paramasthi;aTha nAmaDHEyam sathyasya
sathyam ithi, (Brhd.4-3-6)
For there is not anything higher than this not so Then comes the name, the True of the

Ramanuja explains the passage thus:

the words 'na ithi' in the passage means that there is nothing higher than Brahman both
in nature and qualities, 'brahmanah anyath svarupathah guNathah cha nAsthi
ithyarTHah.' That Brahman is known as 'sathyasya sathyam' the 'true of the true.' This
epithet is explained in the subsequent santence 'prANA vai sathyam thEshAm Esha
sathyam, the prANas (individual souls) are true and He is the truth of them. The souls
are called pranas because they are accompanied by prana and they are true in the
sense they do not undergo changes in form and nature like the insentient. .Of these
reals Brahman is the highest reality. He is termed as sathyasya sathyam because the
knowledge of the souls contract and expand according to their karma whereas it is not
so for Brahman who is free from sin. Therefore Brahman is the highest truth of them all.

Ramanuja concludes that since the passages complementary to that containing the
denial,'nethi nethi' show that Brahman has certain qualities the denial is not in respect
to the qualities already stated but it only denies that the nature of Brahman is limited by
those qualities only.'
athaschaivam vAkyaseshOdhitha guNajAthayOgAth nethi netheethi brahmaNah
saviseshathvam na prathishiDHyathE api thu poorvaprakrthEya itthAmAthram.
atha ubhayalingam Eva brahma.'
Therefore is confirmed that Brahman has twofold characteristics of being free from
imperfections and possessing infinite auspicious qualities.

Suthra-22-thadhavya ktham Aha hi-3-2-22

Brahman is unmanifest as declared by scriptures.

Sruti declares 'na sadhrsE thishTathi rupam asya na chakshushA pasyathi
kaschanaEnam,(Kata. 2-6-9) his form does not stands to be seen and no one sees
Him with the eye and 'na chakshushA grhyathE nApi vAchA, (Mund.3-1-8) He is not
grasped by eye or speech.' so there is no question of defining Brahman or denial.

Suthra-23-api samrADHane prathyakshAnumAnAbh yAm-3-2-23

Brahman can be experienced only through meditation says sruthi and smrthi
(denoted by prathyaksha and anumana)
SamrAdhana is samyak preeNana, meditation combined with devotion and sruthi
declares that Brahman can be intuited only through the means of devotion and
'nAyamAthmA paravachanEna labhyahna mEdhayA na bahuDHA
sruthEna;yamEvaisha vrnuthE thEna labhyah, (Kata.1-2-23)
The supreme self cannot be attained through vedas, or intellect or learning; but can be
attained only by him, whom the supreme self chooses.' Smrthi also confirms this by
'nAham vedhairna thapasA na dhAnEna na chejyayaA--- -bhakthyAthvanan yayaA
I cannot be attained through vedas, austerities, charity, or by sacrifice. I become
accessible only through devotion.'

Suthra24-prakAsAdhi vathcha avaiseshyamprakAsas cha karmani
abhyAsAth-3- 2-24

There are non-differences in the case of light and apprehension through constant
practice of meditation.

The text
'thaddhaithath pasyan rshirvAmadhEvah prathipedhE "aham manurabhavam
suryascha", (Brhd.1-4-10)
Seeing this vAmadeva understood, “I am manu and surya."

In this apprehension through meditation, the knowledge and bliss as the essential
nature of Brahman as well as the universe of the sentient and the insentient beings in
subtle and gross form as the modes of Brahman is understood.

Suthra-25-athO ananthEna thTHA hi lingam- 3-2-25

As Brahman is shown to be infinite the characteristics apply.

Since Brahman has been established as possessing infinite auspicious qualities the
twofold characteristics are confirmed.

ahikundalADHikaraNa m-3-2-6

Suthra-26-ubhayavya padhEsAth ahikundalavath- 3-2-26

It has been established that the texts saying 'not this, not this,' deny only the iyatthA the
limitation of Brahman. It has also been shown that Brahman is the highest and truth of
the true. Now the relationship between the non sentient world and Brahman is examined
in order to prove that Brahman is free from imperfections. There are three alternative
views, namely ahikundalanyaya, the relation of a serpent to its coils,
prabhAprabhAvathOh iva EkajAthi yOga, that between the light and the source of
light and amsaamsibhAvEna viseshaNa viseshyathA, like that of the part and the
whole as the attribute and the substance. This and the following two suthras deal with
each of the alternatives.

From the earlier suthras 'thadhanyathvam ArmbhaNa sabdhAdhibhyah,' (BS.2-1-14)
and 'prakrthischa prathishTAdhrshtAnt hAnuparOdhAth, ' (BS.1-4-23) it has been
shown that Brahman distinguished by the sentient and the non-sentient beings in their
gross form has originated from Brahman distinguished by the sentient and the non-
sentient in their subtle form.

The texts such as 'brahma Eva idham sarvam' (Brhd.2-5-1) all this is Brahman and
'AtmaivEdham sarvam,'(Chan.7-25-2) all this is the Self, speak about the identity of
Brahman with the world while the texts like 'anEna jivEna AthmanA anupravisya,'
relating the entry of Brahman into everything to distinguish names and forms mention
the difference. Therefore like the serpent and its coils the world is different in names and
forms like the coils of the snake yet not different as they are only Brahman in substance,
like the snake that exists in its coils.

Suthra-27-prakAsAsr ayavadhvA- 3-2-27

Or like the light and its source.

If brahman is said to appear as the world like the serpent and its coils there will be
contradiction with the texts denoting the difference and hence the analogy of the light
and its source is adopted in as much as though both are different yet they are the same
being(thEjas) the element fire.

Suthra-28-poorvavad hvA-3-2-28

Or the relation is as given before.

In the first alternative Brahman itself existing as the non-sentient world, the imperfections
of the world will be unavoidable with respect to Brahman. The second alternative means
that as fire constitutes the substance in light as well as its source, Brahmanhood forms
the substance of the non-sentient world and Brahman, in which case Brahman becomes
a mere generic character and not a real entity that pervades all. This means, instead of
Brahman existing in all, it will be Brahmanhood which forms the common basis of both
the world and Brahman and this is against the declaration in the sruthi that Brahman is
the supreme reality.

This leads to the conclusion that the relationship between Brahman and the world is as
described in the earlier suthras 'amsO nANAvayapadhEsAth, ' (BS.2-3-43) and
'prakASAdhivatthu nAivam parah' (BS. 2-3-45) according to which the non-sentient is
also ,like the sentient soul , an attribute of Brahman, being an inseparable part(amsa) of
Brahman. Thus the identity between the substance and the attribute as well as the
difference of the attribute and the substance is brought out and hence Brahman is also
shown as free from imperfections. Just as the light of the entities belonging to the genus
of luminous bodies like a gem, which is inseparable from the gem etc, are considered as
the part of the luminous body,the sentient and insentient entities form a part of Brahman.

Suthra-29-prathishE DHAccha-3- 2-29

And because of denial

The texts such as 'nASya jarayA Ethath jeeryathE' (Chan.8-1-5) it does not age with
aging of the body, and 'sa vA Esha mahAnaja AthmA ajarO amarah' this is the great
Self, unborn,undecaying and immortal, deny in Brahman the attributes of the nonsentient
world. Hence the relation between the two is only that of substance and attribute and the
nonsentient world forms a part of Brahman. Therefore Brahman is free from
imperfections, abode of auspicious qualities and possesses twofold characteristics.

Thus ends the ahikundalADHikaraNam.

ParADHikaraNam- 3-2-7

Suthra-30-paramatha h sEthoonmAnasambhanD Ha bhEdhavyapadhEsEbhy ah-3-

There is something higher than Brahman because of the mention of bridge, measure,
connection and difference.

This suthra is by way of fallacious prima facie view (poorvapaksha) that there must be a
higher being than Brahman, the material and efficient cause of the world.

The text 'atha ya Athma sa sEthurviDHrthih,' mentions that the Self is the bridge, the
embankment, (Chan.8-4- 1) to be crossed 'Etham sEthum TheerthvAanDHassan
ananDHO byavahi', (Chan.8-4-2) by which a blind person is able to see. Since a
bridge is something to go across to reach the other side there must be something else to
be reached after crossing it.
Brahman is also mentioned as being limited by the text 'parimitham idham param
brahma chathushpAdbrahma shOdasalkalam, ' (Chan.3-18-2) the supreme Brahman
is limited, has four feet and sixteen parts, which indicates the existence of something
other than Brahman which is unlimited, to be reached by that bridge. Also the texts
'amrthasya param sEthum, the highest bridge of immortality' (Svet.6-19) and
'amtrthasyaisha sEthuh(Mund.2-2-5) he is the bridge of the immortal,' all of which
indicate something higher to be reached through the bridge, that is Brahman.

That there is something higher is also shown by 'parAthparampurusha m upaithi,
(Mund.3-2-8) he goes to the purusha who is higher than the highest and 'thEnEdham
poorNam purushENa sarvam,thathO yadhuttharatharam thadharoopamanAmaya
m, by this person the whole universe is filled and what is higher than that is formless
and without suffering. So from these it is claimed that there is something higher than

Suthra31-sAmAnyAth thu-3-2-31

Because of similarity

The sutra refutes the view given above. The word 'Sethu ' does not mean something to
be attained but the next phrase to the text quoted says 'EshAmlOkAnAm
asambhEdhAya' meaning, for the non- confounding of these worlds.

Ramanuja defines the word 'sEthu' as

'sinOthi baDHnAthi svasmin sarvam chidhachitvasthujAt ham asnkirNam ithi
sEthuh uchyathE'
Brahman binds the world of sentient and insentient beings in itself so that there is no
confusion and everything is in order (setu being derived from 'si'to bind)
Etham sEthum theerthvA
means after crossing the bridge, that is reaching the shore of vedanta, viz mastering it.

Suthra-32-buddhyarT Hah pAdhavath-3- 2-32

Brahman is denoted as having limitation for the sake of meditation like four feet

The expressions such as 'chathushpAdhbrahma shodasakalam,' cited to prove that
Brahman has limit or measure is only to facilitate comprehension and for meditation
because the texts like 'sathyam jnAanam anantham brahma' clearly show that
Brahman who is the cause of the universe is unconditioned and immeasurable. The
texts speaking about measure like the one 'vAkpAdhahprANah pAdhah chakshuh
pAdhAhsrothrampAdha h,' (Chan.3-18-2) which declares that the speech,prANa, eye
and the ear as being the four quarters of Brahman, are for the sake of meditation.

Suthra-33-sTHAnavis EshAth prakAsAdhivath- 3-2-33
The limitations are due to the special places as in the case of light etc.

Just as light, AkAsa etc are viewed as though limited by windows, pots and so on though
they are spread everywhere, Brahman is also spoken of as connected with the limiting
adjuncts like speech eye etc.

Suthra-34-upapatthE scha-3-2- 34

And it is possible.

From the text 'amrthasyaishasEthu h,' it need not be concluded that there is
something higher than Brahman is to be attained because Brahman is both the means
and the end as ascertained by the statement 'yamEvaishavrNuthE thEna labhyathE,'
he whom the Self chooses , by him the Self can be gained.'

Suthra-35-thaTHA anyaprathishEDHAth- 3-2-35

Similarly because of denial of anything else

The texts quoted to prove that there is something higher like 'parAthparam purusham,
(Mund.3-2-8) the supreme purusha above the highest,' and 'aksharAth parathah
parah, ((Mund.2-1-2) higher than the imperishable, 'etc are not so accepted because the
sruthi explicitly denies the existence of anything higher as seen from the texts like
'yasmAth param nAparamasthi kimchith yasmANNANeeyO na jyAyO asthi
kaschith,(Svet.3-9) there is nothing else higher that Brahman and nothing subtler or

To the question as to what is that which is indicated in the text 'thathO
yadhuttharatharam, ' (Svet.3-10) as being beyond it,

Ramanuja gives the reply as follows:

In the passage immediately preceding that

'vedhAhamEtham purusham mahAntham Adhithya varNam thamasah
parasthAth;thamEva vidhithvA athimrthyum Ethi nAnyah panTHA vidhyathE
I know Him the supreme purusha of the hue of the Sun, who is beyond darkness,
knowing Him one crosses over death to immortality and there is no other way than this.'
And the next verse says 'yasmAth param nAparamasthi kimchith, higher than whom
nothing else exists.'

So the texts quoted at the outset, to prove the existence of higher entity than Brahman,
only show that there is a supreme person with all His transcendental qualities who is
superior to the aggregate of all individual souls., namely Brahman . This alone is the
explanation in accordance with the meaning of the whole passage.

Suthra-36-anEna sarvagathathvam AyAmasabdhAhibhyah- 3-2-36

The omnipresence of Brahman is known from scripture regarding the extent of

The omnipresence of brahman is known from the texts that describe Brahman to be all
pervading. 'thEnEdham poorNam purushEna sarvam, all this is filled with this
person,'(Svet. 3-9) yacchakimchith jagath sarvam dhrsyathE srooyathE api vA
antharbahischa thathsarvam vyApya nArAyanassThithah, (Mahanarayana. 13-5)
Other sruthi texts like 'brahmaivEdham sarvam ,AthmAivEdham sarvam , ' also
denote Brahman to be higher than anything else.

PHalAdhikaraNam- 3-2-8

Suthra-37-phalamath a upapatthEh-3- 2-37

From Him alone the fruit of actions is possible.

As the mere actions cannot secure results, being insentient it is only from the Lord who
is worshipped through action the fruits of actions ensue.

Ramanuja says this is only appropriate as

'sa Eva hi sarvajnah sarvasakthih mahOdhArah yAgadhAnahOmAdhibhi h
ArADHithahAIhika Amushmika bhOgajAtham svsasvarupa avApthirupam
apavargam cha dhAthumeeshte. '

This means, He only being all-knowing, all-powerful, supremely generous, pleased by
sacrifices, gifts, offerings, meditation, etc has the power to bestow enjoyment in this
world and the next, and also release, to attain Him.

Suthra-38-sruthathv Accha-3-2- 38

And also from the scripture

The texts like 'sa va Esha mahAnajaAthmA annAdhO vasu dhAnah' says the sruthi
meaning that the great unborn Self is the eater of food ( accepts the offering) and giver
of wealth (fruit of actions) and 'ESha hyEvAnandhayathi' that He alone gives joy,
proves this point.
Suthra-39 Dharma jaiminiratha Eva-3-2-39

Jaimini thinks that religious work brings fruits of action for the same reason.

Jaimini thinks on the other hand that the works alone brings the result, as against the
above view. In his opinion the acts like sacrifices create a power known as apurva which
brings the result at the appropriate time. He quotes the text from purvamimamsa
'svargakAmO yajEtha, which enjoins that one who desires heaven should perform the

Suthra-4-poorvam thu bAdharayaNah hEthuvyapadhEsAth- 3-2-40

But Badhrayana has the former view because Brahman has been declared as the

Badharayana thinks that Brahman is the bestower of the fruits of actions. Even in the
statements like 'vAyurvai kashEpishtA dhEvatha,' where Vayu is praised to be the fruit
giver being swift, only Brahman is referred to according to the text 'yO vAyou thishTan
yasya vAyuh sariram' etc. where brahman is denoted as the indweller and ruler of
Vayu and others. It is also declared by the Lord in Gita

'yOyO yAmyAm thanum bhakthah sraddhayA archithum icchathi thasya thasya
achalAm sraddhAm thAmEva vidhaDHAmyaham,'
'Whomsoever devotee wishes to worship with faith to whichever divine form, I make that
faith unshakable for him.' Also He declares that He alone is the one to whom all offering
reaches as He is the master,
'ahamhi sarva yajnAnAmbhOkthA cha prabhurEvacha. '

Ramanuja concludes by saying that, as the king is propitiated through his officials so too
the Lord is worshipped by means of other forms.The vedanta texts give the highest
knowledge on the subject which transcends all others, that of the supreme self, who is
free from all imperfections, and abode of auspicious qualities; and all sacrifices, gifts,
oblations are indirectly propitiate him just as the worship, meditation etc do so directly.
Thus propitiated, He bestows happiness in this world and enabled the soul to attain final

This is the end of phaladhikarana

The end of second padha of the third adhyaya
ADHyaya-3-pAdha- 3


Suhtra-1-sarvavEdhA nthaprathyayam chOdhanAdhyavisEshA th-3-3-1

What is understood from the vedanta texts is one as there is no difference in
injunctions etc.

The previous suthras has served the purpose of kindling the desire of meditation on
Brahman by showing that the fruit of all karma is from Brahman only. Now the various
kinds of meditation are taken up for consideration. First it is to be examined whether the
same meditations such as vaisvAnara-vidhyA etc.whcih are mentioned separately in
different texts are the same or different.The opponent is of the opinion that they are not
the same because the same matter is repeated in different shAkhAs under a different

This suthra refutes this view and says that the meditation taught in different vedantha
texts is one and the same because the injunctions are the same, namely such as
vidhyAth,'he should know,' upAseetha, 'he should meditate,' etc. In ChandhOgya and
Vajasaneeya there is one and the meditation prescribes is of the same nature, namely
'vaisvAnaram upAsthE,he should meditate on vaisvAnara. The object of meditation,
vaisvAnara, the name, the knowledge of vaisvAnara (vaisvAnaravidhyA) and the fruit,
attainment of Brahman is the same in both cases. Therefore the vidhyas in different
sAkhAs are identical.

Suthra-2-bhEdhAth na ithi cheth EkasyAm api-3-3-2

It is refuted that the vidhyas are several because they come under different topics
since even in one there may be difference.

The difference is in the knower and not the known, that is, the subject matter, and hence
the same meditation is enjoined under different topics to impart cognition for different
knowers. The repetition of same matter under different topics could be of different
object only if the knower is the same.

Suthra-3-svAdhyAyas aya thaTHAthvE hi samAchArE aDHikArAccha
savavaccha thanniyamah- 3-3-3

For (the sirovrata, the rite of carrying fire on the head) relates to the study of the Veda;
also because (that rite) being a heading in the samAchAra and the restriction is like that
of the libations.

This suthra refutes an argument based on a rite enjoined in Mundaka upanishad.
The text 'thEshAm Eva EthAM brahmavidhyAm vadhEtha sirovratham vidDHivath
yaisthu cheerNam,(Mund.10-2- 10) communicate this knowledge of Brahman only to
those who perform sirovratha.' This rite is an observance mentioned in aTHarva veda
and means carrying fire on the head. (It could mean a vratha regarding the head, and
some take it to mean renunciation by taking sannyasa which involves shaving of the
head.) This restriction of imparting the knowledge of Brahman only to those observing
the sirovratha does not indicate difference in meditation but only prescribes certain
qualification for the study of veda that too only for ATharvaNikas. This is made clear by
the subsequent text 'naithah acheerNa vrathO aDHeethE,(Mund.10-2-11) Moreover in
the text of ATHarvaNikas called samAchAra it is said 'idhamapi vEdhavrathEna
vyAkhyAtham, this has been already explained by the vow of the the study of the
vedas.' This restriction relates to the followers of aTHarva veda only just as the the
restriction regarding the libations offered in one fire used by AtharvaNikas instead of the
usual three fires.

Suthra-4-dharsayath i cha-3-3-4

It is shown by sruthi also.

The meditation enjoined by the vedantha texts is shown to be identical in the sruthi texts
also. In ChandhOgya the declaration 'thasmin yadhanthah thadhanvEshtavyam,
'(Chan.8-1-1- ) that what is inside(the heart) is to be enquired into and in answer to the
question as to what is that, it is said that the supreme self possessing the qualities such
as freedom from evil etc. is to be enquired into. This is also confirmed in Taittiriya which
refers to the being within the small space (the heart) who is to be meditated upon.This
establishes that meditations in both the texts are the same.

Suthra-5-upasamhArO arTHAbhEdhAth viDHiseshavathsamAn Echa-3-3- 5

Meditation thus being equal, the attribute are to be combined as they are common
like the viDhisesha (that which subserves injunction.)

The meditation enjoined in all the Vedanta texts are thus shown to be equal and of the
same purport and hence the attributes that are subservient to the meditation in various
texts are to be combined. This is the end of sarvavedhAntha prathyayaDHikaraNam


Suthra-6-anyTHAthva m sabdhAth iti cheth na avisEshATh-3- 3-6

If it is said that there is difference because of the texts, it is not so, as there is no
So far it has been shown that there is unity in meditations such as vaisvanaravidhya and
dhaharavidhya. Now certain particular meditations are examined to determine whether
there is unity of injunction. This suthra is of the nature of prima facie view.

The texts of ChandhOgya and that of BrhadhAraNyaka contain the injunction regarding
the meditation on udhgeethA. The BrhadhAraNyaka text goes like this.

'thE ha dhEvA oochuh hantha asurAn yajnEudhgeeyEnAthya yAma,(Brhd.1-1)
The devas said that they will destroy the asuras with sacrifice by means of udhgeetha.'

The chAndhogya text says, 'thadhha dhEvA udhgeetham Ajahruh anEna EnAm
abhihanishyAmah' (Chan.1-2-1)
The devas took the udhgeetha saying that they will overcome the asuras with this.'

The question that is raised is that whether these two meditations are identical or
different. The poorvapakshin holds the former view and says that the two are the same
because the object of meditation in both cases is the same, namely the udhgeetha and
the result also is the same, the conquest of enemies and the name is the same etc

The argument that there is a difference in the texts and hence the two are not the same
is refuted by the poorvapakshin. The argument to show the difference is as follows:
'rupabhEdhAth; rupAnyaTHAthvam hi sabdhAdhEva pratheeyathE. ‘The text itself
shows the difference in the form of the two and because of that they are different.

The BrhadhAraNyaka text is
'aTHa ha prANam oochuh thvam nah udhgAya ithi; thaTHethi thebhyah prAna
They said to prANa "you sing the udhgeetha for us" and the praNa saying 'very well'
sang for them.'

The ChandhOgya text is as follows:
'aTha ha ya EvAyam mukhyah prANah tham udghgeetham

Then they meditated on the principal prANa as udhgeetha.'

In the first text the object of meditation is the prANa as the singer of udhgeetha whereas
in the second it is prANa itself as udhgeetha. The opponent does not agree saying that,
in both it is the udhgeetha which is mentioned at the outset as the means of conquering
the enemies. The next suthra refutes this.

Suthra-7-na va prakaraNabhEdhAth parovareeyasthvAdhi vath-3-3- 7
Not the same because of the difference in subject matter as in the case of the
attribute of being higher than the high.

The ChandhOgya passage which starts with the struggle between the devas and asuras
introduces praNava as the object of meditation.

'OmithyEthadhakshar am udhgeetham upAseetha,(Chan-1-1-1)
Let one meditate on the OmkAra as udhgeetha.' therefore the text

'aTHa ha EvAyam mukhyah prANah tham udhgeetham upAsAmschakrire,' (Chan1-
2-7) refers to the meditation on the praNava as apart of udhgeetha.

In BrhadharaNyaka passage the meditation on the whole of udhgeetha is mentioned. So
there is difference in context which indicates difference in subject matter and hence in
the form of meditation.

The word in the suthra parovareeyasthvAdhi vath ‘as in the case of attribute being
higher than the high,’ refers to the meditation on udhgeetha in one and the same sakha.
In the first text (Chan.1-6-6) the supreme self is mentioned as being of golden colour
while in the second (Chan.1-9-2) He is mentioned as being higher than the high.
Therefore these two meditations are taken as being different due to the difference in

Suthra-8-sajnAthasc heth thadhuktham asthi thu thadhapi-3-3- 8

If it is said to be the same on account of the names it also found in different

If it is argued that since the name is the same, namely, udhgeethavidhya, there is no
difference this suthra refutes this by saying that identical names are found also
in different injunctions. For instance the word agihothra is applied to the injunction
regarding the regular agnihothra as well as to the occasional one which is apart of the
sacrifice kundapAyinAm.

Suthra-9-vyApthEsch a samanjasam-3- 3-9

This is appropriate also because of extension.

In ChandhOgya passage the praNava as a part of ughgeetha is the object of meditation
in the first chapter and it extends to the other meditations also. But in BrahadhAraNyaka
text the term udhgeetha denotes the whole udhgeetha. Hence the two are different.Thus
ends the anyaTHAthvADHikaraN am
SarvAbhEdhADHikaraN am-3-3-3

Suthra-10-sarvAbhEd hAth anyathra imE- 3-3-10

Because of nondifference of everything in other places also.

In ChandhOya and BrhadhAraNyaka texts the meditation on prANa is enjoined where
we find that the attributes of prANA mentioned are the same.The qualities mentioned are
,jyEshTa the best and srEshTa the oldest, besides certain other qualities such as
vasishTa,the richest, and being the support and abode of all etc. In the Kousheetaki
upanishad however while the meditation enjoined is the same, that of prANA, the
qualities such as the richest etc, are not mentioned and therefore the poorvapakshin
says that it is different from that mentioned in ChandhOgya and BrhdhAraNyaka.

This view is refuted by the suthra saying that the meditation is common to all the three
upanishads. the Kousheetaki text also contains the same method with all its details
proceeding to prove that prANa is the best and the oldest.Hence the other qualities like
being richest etc. are to be considered as being relevant here also as prANa cannot be
proved to be the oldest and the best without them.Hence there is no difference.Thus
ends sarvAbhEdhAdhikaraN am.

AnandhAdhyaDhikaraN am-3-3-4

Suthra-11-AnandhAdh ayah praDHAnasya- 3-3-11

Bliss and other qualities of the main subject, Brahman (are to be included in all

Just as the qualities like richness and others relating to prANa are to be included in all
meditations on prANa even when they are not explicitly mentioned, this suthra tends to
prove that the qualities of Brahman, without which the meditation on Brahman is not
possible, are to be included in all meditations on Brahman. The view that the qualities
that are not mentioned need not be included is refuted on the basis that the object of
meditation being Brahman which is the same in all meditations, the qualities such as
bliss, knowledge etc., being permanent qualities of Brahman, have to be included.

Suthra-12-priyasira sthvAdhi aprApthih upachayApachayou hi bhEdhe-3-3-

The description of Brahman such as having joy for His head etc are not taken as
attributes as otherwise it will result in increase or decrease in Brahman.
In Taittiriya upanishad there is a passage describing the blissful self 'anyO anthara
AthmA Anandhamayah, (Tait.II-5-1) there is another internal self constituted of bliss.'
There is the subsequent text 'thasyapriyamEva sirah, joy alone is His head.' These
qualities, says the suthra, are not to be included in meditation on Brahman as they are
not real attributes of Brahman, but only due to figurative presentation of an embodied
being. Otherwise the head, sides, etc described in the passage, being parts of Brahman,
it will result in increase or decrease. This will contradict the texts such as 'sathyam
jnAnam anantham brahma,'

Here an objection is presented that if the above argument that all the qualities of
Brahman, such as being lordly,unfathomable ,all giving and merciful etc. are to be
included in meditation because they are inseparable from Brahman, then all the infinite
qualities are to be contemplated, which is impossible. The next suthra gives the solution
to this difficulty.

Suthra-13-itharE thu arTha sAmAnyAth-3- 3-13

But the others like bliss etc are the essential qualities and therefore common to

The qualities like sathyam, jnAnam, anantham,(truth, knowledge and infinity) and
Anandham,bliss and also being the cause of the world etc constitute the nature of
Brahman and have to be included. The others like aisvarya.lordliness etc, though
inseparable, are not the requisites that are necessary to define the nature of Brahman
Hence they are included only when specified.

Suthra-14-AdhyAnAya prayojanAbhAvAth- 3-3-14

These attributes are for the purpose of meditation as there is no other purpose.

An objecton is raised that the figurative representation of Brahman having bliss for his
head etc. serves no purpose as in the case of 'AtmAnam raThinam viddhi, know the
self as the charioteer,' where the body is said to be the chariot etc., in order to show
that the body etc. are subservient to the self.

The suthra answers that the figurative description is for the sake of meditation which is
enjoined by the text, 'brahmavidhApnothi param,(Tait.2-1) one who knows Brahman
reaches the supreme. The Brahman is denoted as divided into joy,priyam (on getting a
thing),happiness mOdha(in experiencing it),pramOdha (exhilaration) and
Anandha,bliss, (Tait.2-5) for accomplishing the meditation which are figuratively
described as the head, right and left sides and the self respectively. Similar is the
description in the preceding sections of the self as annamaya, prANamaya etc.
(Tait.2-1to2- 4) As these are only the secondary attributes of the Self (Brahman) and not
its essential nature thes are not to be included in all meditation of the Self.
Suthra-15-Athmasabd hAth cha-3-3-15

Because of the term Self

From the text 'anyO anthara AthmA Anadhamayah,there is another self made of bliss,
which shows that the self cannot have parts like head etc. these expressions are only

But when the preceding sections the expressions self of breath self of mind etc. are
used to denote something other than the real Self So how can the self of bliss be taken
to mean the real inner Self? The next suthra answers to this.

Suthra-16-Athmagrhe ethih itharavath uttharAth-3- 3-16

Only the Supreme self is denoted as in other texts, as known from the later

In the text ' anyO anthara AthmA Anandhamayah, there is another self constituted of
bliss,' the term 'self' denotes only the supreme self as in the other texts. The word
itharavath, in the suthra refers to the texts like Athma vA idhamEka Eva agra Aseeth
sa eekshatha lOkAnnu srjjai,(Ait.1-1-1) the Self only was this in the beginning; it
thought, let me send forth the worlds,' where the term self refers only to the supreme
self. Like that in the later passage of Taittitiya 'sO akAmayatha bahu syAm
prajAyEya, it willed to become many,' which refers to the self of bliss, it is proved that
only the supreme self is denoted.

Suthra-17-anvayAth ith cheth syAth avaDHAraNAth- 3-3-17

Though the term self is connected with nonself it is possible to draw the
conclusion through ascertainment.

To the objection that since the term is self is used with reference to nonself as
prANamaya AthmA etc, how can the term be taken to mean the suprme self only in the
last passage describing the blissful self, the suthra answers that it is ascertained to be
so.The passage says in the beginning 'thasmAth Va EthasmAth AkAsah
sambhoothah,(Tait.2-1-1) from that Brahman which is the self the AkAsa was
produced,' ascertaining that it is the supreme self only and that idea is carried over in the
subsequent reference to the self as annamaya, prANamaya etc. denoting that there is a
self other than each of the nonself referred to as annamaya ,prANamaya etc., ending
with the blissful self. Thus from the beginning the term self is used to denote nonself
with the idea that the supreme self has entered into them as their inner self.Thus ends
AnandhyAdhyaDHikara Nam.
KAryAkhyAnADHikaraN am-3-3-5

Suthra-18-kAryAkhyA nAth apoorvam-3-3- 18

A new thing is enjoined in the meditation of the prANa due to statement of what is
to be done.

In the ChandhOgya and BrhadhAraNyaka texts about the meditation on prANa water is
mentioned as the clothing of prANa.

ChandhOgya text says 'sa hOvAcha kim mE vAsO bhavishyathi ithi, Apa ithi
That is, prANa asked what will be my clothing and the senses replied that it is water.

Similar text is found in BrhadhAraNyaka passage also. Subsequent text

'thadhvidhvAmsah srOthriyA asiahyantha AchAmanthi asithvA cha
AchAmanthi;EthmEva thadhanam anagnam kurvanthO manyanthE,
The sages well-versed in the vedas sip a little water (Achamanam) before and after
taking food. Then they think that they are clothing the prANa.' (Brhd 6-1-14)

The doubt here is that whether the injunction is about Achamana or meditation on prANa
having water as its clothing.The poorvapakshin says that it is the former as there is no
injunction referring to meditation. The Achamana being said to clothe the prANa is only
in the form of eulogy of the rite.

To this the suthra replies that since in the beginning and at the end of the passage
clearly enjoins the meditation on water being the clothing of prANA and also because it
is something not mentioned before, the text enjoins meditation on prANa having water
as clothing.The Achamana is already established by smrithi and tradition.This is why in
ChandhOgya there is no mention of Achamana but only of clothing the prANa with

'thasmAth vA Ethadh asishyanthah purasthAth cha uparishTAth cha adhbhih
paridhaDHathi lambukO ha vAsO bhavathi anagnOha bhavathi,(Chan.5-2-2)
Therefore indeed those who are about to eat,cover it,both before and after with water.

Thus ends the kAryAkhyAnADHikaraN am.

SamAnAdhikaraNam- 3-3-6
Suthra-19-samAna Evam cha abhEdhAth-3- 3-19

Attributes being the same there is nondifference of meditations.

The meditation on Brahman called sAndilya vidhya occurs both in sathapathabrAhmaNa
and BrhadhAraNyaka. The former text begins as 'sathyam brahma ithi upAseetha,
meditate on Brahman as truth,' and concludes as 'sa AthmAnam upAseetha,
manOmayam prANasariram bhArupam, (sa.10-6-3) he should meditate on the Self
who consists of mind, prANA as the body, and is the form of light.' In BrhadhAraNyaka
text it is said 'manO mayOayam purushah bhAh sathyah, this person who consists of
mind, who is in the form of light.'

Here a doubt is raised that whether the two are the same or different. The view that they
are different because of the mention of qualities such as vasithvam, having everything in
control etc are not mentioned in the former text, is refuted by the suthra.

They are the same as both mention the same qualities, namely,manOmaya, consisting
of the mind, sathyasankalpa, True will bhArupa, having the form of light,
prAnasarira,having prANa as the body.the Extra qualities like vasithvam are not really
different from those already mentioned like sathyasankalpathvam which are all
inclusive.Thus ends samAnADHikaraNam.

SambanDHADHikaraNam -3-3-7

SambanDHAdhEvam anyathrApi-3- 3-20

Because of connection as in other cases also

In BrhadhAraNyaka passage beginning with 'sathyam brahma,' the place of Brahman
in the orb of the Sun and in the right eye is mentioned and the meditation on Brahman is
enjoined as 'thasya upanihad ahar ithi' with respect to Brahman as adhidhaivatham
ruler of all and as 'thasya upanishadhaham ithi,with respect to Brahman as
aDhyathmam, the inner self, the terms ahar and aham being the secret names given to
Brahman. Here the poorvapakshin holds the view that both are the same Brahman,
mentioned as being in different places and hence the meditation is one and not
different.The next suthra refutes this.

Suthra-21-na vA viseshaAth-3- 3-21

Not so because of different abodes.
Since Brahman is to be meditated in two different places, the orb of the sun and the right
eye, the meditations are different. But in sandilya vidhya Brahman is meditated in the
same place, namely, the lotus of the heart. Hence the case is not akin to sandilyavidhya
where the meditations are explained as being the same.

Suthra-22-dharsayat hi cha-3-3-22

The text also shows this as such.

The person in the eye is separately mentioned from the person in the sun in the
subsequent passages while maintaining that both are one, ie. Brahman. (Brhad-1-7-5)
So the separate entities mentioned is for meditation and hence thuey are different.Thus
ends sambanDHADHikaraNam .

SambhrthyaDhikaraNa m-3-3-8

Suthra23sambhrthidh yuvyApyathyapi cha athah-3-3-23

And for the same reason supporting the powers and pervading the AkAsa (not to be
included in meditation.)

In the Taittiriya text

'brahma jyEshTA veeryA sambhrthAni brahmAgrE jyEshTam dhivam
AthathAna,(Tait.brA.II- iv-7)
Collected are the powers among which Brahman is the oldest; Brahman as the oldest in
the beginning pervaded the AkAsa.'

These attributes, namely, collecting all the powers and prevading the AkAsa, are not
mentioned with any particular meditation. Hence are these to be included in all the
meditation is the question to which the suhtra answers in the negative. The reason being
the same as the previous suthra, that of difference of place These qualities (like
pervading the AkAsa) cannot be included in the meditation on Brahman as residing
within the heart referred to in dhaharavidhya. Even though it is mentioned there that the
AkAsa within the heart is the same as that in the universe, this is to be taken in the
glorifying sense only.Thus ends the sambrthyaDHikaraNam
PurushvidhyADHikara Nam-3-3-9

PurushavidhyAyam api itharEshAm AmnAnth- 3-3-24

Since the attributes in the purusha vidhya (of ChandhOgya) are not stated of the others
(ofTaittiriya) the two meditations are not the same.

There are two meditations
On purusha one mentioned in the ChandhOgya and
The other in Taittiriya
The doubt here is whether the two are the same meditation or not. The suthra refutes
the view of the poorvapakshin that they are the same on account of the parts of the
purusha being figuratively denoted as those of yajna in both and also because of the
same name. Though the fruit of the meditation is mentioned in ChandhOgya as 'pra ha
shOdasam varsha satham jeevathi,' that is long life for hundred years, there is no
mention of fruit in Taittiriya and hence it has to be the same.

The meditations are different because of other statements. The character of the two
differs. For instance ChandhOgya passage mentions three libations, morning, noon and
evening while it is not found in the other and there are other differences also in the
details of the figurative description such as the sacrificer and his wife etc. Moreover the
fruits are also different.In Taittiriya attainment of Brahman is the fruit because the
purushavidhya is only subordinate to the meditation on Brahman, the fruit of which is
attainment of Brahman whereas in ChandhOgya the meditation is an independent one
for which the fruit is given as long life. Hence they are different.Thus ends the
purushavidhyADHikar aNam.

VeDHAdhyaDHiklaraNa m-3-3-10

Suthra-25-vedhAdhya rTHabhEdhAth

Certain manthras referring to piercing etc. are no part of meditation because they
have some other purpose.

The ATharvaNikas recite some manthras in the beginning of the upanishad such as
'sukram praviDHya , hrdhyam praviDHya, piece sukra, pierce the heart.' Kataka and
Taittiriyaka have manthras in the beginning such as 'sam nO mithrassam varuNah,' to
the question whether these form part of the meditation because of the proximity with the
texts on meditation the suthra replies that it is not so. The manthras like 'pierce sukra'
denote some magical rites while those like 'may mithra be propitious ' are connected
with the study of the vedas.So they do not form part of the meditation.Thus ends the
HanyaDHikaraNam- 3-3-11

Suthra-26-hAnouthoo pAyana seshathvAth kusAschandhah sthuthyupagAnavath
thadhuktham- 3-3-26

The getting rid of has to be combined with acquiring as it is supplementary as in the
case of kusa, metre, praises andrecitation.

In ChandhOgya it is said ' asva iva romAni viDHooya pApam chandra iva
rAhOrmukhAth pramuchya dhrthvA sairam akrtham krthAthmA brahmalOkam
abhisambhavAmi,(Chan.8-13- 1) meaning, one sheds off his sins just as a horse
shakes off its hair and acquiring divine form goes to brahmalOka. In AtharvaNika text it
is said 'thadhA vidhvAn puNyapApE viDHooya niranjanah paramam sAmyam
upaithi,then the knower shedding off merit and demerit ,becoming pure attains equality
with Brahman.' (Mund.3-1-3) the sAtyAyanains have the text 'thasya puthrA dhAyam
upayanthi suhrdhah sAdhukrthhyAm, dvishanthah pApa krthyAm,his sons takes
his inheritance, his friends the good deeds and the enemies his bad deeds.'The
kousheetakins read 'thath sukrthadhushkrthE DHoonuthE; thasya priyA jnAthayah
sukrtham upayanthi apriyA dhushkrtham, he shakes off his good and bad karmas.his
dear relations takes the good and the enemies take the evil.

The first two speak only of getting rid of merit and demerit while the third mentions the
acquisition of them by his friends and enemies. The last refers to both.Now both these
matters are to be included in all the meditations because attaining Brahman means
shedding off merit and demerit and unless they are shaken off it is not possible for
others to pick it up.

Now the point to be considered is that whether the the shedding off the good and the evil
and the acquisiion of it by others are to be combined in all the meditations or is there an
option.Poorvapakshi n is of the view that there is an option but the suthra refutes it.

The statement of acquisition of karma by others is subsidiary to that of abandoning of
the karma .This is proved by analageous statements with respect to kusas,
metres,praises and recitations.

1. sAthyAyins- 'audhumbaryah kusAh, kusAs are descendent of udumbara tree.(A
special statement) Kousheetakins-kusA vAnaspathyAh, kusas are the descendent of
trees.(A general statement.)

2.'dhEvAsurANAm chandhObhih' the metres of devas and asuras.(general statement)
'dhEvaschandhAmsi poorvam.' the metres of the devas are prior. (special statement)
3. 'samayAvishithE suryE shOdasinah sthOthram upAkarOthi.' He assists the stotra
of the shodasin when the sun has half risen.((special statement) 'hiraNyEna
shOdasinah sthOthram upAkarothi.' He assists with gold the sthothra of the
shodasins.(general statement)

4.'nAdhvaryurupagAyEt h.' the adhvaryu should not sing. Special statement) 'rthvijah
upagAyanthi.' all priests are singing. (General statement)

According to the rule of mimamsa sasthra, when one special statement defines another
general statement the former is supplementary to the latter.Thus ends the


Suthra-27-sAmparAyE tharthavyAbhAvAth thaTHA hyanyE-3-3-27

At the departure from the body there is no karma remaining for the enlightened
soul. Other texts also declare so.

Kousheetaki upanishad says,
'sa Agacchathi virajAm nadheem;thAm manasA athyEthi; thath
sukrthadhushkrthE dhoonuthE,
The soul comes to the river virajA in brahmalOka (or vaikunta for Vaishnavites) and
crosses it by the mind and sheds its good and bad deeds. The text which tells about the
son getting the inheritance, his friends his good deeds etc. implies that the deeds are
shaken off at the time of the soul leaving the body. So it appears as though parts of the
deeds are left behind at the time of death and the rest during the journey to the world of

THIS VIEW IS REFUTED BY THE SUTHRA. At the time of leaving the body, sAmparAya,
the soul of the enlightened leaves all karma behind because there is no enjoyment of
pleasure and pain after the soul leaves the body except the attainment of Brahman. this
is confirmed by the texts such as

'asariram vA va santham na priyApriyE sprsathah, (Chan.8-12-1)
Pleasure and pain do not touch one who is without body,' and subsequently

'Esha samprasAdhO asmAth sarirAth samutthAya param jyOthirupasampadhya
svEna rupENa abhinishpadhyE, (Chan.8-12-3)
This serene one rises out of the body reaches the highest light and appears in his own
form.’ And

'thasya thAvadhEva chiram yAvannavimokshyE aTHa sampathsyE,
For him only so long is the delay as he is not liberated from the body and then
immediately he is merged in being.'

Suthra-28-cchandhat hah ubhayAvirOdDhAth- 3-3-28

Scriptural texts must be construed to mean so as not to contradict each other.

The text in Kousheetaki upanishad 'thath sukrthadhushkrthE dhoonuthE, he shakes
off his good and bad deeds,' is to be taken preceding the one which mentions the soul
going on the path of devas,'Etham dhEvayAnam panThAnam Apadhya ,' in meaning.

Suthra-29-gatherarT Havathvam ubhayaTHA anyaTHA hi virODhah-3-3- 29

The journey of the self will have meaning only if there is shedding of karma in two
stages as otherwise there will be contradiction.

The poorvapakshin says that if all the karma is shaken off at the time of leaving the body
there will be no subtle body because of absence of karma and hence it is not possible
for all karma to perish at the time of the soul's departure from the body. To this the next
suthra replies.

Suthra-30 upapannasthallaksha NArTHopalabDHEh lOka vath-3-3-30

It is justified as a subtle body with similar characteristics is attained later as seen
in the world.

The ChandhOgya says 'param jyothirupasampadhya svEna rupENa
abhinishpadhyE, (Chan.8-12-2)
Having attained the supreme light the soul manifests itself in true form,'

'sa thathra paryEthijakshath kreedan ramamANah,(Chan.7-25-2)
He moves about there laughing, playing and rejoicing,

'sa svarat bhavathi,(Chan.7-26- 2)
He becomes the self ruler,'

All these indicate the presence of a subtle body not through karma, which has been
shed, but by the power of knowledge, vidhyAmAhAthmya. This subtle body is acquired
in order to enable the soul to attain Brahman by proceeding along the devayAna, path of
the devas. This is akin to the use of a tank which is erected for watering the fields being
later used for storing drinking water.

Suthra-31-yAvath adhikAram avasTHithihADHikAri kANAm-3-3- 31
Those who hold certain positions have to remain as long as it lasts.

It is known that souls like Vasishta entered into other embodiments after leaving their
body and experienced pain and pleasure though they were enlightened souls. To this
point raised, the suthra replies that the destruction of karma takes place only for those
wise souls who travel along the path of light. For souls like Vasishta they remain till their
particular assigned post lasts. So there is no travel for them along the path of light. Thus
ends the sAmparAyAdhikaraNam.


Suthra-32-aniyamah sarvEshAm avirODHah sabdhAnumAnAbhyAm- 3-3-32

There is no restriction and hence no contradiction between sruthi and smrthi.

In the upakosalavidhya (Chan.4-10to15) it is said that those who meditate on Brahman
go through the path of light. Here the doubt is that whether only those who follow this
particular kind of meditation go along the path of light or all those who meditate on
Brahman do so.

The SUTRA answers that there is no restriction as all those who meditate on Brahman
precede along the path of light.
In chandhOgya where the meditation on five fires is prescribed it is said that those who
do this go on the path of light.

'thadh ya itthE vidhuryE cha imE araNyE sraddhA thapa ithyupAsathe thE
archisham abhisambhavanthi,(Chan.5-10- 1)
Those who in the forest meditate on faith and austerity go on the path of light,' and

In BrhadhAraNyaka it is said 'ya EvamEthath vidhuhyE cha amee araNyE sraddhAm
sathyam upAsathe thE archisham abhisambhavanthi (Brhd.6-2-15)
Those who in the forest meditate on faith and truth go on the path of light.'

The words 'who know this' refers to the PANCHAGNI VIDHYA and the said meditation is
that on Brahman as the terms sathyam and thapah mean only Brahman. Similar
description as that found in the upanishads regarding the progress of an enlightened
soul on the archiradhi marga, the path of light is found in smrithi passage also.

The Bhagavatgita says 'agnirjyOthrahah suklahshaNmAsA uttharAyaNam; thathra
prayAtha gacchanthi brahma brahmavidho janAh, (BG.-24)
fire, the light, the day, the bright fortnight, the six months of uttharAyaNa, proceeding by
that road those who know Brahman go to Brahman.' Hence the path by which the
enlightened soul proceeds is common to all meditations. Thus ends


Suthra-33-aksharaDH iyAm thu avarODHah sAmAnyahthadhbhAvAb hyAm
oupasadhavath thadhuktham- 3-3-33

The concept of the imperishable (as Given in BrhadhaAraNyaka as negative attributes)
have to be included in all meditations because of the sameness of meditation and they
being the essential nature of Brahman as in the case of that of upasad which is

In BrhadharaNyaka there is a passage

'Ethadhvai thadhaksharam gargi brAhmaNA abhivadhanthi asthoolam anaNu
ahrasvam adheergham,
This imperishable, O Gargi, is neither gross nor atomic, neither short nor long.’etc.

In Mundaka also we find the following text 'aTha parA yayA thadgaksharam
abhigamyathE yath thadhadhrEsyam agrAhyam agothram avarNam, (Mund.1-1-5)
The imperishable is that which is attained by that supreme knowledge and it is
unperceivable, incomprehensible unoriginated and formless,' etc.

The question now is whether these denied qualities are to be included in all meditations
or only where specified. The suthra affirms that they have to be included because
Brahman is common to all meditations and these qualities are implied as the essential
nature of Brahman. These qualities are as important as the affirmative ones such as
truth knowledge and bliss because they differentiate Brahman from the world which is
the opposite of the qualities denied in Brahman. And the meditation on Brahman
possessing these qualities is necessary in order to detach oneself from the world.



The analogy given in the suthra is that of upasad offering. This ceremony is prescribed
in Yajurveda but the manthras related to it is in samaveda and as such they are
considered as subsidiary to the ceremony and chanted in undertones to show that they
are subordinate to the upasad offering which is the principal matter.Hence Brahman
being the principal object of meditation the qualities like absence of grossness etc.,
which are susidiary must follow the principal matter, that is meditation on Brahman.

Suthra-34-iyadhAman anAth-3-3- 34

This much only on account of meditation

the poorvapakshin comes with an objection that if it is to be accepted that the subsidiary
must follow the principal, then all attributes such as those given in the text of
ChAndhOgya for instance,viz. 'sarvakarmA sarvakAmah sarvaganDhah sarvarasah,
who is all that exists, whose are the pure desires who possesses all agreeable odours
and tastes etc., in all meditations.

The suthra refutes this view.The word Amananam means anuchinthanam, direct
thinking.Only those attributes without which it is not possible to realize Brahman are only
to be included in all meditations. Others mentioned above are to be included only when
specified.This is the end of aksharaDHyadHikaraN am.

AntharathvADHikaraN am-3-3-15

AntharAbhoothagrAma vath svAthmanO anyaTHa bhEdhAnupapatthirit hi cheth
na, upadhEsavath- 3-3-15

If it is said that the individual self is referred to in the former reply (in BrhadhaAraNyaka
passage to be quoted) the answer is 'no' as in the case of sadvidhya.

In BrhadAraNyaka Usastha asks Yajnavalkya?
'yath sAkshAth aparOkshAth brahma ya AthmA sarvAntharah thanmE
Teach me the Brahman that is immediate and direct and the self within all,

'The reply is given as
'ya prANEna praNithi sa tha AthmA,
He who sustains life through prANa, he is the self.'
To the same question put by Kahola later Yajnavalkya answers
'yO asnAyApipAse sokam moham jarAmrthyumathyEthi , (Brhd.3-5-1)
He who transcends hunger, thirst, grief, old age and death,' knowing that self etc.

The poorvapakshin holds the view that the two meditations are different on account of
the difference in reply.The former refers to the individual self which is different from
prANa etc while the latter refers to the supreme self which is different from the individual
self, being free from hunger etc.

The suthra refutes this view and says that in both cases it is only the supreme self which
is referred to. The question relating to

'yathsAkshAth aparOkshAth brahma ya AthmasarvAntharah, Brahman that is direct
and immediate, the self within all, clearly shows that it is the supreme self only.
The qualities sAkshAtthvam and aparOkshathvam, manifest and directly intuited
refers to Brahman only.
The aparOkshathvam means, says Ramanuja,'sarvadhEsa sarvakAla
sambanDHithvam' and it applies only to Brahman who is defined as sathyam jnAnam
anantham. Also the word 'ya AthmA sarvAntharah' the inner self of all means only
Brahman known from the text

The answers also are only about Brahman.In the first, 'yah prANEna praNithi,' who
sustains life through prANa is only the supreme self as the individual self has no control
over prANa in deep sleep. Similarly in the second answer, the one beyond hunger etc is
the supreme self only. As both replies end with the same phrase 'athOanyadhArtham,'
meaning, everything else is perishable, which shows that they are of the same content.

This point is illustrated by sadvidhya, cited as the example. The enquiry on Brahman is
reiterated in order to explain the glory of Brahman fully.

Suthra-36-vyathihAr o visimshanthi- heetharavath- 3-3-36

There is interchange of ideas; they indeed specify the same Brahman as in other
cases (meaning as in sadvidya)

The two cases of interaction mentioned above are not different vidhyas because the
subject matter of the questions and the answers in both cases is the same, the term
enjoining the meditation is also similar. Both the questions are about Brahman as the
innerself of all. In the second question the term 'Eva' is used which denotes that the
question is about the selfsame Brahman as learnt by Usastha with the qualities
mentioned therein. This shows that Brahman as the inner self of all is only the object of
meditation in both cases. In the former the innerself is denoted as the cause of
sustenance of all beings while in the latter it is mentioned as being free from hunger etc.
Here an objection is raised that if the meditation is on Brahman as the self of all why
should there be the mention of Brahman as the cause of life in one answer and as
beyond hunger etc. in the other. The reply to this is,Brahman being the inner self of all is
ascertained on the basis of being the cause of life as an answer to Usastha while
KahOla repeats the question expecting to establish the difference of Brahman, the inner
self from the individual self and for this reason YAjnavalkya describes Brahman as being
opposite of all imperfections. as in the case of sadvidhya.

Suthra-37-saiva hi sathyAdhayah- 3-3-37

It is the same, sathya etc.

It is the same, namely Brahman who is denoted by the word sath is referred to in the
rest of the passage in sadvidhya beginning with 'thadhaikshatha,(Chan.6-3-2) it willed,'
and also in the later texts in the section such as

'yathA soumya madhu madfhukrthO nisthishtTanthi,
As the bees, my dear, prepare honey,' and in the concluding part,

'EthAthmyam idham sarvam thath sathyam sa Athma thathvamasi ,
All this is ensouled by that; and it is the truth and the real self and that thou art.'

Thus ends the antharathvAdhikaraN am.

KAmAdhyaDHikaraNam- 3-3-16

Suthra-38-kAmAdhi itharathra thathra cha AyathanAdhibhyah- 3-3-38

Wishes etc. are to be accepted here and there because of the abode etc.

In ChandhOgya it is said

'aTHa yadhidham asmin brahmapurE dhaharam pundareekam vEsma dhaharah
asmin antharAkAsah thasmin yadhanthah thadhanvEshtavyam, (Chan.8-1-1)
In the city of Brahman there is a mansion, a small lotus and in it is the small AkAsa.'

And on BrahadhAraNyaka there is a text

'sa vA Esha mahAnaja AthmA yO ayam vijnAnamayah prANeshu cha EshO
antharhrdhaya AkAsah thasmin sEthE sarvasya vasee sarvasya eesAnah, (Brhd.4-
4-22) he is the great unborn self, consists of knowledge,He sleeps in the AkAsa inside
the heart.He is the controller and the Lord of all.'

Now the question is whether the two texts denote the same meditation or not.Because of
the difference in the character of the meditations the opponent says that they are
different.But the suthra refutes this as the object of meditation is the same in both,
namely, Brahman qualified by sathyakamathva, of true wish. The meditations are the
same since Brahman is mentioned as abiding in the heart in both the passages.
Therefore the two meditations are the same regarding their object and contents. The fruit
of meditation is also the same.

In chandhOgya it is said

'param jyothirupasampadhya svena rupeNa abhinishpadhyathE, (Chan.8-12-3)
Having reached the supreme light he manifested himself in in his own true form.'

BrhadharaNyaka text goes as

'abhayam vai brahma bhavathi, (Brhd.4-4-25)
He becomes fearless Brahman,'

Both the meanings are the same. The term AkAsa denotes Brahman in both the texts.
Hence the two meditations are the same.

Suthra-39-AdhrAdhal Opah-3-3- 39

On account of emphasis there cannot be omission of the auspicious attributes of

The opponent says that the attributes like vasithvam sathyakAmathvam etc are not
really the qualities of Brahman because of the texts denying qualities in Brahman and
hence should not be included in meditation. This suthra refutes the view and says that
the auspicious qualities should not be omitted.

Attributes such as sathyakAmathva as made out by ChandhOgya and
BrhadhAraNyaka and several other texts are to be included as they are taught as the
essential qualties of Brahman who is the object of meditation in all these passages with
a view of attaining final release and hence has to be included.

Ramanuja says,
'na cha mAthApithrsahasrEbh yO api vathsalatharam sasthram prathArakavath
apAramArThikAn nirasaneeyAn guNAn pramAnAntharaprathi pannAn AdharENa
upadhisya samsArachakrapariva rthanEnapoorvamE va babhramyamANAn
mumukshoon bhooyo api bhramayithum alam.'

The meaning of the passage is this:
Scripture being more caring than even own parents will not give emphasis to qualities
that are not known through any other means except by scripture alone if they are unreal
and thus to be disregarded, and make those, who are already confused by the samsara
and seek salvation, into deeper delusion and distress. The expressions such as
agrAhyah Na hi grhyathE aseeryah na hi seeryathE, He is incomprehensible and
undecayind etc are to show the difference of Brahman from the world and from
everything known through other means of cognition except through scriptures. In
ChAndhOgya, Brahman is established as being different from everything else by 'nAsya
jarayA Ethath jeeryathEna vaDHEna asya hanyathEEthath sathyam
brahmapuramasmin kAmAh samAhithAh, (Chan.8-1-5) and then it declares the
qualities such as sathyakAmathva and sathyasankalpathva etc.

Here the opponent argues that the text 'thadhya iha AthmAnam anuvidhyavrajanthi
Etham cha sathyAn kAmAn, thEshAm sarvEshu lOkEshu kAmachArO
bhavathi,(Chan.8-1-6) those who depart from here having understood the Athman and
these true desires, for them there is freedom to act as they wish in all the worlds,' does
not refer to the state of release and hence enjoin the meditation on Brahman with
attributes. Only the text 'param jyOthirupasampadhya svEna rupENa
abhinishpadhyathe, having attained the supreme light he manifests in his own form,'
refers to the fruit of Brahmavidhya. To this the next suthra gives the answer.

Suthra-40-upasTHith Eh athah thadvachanAth- 3-3-40

The freedom of movement etc. is only with respect to the one who is released as
stated in the scriptures.

The text quoted to prove the attainment of Brahman means that only for the one who
has manifested in his true form there is free movement.So the both texts imply the same
thing because the actual text is ’param jyOthrupaampadhya svEna rupENa
abhinishpadhyathE, sa utthama purushah, sa thathra paryEthi, jakshath kreedan,
having reached the highest light he manifests himself in true form, he is the supreme
person, he moves about eating playing etc..' So it shows that the free movement is the
result of the final release. Hence the sathyakAmathva etc. are to be included in the
meditation of Brahman.

ThannirDHAraNAniyam ADHikaraNam- 3-3-17

Suthra-41-thannirva NAniyamah thaddhrshtEh prthgghyaprathibanD hah-3-3-41

There is no restriction of that meditation on the udhgeetha because that is seen; for
there is separate fruit which is nonobstruction.
The meditation on "OM" as udhgeetha, 'OmithyEthdhaksharam udhgeeTham
upAseetha' (Chan.1-1-1) and others are mentioned in connection with sacrificial rites.
The question is whether this meditation which is connected to the sacrificial rites through
udhgeetha is a neccsary part of the sacrifice like the ladle made of parNa wood, or not
The suthra says that there is no restriction of the meditation concerned regarding the
sacrificial rites because thddhrshtEh, it is seen to be so. The text itself says 'thEna
ubou kuruthah yaschaithadhEvam vEdha yascha na vEdha, (Chan.1-1-10) both
perform the sacrifice one who knows (the knowledge implied in the meditation) and one
who does not know.' So the text mention separate fruit for the
meditation,namely,'yadhEva vidhyayA karOthi sraddhayA upanishadhA thadhEva
veeryavattharam bhavathi, whatever he does with knowledge, with faith, with the
Upanishad, that becomes more vigorous,' which imparts greater strength to the sacrifice
in order to be free from obstacles in attaining the fruit. The general result of the sacrifices
such as attaining heaven etc. is different from this.The meditation is not thus necessary
though it may be done for attaining greater strength in performance of the rites.Thus
ends the thannirDHAraNAniyam ADHikaraNam.

PradhAnAdhikaraNam- 3-3-18

Suthra-42-pradhAnav adhEva thadhuktham- 3-3-42
Just as in the case of oblations this has been said.

In the section on dhaharavidhya in ChandhOgya, after mentioning the meditation on
Brahman in the lotus of the heart,there is a separate mention of the qualities of Brahman
viz sathyakAma sathyasanlalpathvAd hi. The question is that whether in the
meditation on the latter, the meditation on Brahman as qualified by those attributes is
also to be repeated.The opponent is of the opinion that since Brahman is the possessor
of the attributes and as the meditation on Brahman possessed of all attributes is already
enjoined it is not to be repeated for the sake of the attributes.
The suthra refutes this view by saying that the meditation has to be repreated as in the
case of oblation.When Brahman is meditated as prescribed in the section on dharAkAsa;
it is done with reference to His essential nature while in the section mentioning the
attributes like freedom from evil etc. it is Brahman qualified by these attributes.
This is similar to the case of sacrificial oblations where the offering of purOdAsa is
offered to Indhra. The text in Taittiriya samhitha 'yaTHEndhrAya rAjne purodAsam
EkAdhasakapAlam nirvapEth, to Indhra, the king, purodAsa is to be offered in eleven
potsherds ,' continues the same injunction repeating 'indhrAya aDHirAjAya,' to Indhra
the ruler, 'indhrAya svarAjnE', to Indhra the sovereign, etc.where oblations are
separaely offered to Indhra, qualified by kingship, rulership etc. and therefore considered
as different deities.Thus ends the pradhAnADHikaraNam.

LingabhooyasthvADHi karaNam-3- 3-19

Suhtra-43-lingabhoo yasthvAththaddhi baleeyasthadhapi- 3-3-43

Because of the abundance of signs which are sfronger than the context.This also is
In Taittiriyaka, NarayaNa anuvAka, immediately after dhaharavidhya there is the
'Sahasraseersham dhevam visvAksham visvasambhuvam visvam narAyaNam
dhevam aksharam paramam prabhum,
this universe is truly the divine person only, the Lord NarayaNa,who is many headed
,many eyed,and produces joy for the universe, the imperishable supreme ruler.'

Here the doubt raised is that whether this meditation describes attributes to be included
in the meditation of dhahaavidhya or does this passage describes the attributes of the
supreme self to be meditated in all upanishads.The opponent holds the former view
because the context is about dhaharavidhya.
The suthra refutes this saying that the section describes only the qualities of the
supreme self because of the abundance of signs to that effect.The supreme self is
denoted in all meditations as akshara, sambhu parabrahman etc. and finally as
Narayana.This is true in dhaharavidhya also.thus ends the lingabhooyasthyaDHi


Suthra-44-poorvavik alpah prakaraNAth syAth kriyA mAnasavath-3- 3-44

Mental fires are alternative to physical fires due to the context and hence actions
as in the case of mAnasa cups.

In the agnirahasya section of the vajasanEyaka certain fires are mentioned as built by
the mind such as manschithah, built of mind, vAkchithah, built of speeh,
prANachithah, built of prANa etc. The question is whether these mental fires, due to the
context which is of performance of the rites of fire, denote action or meditation. This
suthra and the next ,being of the nature of poorvapaksha presents the view that the
mental fires are mentioned as the alternatives of physical fires which are referred to
earlier as being built by bricks.It is similar to the rite in soma sacrifice where on the
twelfth day a cup of soma is mentally offered. Hence these mental fires also form a part
of the action connected with the sacrificial rites as the real fire built by bricks.

Suthra-45-athidesAc cha-3-3-45

On account of transfer

There is a transfer of the altars of mind known from the text 'thEshAm Ekaika
EvathAvAn yAvAn asoupoorvah, (sathapatha br.10-5-1to3) of these each one is as
great as the previous one (the altar built by bricks) where the powers are transferred
from the previous one to the mental fires. Hence these are auxiliary to the main
performance. The next suthra refutes this view.
Suthra-46-vidhyaiva s thu nirDHAraNAth dharsanAccha- 3-3-46

But it is meditation only because of assertion and what is seen.

The suthra refutes the view that the mental fires are a part of the performance of the
sacrifice as the fire made of bricks by saying that it is only meditation. The text 'thE
haithE vidhyAchitha Eva, they are built by knowledge only,' declares that it is a mental
act such as meditation. Also it could be seen that the the mind, speech, eyes etc. cannot
be piled up like bricks.Moreover the text 'thE mansA EVa aDHeeyantha, manasA
Eshu grahA agrhyantha, manasA asthuvantha, manasA asamsan,' in the same
section, which means that the fires are established, built up, the soma cups were taken
up and by mind they are chanted and recited, shows that these fires are part of mental
act of sacrifice.Therefore it is an act of meditation.

Suthra-47-sruthyAdh ibaleeyasthAvAcc ha Na bAdhah-3-3-47

Since there is a greater power to the scriptures than that of context, the latter
cannot sublate what is declared by the former.

According to the rules of Mimamasasathra sruthi, linga, vAkya and prakaraNa, direct
scriptural text, inferential mark, the syntactical connection and the context are of
decreasing importance in that order.In this instance the scriptural proof consists in the
statement 'thE haithE vidhyAchitha Eva, they are built by knowledge only,' which
means that the act of sacrifice is mental being of the form of vidhya. There is the linga,
inferential sign 'thAn haithAn Evam vidhE sarvadhA sarvANi bhoothAni
chinvanthyapi svapathE, all beings at all times build them (the mental fires) for him
who knows this, evenwhile he is asleep.' The syntactical connection, vAkya consists in
the connecting word 'EvamvidhE, for him who knows this, and 'chinvanthi, they build.'
The construction by all beings at all times cannot possibly refer to the physical act of
sacrifice and hence it denotes only a mental performance ie. Meditation.

Suthra-48-anubanDHA dhibhyah prajnAnthara prthakthvavath dhrshtascha
thadhuktham- 3-3-48

On account of ingradients as in the case of separateness of other meditations

The ingredients for a sacrifice such as soma vessels, hymns and recitations etc are all
described as being mental.'manasAEshu grahA agrhyantha manasA asthuvantha
manasA asamsan, by mind the soma vessels were held, by mind the hymns are
chanted and by the mind the manthras are recited etc,' prove this. As dhaharavidhya is
separate than the sacrifice mentioned therein this mental sacrifice is also different from
the physical act of sacrifice.

The text 'thEshAmEkaika Eva thAvan yAvAn asou poorvah, of these each one is as
great as the previous one,' shows an extended application of the results of act of
sacrifice represented by the fire built with bricks to the mental fires also, says the
opponent , and hence these are part of the previous sacrifice. This view is refuted by the
next suthra.

Suthra-49-na sAmAnyath apyupalabDHEh mrthyuvath na hi lOkApatthihi

Not so as the extension can be obtained through similarity as in the case of
death."The person in yonder orb" does not occupy the world of death.

The suthra means that though the result may be the same the intermediate, operations
need not be the same. In the _expression 'sa Esha Eva mrthyuh ya Esha Ethasmin
mandalE purushah'(satha.10-3- 6.3) "the person in yonder orb is death" there is only
similarity in the power of destruction and does not mean that the person mentioned is in
the land of death.Here also the act of sacrifice with respect to fire made of bricks is said
to be of equal potency as that of mental fires.There is no need to assume their
connection with the actual sacrifice.

Suthra-50-parENa cha sabdhasya thAdhviDHyam bhooyasthvAthqnuban
Dhah- 3-3-50

From other text also the said nature of the word (being vidhya only) is established.
The connection with the previous one is due to plurality.

From the subsequent brAhmaNa text (satha.10-5- 4.1) it is known that only meditation is
enjoined by the mention of the mental fires. The text is 'ayam vA va lOka EshO agnih
chithah; thasya Apa Eva parisrithah, this altar of fire built with brick is that (world); the
waters (of the sea) are its enclosing stones.' Further it is said 'sa yO haithadhEvam
vedha lOkamprNAm Evambhootham Ethath sarvam abhisampadhyathE, he who
knows this fire as filling this space, has all things come to him.' So the meditation is
enjoined with a separate result of its own. Similarly in vaisvAnara vidhya another
meditation is njoined. Therefore the text on agnirahasya does not refer to sacrificial

This gives rise to the doubt as to why are these meditations in agnirahasya instead of in
the upanishadic section of BrhadhAraNyaka.
The answer is given as bhooyasthvAththvanu bnDhah, because of the abundance of
ingradients which are to be imagined with respect to the mental sacrifice it is included
along with the fire built by bricks.
That is the details of the sacrifice as the physical one with the fire made of bricks are to
be thought of in the meditation which is a mental sacrifice and hence the proximity to the
physical one.Here ends the poorvavikalpADHikar aNam.

Suthra-51-Eka Athmanah sarirE bhAvAth- 3-3-51

Some say that the individual self is to be meditated upon as the knower
experiencer and doer, because of its existence inside the body.

It is essential to ascertain the nature of the upasaka, the meditating self as it was done
so regarding the nature of meditation and the object of meditation.

The question now is whether the meditating self is the knower-doer- experiencer or the
self as described in ChandhOgya in the section of PrajApathy (Chan.8-7) as free from
imperfections etc.

The poorvapaksha view is that it is the individual self in the form of knower-doer-
experiencer, who is the meditating self because he reides in the body. The result of the
meditation can also be applied to him only.It cannot be argued on the basis of
thathkrathu nyaya that the individual self is to be viewed as free fron sin etc. by quoting
the text 'yaTHA krathurasmin lOkE purushah bhavathi thaTHEtha prEthya
bhavathi, (chan.3-14- 1) just as his thoughts are in this world a man becomes so in the
next world after death,' because that refers to the object of meditation and not the
meditating self. The next suthra replies to this.

Suthra-52-vyathirEk athadhbhAvabhAvi thvAth na thu upalabDhivath- 3-3-

But it is not so; rather different from it as in the case of brahman-knowledge.

The meditating self should be thought of as the one possessing the characterestics of
freedom from evil etc. This alone is proved by the text quoted from
ChahdhOgya,'yaTHAkrathu' etc. (Chan.3- 14-1) and the text 'thatTHEthah prethya
bhavathi tham thaTHA yaTHOpAsathE thaTHaiva bhavathi, (Mudgal up.3) however
one meditate on him he becomes the same.' These texts cannot be taken to refer only to
the supreme self and hence does not apply to the mediating self because the individual
self ,being the body of Brahman , is included in the realm of Brahman.So the individual
self forming the body of Brahman, characterised by the qualities such as freedom from
evil, in other words, the pure self which is the mode of Brahman, is the object of
meditation.This is the meanng in the passage in the section of Prajapathi in

Just as the essential nature of Brahman is the object of meditation on Brahman so also
the individual self in the state of release is the object of meditation. Just as in the case of
'svargakAmo yajetha' which prescribes the qualification for the sacrificer here also
being the knower-doer- experiencer is the qualification of the meditator to enable him to
obtain the result of release.Thus ends the sarirEbhAvADhikaraN am.

Suthra-53-angAvabad dhAsthu na sAkhAsu hi prathivedham- 3-3-53

Meditations connected with limbs of sacrifice are not restricted to the particular
branches but to all branches of the Veda

There are texts such as 'OmithyEthadhakshar am udhgeeTHam upAseetha, (Chan.1-
1-1) let one meditate on the syllable OM as udhgeetha,' and 'lOkEshu panchaviDham
sAma upAseetha, (Chan.2-2-1) let one meditate on the fivefold sAman as the five
worlds,' etc. mentioned in connection with the acts of sacrifice. The question is whether
they relate only to the branch in which they occur or to all branches of the Veda in
connection with udhgeetha etc. Even though all Vedanta texts are in agreement, the
udhgeetha differs in each Veda because of the difference in accent.So this legitimate
doubt is raised by the poorvapakshin who holds the view that the meditations mentioned
are restricted to the particular sAkha to which they are connected.

This suthra refutes the above view saying that the meditations of this kind is common to
all sAkhas since the text explicitly mention them in connection with udhgeetha in
general. Even though there is difference in accent the sacrifice enjoined is one
only.therefore the udhgeetha being a part of the sacrifice is the same.

Suthra-54manthrAdhu vath vA avirODhah - 3-3-54

Or there is no contradiction as in the case of manthras and the rest.

As the manthras and the rest, (meaning- jAthiguNasankhyAsAdhrsyakramadravya
karmANi- the generic characterestics, quality,substance, number, similarity,order of
succession and action) though they are mentioned in one branch apply to all
branches,based on valid texts, there is no contradiction here as the principal sacrifice is
one and the same.Thus ends angAvabaddhADHikara Nam.


Suthra-55-bhoomnah krathuvath jyAyasthvam- 3-3-55

Meditation on bhooman (abundance) is superior as in the case of the sacrifice, the
scripture thus declares.

In ChandhOgya a meditation on vaisvanara is enjoined, the objject of meditation being
the supreme self, having the threefold world as its body and the heaven, the sun ,the
wind etc. as limbs.(Chan. 5-12) Now there is a doubt whether the whole cosmic form, or
its limbs or both together is to be meditated as in the bhoomavidhya, (Chan.7-23)
where the meditation on name etc. with separate results for each and in the end the
meditation is enjoined on the bhooman with a result of its own. .And hence says the
opponents, the meditation is to be done on the separate parts.
This view is refuted by the suthra.The meditation is on the cosmic form only,
considering the unity of the entire section. In the context five sages approach Asvapathi,
the king of Kekaya, to know the self of Vaisvanra. He teaches them the self of
Vaisvanara, who is having the universe as the body.The meditation on the limbs is to
emphasise this fact.The separate meditations on the parts and their results are only in
the nature of explanation of the whole, as in the case of the sacrifice performed for the
sake of progeny, in which the oblations are to be offered in twelve potsherds and later
the oblations are said to be offered in eight, which is a part of the whole sacrifice.
Moreover it is denoted that the meditation is enjoined on the whole cosmic form by sruthi
itself as Asvapathi says to the rshis who were meditating upon the limbs of the cosmic
self ’your head would have fallen off if you had not come to me' etc. which does not
forbid meditating on the parts instead of the whole but only emphasises the eminence of
the meditation on the whole.Thus ends BhoomajyAyathvAdhik araNam.


Suthra-56-nAnAsabdh AdhibhEdhAth -3-3-56

The meditations are separate because of the difference in words etc.

The meditations which are done for the sake of attaining Brahman, the result of which is
mentioned as final release, are the meditations such as
vaisvanaravidhya etc.whether they belong to one sakha or different sakhas. Those
which have their object as praNa with special result are of different category. Regarding
the former category a doubt arises as to whether they are all identical or separate. The
poorvapkshin holds the former view since the object of meditation Brahman, and the
result, the final release, are the same in all.

This view is refuted by the suthra by saying that they are several on account of the
difference in the words etc., which means the difference due to abhyAsa,repetition,
sankhya,number, guNa,quality, prakriya, context and nAmaDhEya,name. The
differences are due to those in the subsidiaries. Though the object of all of them is
Brahman, they are distinct in as as much as they have Brahman qualified with different
attributes as their object, like being the sole cause of the world, being free from evil
etc.So all these meditations are different and separate.Thus ends the
sabdhAdhibhEdhaDHik araNam.


Suthra-57-vikalpOav isishta phalathvAth- 3-3-57

There is option on account of result being nondifferent.
The question that whether the various vidhyas mentioned in the previous suthra are to
be combined by the meditator or should be undertaken optionally is considered here.
The poorvapakshin says that they should be combined because the results of them are
the same, namely, attaiment of Brahman. He cites the example of the various rites such
as agnihothra, darsa and poornamAsa which are done together, as the result of them
are the same, namely, the attainment of heaven.

This view is refuted by the suthra.In the case of agnihothra etc. eventhough the result is
the same, there is difference in the degree and duration of the residence of the soul in
heaven, varying according to the efficacy of each rite. So they are done together in order
to create more power to the sacrificer in enjoying the life in heaven to a greater degree
and for longer duration. But in the meditations on Brahman, once the intuitive knowlege
of Brahman is acquired, infinite bliss results even through one meditation as mentioned
by the texts such as 'brahmavidhApnothip aram, one who knows Brahman reaches
the highest,'etc., there is no need for others at all. Hence there is an option between

Suthra-58-kAmyAsthu yaTHA kAmam samuccheeyEran na vA

Those meditations which are desire-motivated may or may not be combined due
to the absence of the reasons mentioned above.

That is, since the results of the meditations, undertaken with a desire other than the
attainment of Brahman, are finite, the meditations can be combined for achieving greater
results.Thus ends the vikalpADHIkaraNam.


Suthra-59-angEshu yaTHAsrayabhAvah- 3-3-59

The meditations are connected with the parts of the sacrifice such as udhgeetha
and hence form part of the sacrifice.

The suthras 59 to 62 present the prima facie view,.

The meditations such as 'OmithyEthadhakshar am udhgeetham upAseetha,(Chan.1-
1-1) 'let him meditate on the syllable OM as the udhgeetha,' are to be performed as the
part of sacrifice and not optional like the gOdhOhana vessel, says the poorvapakshin.
This refers to the injunction 'gOdhOhahanEna pasukAmasya praNayEth, who is
desirous of cattle should bring water in a gOdhOhana vessel,' which is a particular
vessel used to milk the cow. There is no such separate result mentioned regarding these
meditations which seem only to strengthen the result of the sacrifice as shown in the text
'yadhEva vidhyayA karOthisraddhayA upanishadhA thadhEva veeryavattharam,
(Chan.1-1-10) whatever he does with knowledge, with faith, with the Upanishad, that is
more vigorous.' Therefore as these meditations have udhgeetha as their base which
forms the part of the sacrifice, these are also to be considered as such.

Suthra-60-sishtEsch a-3-3-60

Because there is an injunction to that effect

The injunction 'udhgeetham upAseetha let him meditate on udhgeetha,' enjoins
meditation as a subsidiary to udhgeetha. As there is no other injunctive sentence as in
the case of that of godhOhana vessel, the meditation is to be considered as subsidiary
to udhgeetha and consequentially is a part of the sacrifice.

Suthtra-61- samAhArAth-3- 3-61

Because of the rectification

A further reason is given by quoting the text 'hOthrshadhanAddhai vApi
dhurudhgeetham anusamAharathi, ' (Chan.1-5-5) from the position of the hothr he
rectifies the defect in udhgeetha.' This shows that the meditation is required to correct
the mistake that may be made in the udhgeetha, which proves that the meditation is an
essential part of the performance of the sacrifice.

Suthra-62-guNa sAdhAranyasruthEsch a-3-3-62

Because of the declaration of a quality common to all vedas

The text 'thEnEyam thrayee vidhyA varthathe Omithi AsrAvayathi, Omithi
samsathi, Omithi udhgAyathi,(Chan.1-1-19) By means of that (OM) the threefold
knowledge proceeds; with Om the adhvaryu gives orders, with Om the hothri recites,
with Om the udhgAthri sings, declares the praNava to be common to all the three vedas
and shows the meditation as being a part of the sacrifice.The adhvaryu is the officiating
priest of the sacrifice and follows yajurveda in performing the different rites prescribed
therein, the hothri is the one who recites the rks, that is, the manthras and offers
oblations in the fire, the udhgAthri is the one who sings samans.As the meditation is
connected with the udhgeetha it is an integral part of the sacrifice.The view of the
opponent in the above four suthras are refuted by the next.

Suthra-63-na vA thathsahabhAvAsruth Eh- 3-3-63

Not so, because the text does not declare their coexistence.

The text 'udhgeetham upAseetha,' does not mention any other qualification and also in
the subsequent text 'yadhEva vidhyayA karOthisraddhayA upanishadhA
thadhEvaveeryavatth aram bhavathi,(Chan.1-1-10) whatever he does with knowledge,
faith and upanishad that becomes more powerful,' implying the fruit of meditation to be
different from that of the sacrifice.Hence the meditation cannot be subsiduiary to
udhgeetha which alone is the subsidiary part of the sacrifice.

Suthra-64-dharsanAt h cha-3-3-64

As shown by scripture also.

The sruthi says 'Evam viddha vai brahmA yajnam yajamAnamsarvan cha rthvijah
abhirakshathi,(Chan.4-17- 10) which means that by the one who has the knowledge of
Brahman, (denoted by brahmA,) all are protected, viz. the sacrifice, sacrificer, and all the
priests, which shows that the knowledge is not restricted to the udhgAthri and others.

[Four types of priests are employed in the soma sacrifice

(i) A brahmA priest: He knows all the three vedas and is engaged in superintending
of sacrifice.
(ii) Hothr: His duty is to recite the rk manthras in the sacrifice.
(iii) Adhvaryu: He pours the oblations into the fire reciting yajur manthras.
(iv) UdhgAthr:He sings sAma hymns.This indicates that the brahmA priest is the one
with the knowledge of Brahman.

This can be known by the text 'thasya manascha vAk cha varthanee, (Chan.4-16- 1)
mind and speech are the two paths of this sacrifice,' and 'thayoranyatharAm manasA
samskarOthi brahmA, (Chan.4-16- 2) one of these two paths the brahmA priest
embellishes with his mind,' which implies meditation.] Thus ends the yaThAsraya

The end of the third pAdha of third aDhyAya



Suthra-1-purushArTH ah athah sabdhAdhithi bAdharAyaNah- 3-4-1
The enquiry into the unity or diversity of the meditations has resulted in determining, in
which cases the attributes mentioned in the meditations are to be combined, and in
which case they are not. Now this section examines whether the highest purusharTHa,
the principal object of human life, that is moksha, is a direct result of meditation or of the
works for which the meditation is subsidiary.BhAdharAYana is of the opinion that the
purushArTHa is the direct result of meditation because scripture declares so. The texts

'brahmavidhApnOthi param, (Tait.2-1-1)
the knower of Brahman attains the supreme

'vedhAhamEtham purusham mahAntham Adhithya varNam thamasah parasthAth;
thamEvam vidhvAn amrtha iha bhavathi, nAnyAh panThA visdhyathE ayanAya,
(Svet.3-8) I know that great Person of sun-like lustre beyond the darkness. A man who
knows Him truly passes over death; there is no other path to go' (Svet. Up. III, 8); and

'yaTHA nadhyah syandhamAnAh samudhrE astham gacchanthi nAma rupE
vihAya; thaTHA vidhvAn nAmarupAth vimukthahparAthpara m purushmupaithi
As the rivers flowing, disappear inthe ocean, losing name and form,so the wise man,
free from name and form,goes unto the highest of the high, the supreme divinity.
The poorvapkshin comes with an objection to this.

Suthra-2-seshathvAt h purushArTHavAdhah yaTHA anyeshu ithi jaiminih-3-4- 2

The suthras 2to7 gives the view of the opponent which is refuted by the
subsequent suthras.

Knowledge is subsidiary to the sacrificial acts and hence the statement about the
benificial result through meditation is only arTHavaAdha, laudatory, says Jaimini.

The discussion is between vedantin and mimAmsaka. For the latter no scriptural
statement is valid authority unless it is connected with action, as seen in the debate
regarding the suthra 'Thatthu samnvayAth,' (BS.1-1-4) the opponent says that
purushArTHa cannot be the result of meditation. the statements such as
'brahmavidhbbrahmai va bhavathi' are only to acquire the knowledge of the real
nature of the sacrificer.So the meditation is a purifying rite subsodiary to the act of
sacrifice.The declaration of result through meditation is not direct but only through the
performance of sacrifice and hence such statements are only laudatory according to the
aphorism of poorvamimamsa 'dhravyasamskArakar masu parArTHathvAth
phalsruthih arTHavAdhah syAth, ( 3-1)

It could not be argued by the vedanthin that the object of meditation is something
different from the individual self engaged in acts of sacrifice, being the attainment of
Brahman by those desirous of emancipation (mumukshu), which has been already
established by the earlier suthras, and hence meditation cannot be subsidiary to
sacrificial act. Though the texts like 'that thou art' declare the identity of the individual
slef with Brahman, who is proved to be the inner self of all by the other suthras,the real
purport of the vedantha texts is to tell us about the real nature of the self and hence they
are only laudatory and subsidiary to the act of no one will be inclined to do
sacrifice unless he knows that he is different from the body and hence meditations are
connected with the sacrificial acts by providing this knowledge.

Suthra-3-AchAradhar sanAth-3- 4-3

Because it is known from scriptures from the conduct of men of realization

Asvapathi and Janaka who were men of realisation are seen from the scriptures to be
engaged in sacrificial acts.Asvapathi tells the rshis 'yakshyamANo vai bhagavanthO
aham asmi, (Chan.5-11-5) I am about to perform a sacrifice.' Smrthi also confirms that
the Brahman knowledge does not preclude one from sacrificial acts as the Lord himself
has said 'karmaNaiva hi samsiddhim AsTHithA janakAdhayah,' (BG-3-20) Janaka
and others attained perfection only through karma, which means vedha vihitha karma
like sacrifices.Thus knowledge is not independently fruitful but only acquired for the
purpose of purifying the doer as it shows the real nature of the self.

Suthra-4-thath sruthEh-3-4- 4

That is known by the scriptures also.

By the text

'yadhEva vidhyayA karOthisraddhayA upanishadha thadhEva veeryavattharam
bhavathi, (Chan.1-1-10)
whatever one does with knowledge, faith and upanishad that becomes more powerful,'
Is not to be taken to refer to udhgeetha only as per the context because the direct
statement, vAkya, being more powerful than the context, prakaraNa. Hence the vidhya
referred to in the text means only the knowledge in general.

[Here the rule applied here by the mimamsaka is that of purvamimamsa which says that
when the six items, namely, sruthi-linga- vAkya-prakaraNa- sThAna-samAkhyA, that
is, direct assertion, indicatio n, syntactical connection, context, position and designation,
relate to the same thing, each succeding one is weaker than the preceding one because
it it conveys its meaning less directly, that is, by invoking the aid of the preceding
ones.(Pu.Mi. suthra.III- 3-14) ]

Suthra-5-samanvAram bhaNAth-3- 3-5

Because both go together
The text 'tham vidhyAkarnaNou samanvArabhEthE, (Bhd.4-4-2) he is followed by
both knowledge and works,' shows that knowledge and work go together.

Suthra-6-thadhvathO viDHAnAth-3- 4-6

Because scripture enjoins work

Scripture enjoins work for the one who acquired knowledge as can be seen from the text
AchAryakulAth veEdhamaDHeethya yaTHAbhiDHaNam karmAthiseshENa abhi
samAvrthya kutumbE suchou dhEsEsvADHyAyam aDHeeyAnah,(Chan.8-15- 1)

he who has learnt the veda according to the prescribed rule in the time left over after
performing his duty to the guru, after coming back from the guru's house settles down in
his household and continues the study of the veda in a clean place.' Hence the
knowledge of Brahman has no independemt fruit but only as connected with works
enjoined in the vedas.

Suthra7-niyamAth- 3-4-7

On account of the compulsory rule

It is said 'KurvannevEha karmANijijeevishEcc hatham samAh, (IsA. 2) which
explicitly prescribe s work for the whole lifetime to one who has the knowledge of the
self.Hence for all the reasons mentioned in the foregoing suthras the opponent claims
that the knowledge is only in connection with sacrificial activites.

Suthra-8-aDHikaupad hEsAtthu bAdharAyaNasya Evam dharsanAth-3- 4-8

Because the scripture teaches about the one who surpasses the individual self,
the view of BadharAyaNa is vailid.

Ramanuja explains the term 'aDHika upadhEsa' in the suthra thus:

‘karmasu karthuh jeevAth hEyaprathyaneeka- anavaDHika- athisaya-
kalyANaguNAkarat hvEna aDHikasya ,arTHAnthara bhoothasya parasya
brahmaNah vEdhyathayA upadhEsAth.'
The meaning of the above passage is this:The scriptures teaches us of the supreme
being who surpasses the individual self, the doer of works,by His limitless and wonderful
auspicious qualities and who is free from imperfections and hence different from the
individual self.

These qualities of the supreme self , says Ramanuja , cannot by any stretch of
imgination be attributed to the individual self either in the state of bondage or in release.

In the texts like

'apahathapApmA ajarO vimrthyuh vishokO vijighathsO apipAsah sathyakAmah
sathya samnlalpah,
He is free from evil, old age, death, sorrow, hunger and thirst, and those which speak
about Brahman as the cause of the world, as the ruler, inner self of all, of nature of bliss
etc., there is not even slightest reference to the miserable individual self, as
insignificant as a glow worm, entangled in the body due to nescience.

The result of the knowledge of Brahman is declared to be immortality on attaining
Him.Therefore the knowledge of Brahman is the means of purushArTHa.

Suthra-9-thulyam thu dharsanam-3- 3-9

The scriptures equally support both views.

The argument that the men are of realisation is shown in the scritures to follow the path
of karma is not wholly true because there is evidence for the other view also.

In aithareya upanishad we have a text
'rshayah kAvashEyAh;kimarTHA vayamaDHyEShyAmahe, kimargTHA vayam
The sages descended from Kavisa said: for what purpose should we study the vedas
and for what purpose should we perform sacrifices.'

As those who have acquired Brahman knowledge are seen to give up karma as being of
no use for them who desire salvation, the meditation on Brahman cannot be susidiary to
sacrifice. But, says Ramanuja sacrificial acts may be performed by men of realisation(
such as janaka and ASvapathi) without attachment to fruits and hence it is appropriate
that they were mentioned as doing the sacrificial rites.On the other hand sacrifices that
are done with expectation of fruit are opposed to knowledge of Brahman which has only
moksha as the result. Hence the meditaion on Brahman cannot be subsidiary to
sacrificial acts

Suthra-10-asArvathr ikee-3-3- 10

The declaraion is not universal.

In the sentence 'what he does with knowledge becomes more powerful'(Chan. 1-1-10)
is not applicable to all meditations but only to that of udhgeetha and connected with the
injunction 'let him meditate on the udhgeetha' (Chan.1-1-1) The phase 'whatever he
does with knowledge' refers only to udhgEetha and not action in general so as to include
the act of sacrifice

Suthra-11-vibhAgah sathavath-3- 3-11

There is division as in the case of hundred.

In the fifth suthra it is said that knowledge and works go together as denoted by 'tham
vidhyAkarmaNee samanvArabhEthe, he is followed by knowledge and works.' This
suthra refutes the view.
The results of vidhya and karma are different and they are clubbed together in the sense
that kniowledge brings its own result and so does the work. It is analageous to the
statement 'kshethra rathna vikryiNam sathadhvayam anvEthi, the man selling land
and a gem got two hundred which actually means that he got hundred for the land and
hundred for the gem.

Suthra12-aDhyayanam Athravathah- 3-4-12

It refers to him who has merely made verbal sudy of the vedas.

This suthra is in refutation of the sixth where it was argued that works are prescribed to
one who has learnt the vedas. The text quoted 'vEdham aDheethya--- -kutumbou
suche dhese svAdhyAyanam aDheeyAnah, ( Cha.8-15-1) which means that after
learning the vedas one should study what he has learnt while being in the family doing
the works prescribed by the vedas, apply only to one who has simply learnt the text of
the vedas and not to one who has cognised the meaning.The one who has mastered the
vedas becomes engaged in the worlks if he is desorous of the fruits of karma or if he
wishes for release, applies himself to the study of the upanishads.Moreover mere
learning of the meaning does not constitute the knowledge of the upanishads in the
same way as performing the sacrifices does not mean that one has understood the real
nature of them.Hence vidhya which consists in devout meditation resuting in the highest
purushArTha, is entirely different from the mere knowledge of Brahman through the
study of vedas.

Suthra-13-nAvisEshA th-3-4-13

No; because there is no restriction.

This suthra refutes what is said in the seventh, that work is prescribed (niyamAth) to the
one with knowledge.The text quoted 'kurvannEvEha karmANi jijeevishEth satham
samAh,(Isa.2) doing the works he lives for hundred years,' does not restrict the man of
knowledge to performance of sacrificial acts because it does not refer to any particular
work and may be taken to mean a work which is subsidiary to knowledge.The line in Gita
'karmaNaiva hi samsiddhim AsThithA janakAdhayah, Janaka and others attained
perfection through work only ,' means that for the knower of the self, knowledge and
work continue till the end of life.

Suthra-14-sthuthayE anumathirvA- 3-4-14

Or permission is given for the sake of glorification.

The upanishad begins with 'IsAvasyam idham sarvam, (Isa-1) all this is pervaded by
the Lord,' which refers to knowledge of Brahman and the subsequent passage
'kurvannEvEha karmANi,'etc is by way of giving permission to do all work in
glorification of knowledge which is shown in the next sentence 'Evam thvayi nAnyaTHA
ithah asthi na karma lipyathE narE, thus in no other way can you be free from the taint
of evil deeds. This means, a man who is not completely absorbed in Athman has no
other alternative than engaging himself in meritorious activities in order not to be tainted
by evil. Therefore knowledge is not subsidiary to work.

Suthra-15-kAmakArEN a chaike-3-4-15

In some according to wish

In some sAkhAs we find that the life of the householder can be given up by one who
possesses Brahman knowledge.For instance the text 'kim prajaya
karishyamOyEshAm no ayam Athma ayam Lokah,(Brhd.4-4-22) what shall we do
with the offspring ,we, to whom the is world is the self,' shows that knowledge is not
subsidiary to works because in such case voluntary renunciation would not have been

Suthra-16- upamardham cha-3-4-16

And destruction

There is vedantha text which explicitly states the destruction of all work by knowledge of
In the passage
'bhidhyathE hrdhayagranTHih, cchidhyathE sarva samsayAh, kseeyanthE asya
karmAni thasmin dhrshtE parAvarE,(Mund.II-2- 9)
All his knots of the heart are broken, all his doubts are cut asunder, all his karma is
destroyed when he has seen the high and low(Brahman)
This would not be possible if knowledge is subsidiary to works.

Syuthra-17-oorDHva rEthassu cha sabdhE hi- 3-4-17

Scripture declares that knowledge belongs to celebates.

Those in the fourth asrama of sannyasa need not perform agnihothra and other rites.
This is stated in the scripture as 'ye chEmE araNyEsraddhA thapa ithyupAsathe,
(Chan.5-10-1) those in the forest (meaning sannyasins) practise penance with faith.And
'EnamEva pravrAjinah lOkam icchanthah pravrajanthi, wishing for the Brahman only
the sannyasins renounce the world.' The text relating to the life long performance of
works 'yAvajjeevam agnihOthram juhOthi' refers only to those who have not
renounced the world.

Suthra-18-parAmarsa m jaiminih achOdhanAth cha apavadhathi hi-3-4-18

It is only a reference because of an absence of injunction according to Jaimini.
There is no injunction regarding celebacy, is the opinion of Jaimini, the
mimAmsAchArya. The text 'thrayO dharmaskanDhAh, there are three stages of life as
basis of dharma, do not contain any injunction, but only laudatory to the meditation on
Brahman as it ends with 'brahmasamsThah amrthathvam Ethi,' the declaration that
one who knows Brahman attains immortality.

Suthra-19-anushTEya m bAdharAyaNahsAmyasr uthEh-3-4- 19

They are to be practised, thinks Badhrayana, for the scripture refers
equallty to all stages of life.

According to Badarayana, all the stages of life including sannyasa are of equal

In the passage

'thrayO dharmaskanDHAh yajnO adhyayanam dhAnam ithi praTHamah,thapa Eva
dvitheeyObrahmachar yAchArya kulavAsee thrtheeyah,(Chan.2-23-1)

Three are the branches of religeous duty,
Sacrifice, study and gifts are the first,
Austerity alone is the second, and
The celebate student of sacred knowledge who lives in the house of his guru all his life
isthe third,

This ends as
‘BrahmasamsTHO amrthathvam EThi’
He who is established in Brahman attains immortality, All the traits mentioned, namely
sacrifice, charity, study, austerity and celebacy cannot be said to belong to the
householder only While sacrifice, study and gifts relate to the householder, austerity
denotes the stages of vAnaprastha and sannyasa. And the sentence 'who is established
in Brahman attains immortality' refers to all stages of life as it is possible to be a
brahmasamsTha in any stage.What the text means is that those who are desirous of
wordly results, being devoid of the knowledge of Brahman perform the religious rites for
the fulfilment of their desires but one who does them while being established in Brahman
attains immortality. The text 'yE chEmE araNyE sraddhA thapa ithupAsathE,(Chan.5-
10- 1) and those who in the forest practise penance with faith,'as it mentions the path of
light for them, shows that the sannyasa is recognised by the scripture.

Suthra-20-viDHirvA DHAraNavath- 3-4-20

Or an injunction as in the case of carrying

The text quoted above about the three stages of life is to be accepted as an injunction as
it is not established by any other means. This is similar to the statement 'aDHasthAth
samiDHam DHArayan anudhravEth, carrying the figsticks below the ladle he runs,'
relating to agnihOthra where the carrying of figsticks in that manner is taken as an
injunction as it has not been declared anywhere else. So the injunction 'yAvajjeevam
agnihOthram juhOthi,' applies only to those who are not free from attachment. The
conclusuion is that as the knowledge of Brahman is enjoined for the sannyasins it is not
subsidiary to sacrificial activities but is in itself a purushAQrTHa. This is the end of
purusharTHADHikaraN am.


SthuthimAthram upADHAnAth ihi cheth na apoorvathvAth- 3-4-21

If it is said that reference to udhgeetha is mere glorification it is not so, because it
is new.

In ChandhOgya there is a declaration that udhgeetha does the essence of essences,
the supreme, deserve the highest place,'sa Esha rasAnAm rasathamah paramah
parArghyah.' (Chan.1-1-3) The opponent is of the opinion that this text is a mere
glorification as there is no injunction on the meditation on udhgeetha. He considers this
as being similar to that saying,'iyam Eva juhvah svargah lOkah Ahavaneeyah, the
ladle is the earth and the Ahavaneeya fire is heaven,' where the words 'earth' and
'heaven' only used to glorify the ladle and the fire.

The suthra refutes the view on the basis that it is new. That udhgeetha is the best of
essences is not to be seen in any other place as there is no injunction on udhgeetha
other than this. So the text enjoins meditation on udhgeetha as the essence of essences
for the attaining great power and potency in sacrifice.

Suthra-22 BhAva sabdhAccha-3- 4-22

Because of the word expressing injunction

The word 'upAseetha , let one meditate' is used in connection with udhgeetha at the
outset and according to mimAsaka all the word which denote action are to be taken as
injunctions. Thus ends the sthuthimAthrADhiaka raNam.


Suthra-23-pAriplavA rTHA ithi cheth na visEshithathvAth- 3-4-23

If it is said that upanishadic stories are for the purpose of pAriplava, (that is, for
the sake of telling stories) it is not so because they are specified.

In the asvamEdha sacrifice certain stories are recited which should be heard by the
sacrificer and his family. these are known as pAriplavas.There are some stories in
vedanta texts like that of Prathardhana, SvEthakethu etc. The question now is whether
they are of the kind of pAriplava or they impart some special knowledge. The
poorvapakdshin maintains the former view which is refuted by the suthra.The
upanishadic stories are connected with injunctions of meditations. Not all stories are for
the purpose of pAriplava but only those specified for that purpose such as 'manuh
vaivasvathO rAjA(Kou.10-7) manu ,the son of vivasvat,' under the injunction
'AkhYanAni samsanthi, they tell the stories.'

Suthra-24-thaTHA chaEkavAkyOpabanDHA th-3-4-24

From the textual connection also

These stories are told in connection with the texts such as 'AthmA va arE drashtavyah,
the self is to be seen,' etc. like the stories such as sO arOdheeth,he wept,' which are
subsidiary to sacrificial acts and hence they are subsidiary to injunctions of
meditation.Thus ends pAriplavADHikaraNam .


Suthra-25-athaEVa cha agneenDhanAdhi anapEkshA-3- 4-25

Therefore no kindling of fires required.

The topic now returns to that of celibates.The opponent says that since the meditations,
which have sacrifice as their subsidiary, cannot be practised by the sannyasins as they
do not have the injunction of sacrifice enjoined for them. This view is refuted by the
suthra. The celebates are mentioned as connected with meditation by the scriptural texts
such as 'brahmasamsTHO amrthathvamEthi, (Chan.2-23- 1) he who is established in
Brahman attains immortality, ' EthmEva pravrAjinah lOkamicchanthah pravrajanthi,
desiring Brahman alone the sannyasins renounce this world,'etc. Hence they do not
need to kindle the fire as can be seen by 'yE chEmE araNyE sraddhA thapa
ithyupAsathE,(Chan.5-10- 1) those in the forest practise penance with faith.Thus ends
the agneenDHanADHikaraN am.


Suthra-26sarvApEksh A cha yajnAdhi sruthEh asvavath-3-4- 26

There is need for sacrifices etc. because it is prescribed by the sruthi, as in the
case of horse (which needs grooming.)

In reply to the argument that if meditation alone can result in immortality even the
householders may do away with works enjoined by the vedas, this suthra replies that it is
not so.
It is known from the sruthi texts such as
'ThamEvam vEdhAnuvachanEna brAhmaNA vividhishanthi yajnEna dhAnEna
thapasA anAsakEna, (Brhd.4-4-22)
BrAhmanas seek to know Him by sacrifice, gifts and study of the Veda,' from this it is
known that sacrifice and other means are subsidiary to knowledge.
Ramanuja says that just because the sacrifice and other works are the means of
knowledge it is said that 'they seek to know by sacrifice' etc. as only by knowing the
sword to be the instrument in cutting one uses it for that purpose,

'YajnAdheenAm jnAnasAdhanathvE sathyEva yajnAdhibhirjnAnam prApthum
icchanthi iti vyapadEsah upapadhyathE, yaTHA aserhanansAdhanthvE sathi
asinA jighAmsathi ithi vyapadhEsah. '

The knowledge, says Ramanuja, is not mere cognition of the meaning of the texts but
refers to dhyAna and upAsana, meditation and in the form of constant remembrance till
the end of life.
'Visadhathamam prathyakshathApanna smrthi rupam nirathisayapriyam
aharaharabhyAsAthis ayam AprayANah anuvarthamAnam moksha sAdhanam’
That is, meditation is a form of exceeedingly fond remembrance, practised day by day,
till death which secures release.Such meditation is kindled in the mind of the devotee by
the grace of the Lord who is pleased with the different acts of sacrifice and worship.
As a horse needs attendents and proper grooming to make it worthy for travel so also
the knowledge which leads to release needs the daily and occasional duties which
cannot be abandoned.
This is confirmed by the Lord also in the Gita thus:
'YajnadhAnathapahka rma na tyAjyam kAryamEva thath; yajnO dhAnam
thapaschaiva pAvanAni maneeshiNam, (BG.18-5)
Sacrifices gifts and austerities should not be given up but should be performed always
as they purify the doer.Thus the sarvApEkshADHikaraN am.


SamadhamAdhyupEthah syAth thaTHApi thu thdhviDHEh thadhangathayA
thEshAmapi avasyAnushTEyathvAt h-3-4-27

But all the same he (the householder) must practise the austerities like sama and
dhama, inner and outer control, since they are enjoined as auxiliaries to works and must
neccessarily followed.

To the question that whether the samadhamAdhi should be practised even by the
householder, the opponent says that it should not be practised because the performance
of works involve the external and internal organs and the control of them is opposed to
this purpose.
This view is refuted by the suthra.Even the householder who is engaged in sacrificial
activities should practise self control measures because they are subsidiary to

This is declared in the text,

'ThasmAth Evamvidh sAnthahdhAntha uparathah thithikshuh samAhithO
bhoothvA AthmanyEvAthmAnam pasyEth, (Brhd.4-4-23)
therefore he who knows this, having become calm, subdued, satisfied, patient, and
collected, should see the Self in Self.'
The austerities and activities are not mutually exclusive because they relate to different
matters.Activity is concerned with those works to be done and abstinence is towards
those that are prohibited. Moreover the work enjoined by scriptures pleases the supreme
self when done as an offering to Him for which the inner and outer control is
necessary.Hence the householder should also practise the samadhamAdhi. This is the
end of samadhamADHIkaraNam.


Suthra-28-sarvAnnAn umathischa prANAthyayE thaddharsanAth- 3-4-28

There is permission of all food at the event of danger to life as it is seen to be so.

In connection with prANa vidhya the text in both ChAndhOgya and BrhadhAraNyaka
declare that all food is lawful for one who has the knowledge of the prAna. 'Na ha vA
asya anannam jagDHam bhavathi, (Brhd.6-1-14) To him nothing is eaten that is non-
food,' and

'na ha vA Evam vidhi kimchana anannam bhavathi, (Chan.5-2-1) in the case of one
who knows this there is nothing that is not food.Now a doubt arises in the mind as to
whether this permission for all kinds of food for one who has knowledge, is for all times
or only when there is danger to life.The opponent says that it is for all times on account
of the absence of special condition being stated in the text. But the suthra refutes this
view and says that it is only on the event of danger to life.

It is seen from the sruthi that even the knowers of Brahman eat prohibited food only
when their life is in danger. There is a story in ChAndhOgya of Usasthi, the son of
Chakra, ate the grains that were left over from an elephant driver in order to survive
when the land was in famine but declined the offer of water saying that he could eat
what is forbidden when his life was in danger but further than that whatever he eats or
drinks is his option.So prohibited food may be eaten only when the life is in danger
and not at other times.

Suthra-29-abADHAcch a-3-4-29

Because these statemants (on food) are not sublated
In ChandhOgya it is stated 'AhAra suddhou satthva suddhih; satthvasuddhou
dhruvAsmrthih, (Chan.7-26-2) when the food is pure the mind is pure; when the mind is
pure the remembrance if firm,' which confirms that even knowers of Brahman are
allowed to eat prohibited food only when the life is in danger.

Suthra-30-api smaryathE-3- 4-30

The smrthi also says so.

In Manusmrthi itis said

'prANA samsayamApannah yo annam atthi yathasthathah; lipyathE na sa pApEna
padhmapathrmivAmBHa sA,
When the life is in danger he can take food from anywhere and he is not touched by sin
like the water on a lotus leaf.

Suthra31-sabdhaschA thO akAmakAre-3- 4-31

Therefore the scripture prohibits doing whatever one desires.

The kATakasamhitha declares

'ThasmAth brAhmaNah surAm na pibhathi pApmanA nothsrjA ithi,
Threfore a brahmaNa does not drink liquor thinking "may I not be stained by sin.
Thus ends sarvAnnAnumathyaDHi karaNam.


Suthra-32-vihithath vAccha AsramakarmApi- 3-4-32

The works are for the asramas also because they are enjoined.

Since it is stated that the sacrificial acts are subsidiary to knowledge of Brahman it is to
be clarified whether the sacrificial acts are enjoined even to those who have no desire
for final release. The suthra confirms that these works are to be performed even by
those who merely wish to fulfil their duties of the asrama as it has been enjoined by
'yAvajjeevam agnihOThram juhOthi, one performs agnihOthra till the end of life as
they are obligatory. From the text 'thamEtham veda anuvachanEna,Him they seek to
know by reciting the vedas,(Brhd. 4-4-22) denotes that the same works have to be
performed as subsidiary to knowledge.

Suthra-33-sahakArit hvEnacha- 3-4-33

Also on account of their cooperation
The sacrificial acts are auxiliary to knowledge in as much as they create a desire for
knowledge.There is no contradiction just as in the case of agnihOthra there is a double
injunction one for the performance till the end of life and another for attaining heaven.
Similarly the performance of sacrifice as subsidiary to knowledge and as a duty of the
asrama do not contradict each other.

Suthra-34-sarvaTHA api cha tha Eva ubhayalingAth- 3-4-34

In all cases the same duties are to be performed because of the twofold indicatory

Either for the sake of knowledge or as a duty of the asrama the works to be performed
are the same because of the same injunctions, using the same terms.

Suthra-35-anabhibha vam cha dharsayathi- 3-4-35

And the scripture also declares not to be overpowered.

The texts like 'dharmENa pApam apanudhathi, he drives away evil by sacred works,'
shows that the sacrificial acts by purifying the mind helps the rise of knowledge by
driving away evil.Thus ends vihithathvAdhikaraN am.


Suthra-36-antharA chApi thu thaddhrshtEh- 3-4-36

But even those who are outside the asramas are qualified (for knowledge) because it is
seen to be so.

Since those in all the four asramas are shown to be qualified for knowledge of Brahman
and it is said that the duties of the asramas are helpful to gain that knowledge. Now the
question arises in the case of those who are outside the asramas, due to poverty or
being a widower etc. as to whether they are quzlified for knowledge. The opponent says
that they are not because the duties of the asamas are instrumental in creating

This suthra refutes this view saying that scripture has evidence to the contrary.We have
he examples of Raikva, Bhishma samvartha and others who, though they did not belong
to any asrama were brahmajnAnis. The text 'thamEtham vedhAnuvachanEna
brAhmaNA vividhishanthi yajnEna dhAnEna thapasA anAsakEna,(Brhd.4-4-22) ,
they seek to know Brahman by study of the vedas, sacrifices, gifts, penance, fasting
etc.,' shows that these acts not connected with any asrama can create knowledge.
Suthra-37-api smaryathE-3- 4-37

It is declared by smrthi also.

Manusmrthi has the following text,

'japyEnApi cha samsiddhyEth brAhmaNah nAthra samsayah; kuryAdhanyanna va
kuryAth maithrO brAhamaNa uchyathe,
He attains perfection through japa whether he performs other works or not.He is a
brAhmaNa who shows friendship towards all beings.'

Suthra-38-visEshAnu grahascha- 3-4-38

There is also special benefit.

Not only through reasoning and smrthi but sruthi also confirms this, as shown by the text
'thapasA brahmacharyENasaddh ayA vidhyayAAthmAnam anvishya, (Prsna.1-10)
he should seek the Self by penance, celibacy, faith and knowledge.

Suthra-39-athasthvi tharajjyAyo lingAscha- 3-4-39

But it is better to be in the asrama because of inferential mark.

Being in an asrama is better than being outside.This means that unless one is prevented
by misfortune like losing his wife and not being able to remarry due to poverty etc. one
should belong to some asrama or other. The smrthi also says 'anAsramee na
thishTEth thu dhinam Ekamapi dhvijah, a brahmin should not stay even for a day
outside the asrama.This is the end of viDHurADHikaraNam.


Thdhbhoothasya Thu nAthadhbhAvO jaiminErapi niyamAth
thadhrupAbhAvEbhyah -3-4-40

Once one has entered the asrama there is no remission from the duties of that
says Jaimini.

The question is whether for those who has left the duties of the respective asrama, may
it be brahmacharya or sannyasa, is there any possibilty of attaining brahmavidhya as in
the case of those who are unable to remain in the asramas. The suthra answers that it is
not so the scripture states that one he goes to the forest a celebate may not return to the
family life.'AraNyamiyAth; thathO na punarEyAth.' Thus those who have lapsed from
the asramdharma are not qualified for the knowledge of Brahman which view is also
confirmed by Jaimini.
Suthra-41-na chADHikArikam api pathanAnumAnAth thadhayOgAth- 3-4-41

To the question whether one who has renounced the world and has became a
naishtika suffers lapses in his dharma, will such a person be fit to continue his meditation
again after expiation of his transgression, the suthra answers that it is not so.There is a
smrthi text to this effect. 'AroodOnaishTikam dharmam yasthu prachyavathe dvijah;
prAyaschittham na pasyAmi yEna sudhyEth sa AthmahA,(AgnEyapurANa- 16-5-23)
He who having once entered on the duties of a Naishthika lapses from them, for such a
slayer of the Self I do not see any expiatory work by which he might become clean..'
Therefore the expiation accordinhng to purvamimAmsa (suthra-6) is only for those other
than naishTikas.

Suthra-42-upapoorva mapeethYEkEbhAva masanavath thadhuktham- 3-4-

Some consider expiation possible even for celibates because it is minor sin.

According to smrthi (Gouthama dharma suthra) minor lapses on the part of celebates
can be expiated as long as it is not opposed to asrasma as in the case of those in other
asramas.So they are entitled to brahmavidhya after expiation for their lapses.

Suthra-43-bahisthu ubhayathA apismrthEh AchArAccha-3- 4-43

But in either case these men are kept outside according to smrthi and custom.

Whether the lapse from celibacy is major or minor they are to be held outside the
asrama according to smrthi which says that there is no expiation that can purify such
fallen ones. 'Prayaschittham Na pasyAmi yEna suddhyEth SA Athmaha' (AgnEya
purANa-16-5- 23) and also the society treats them as being out of the fold of asrama and
hence no one will impart to them the knowledge of Brahman. So the conclusion is they
hare not qualified for brahmavidhya. Thus ends thadhbhrthADHikaraN am


Suthra-44-svAminah phalasruthEH ithiAthrEyah

The meditation on udhgeetha belongs to the sacrificer because of the declaration of fruit
by the scripture

The meditation on udhgeetha is a part of the sacrifice and the question arises whether it
should be performed by the sacrificer or the udhgAthr, the priest who sings the saman.
AthrEya is of the opinion that it should be done by the sacrificer only because there is a
special fruit declared by the scripture which should accrue to the sacrificer and hence he
has to do the meditation on udhgeetha. He cites the example of dhaharavidhya where
the meditation and the result of the meditation belong to the same person. It cannot be
compared to the act of bringing water in a gOdhOhana vessel by the priest who alone is
qualified to do it because bringing water can be done only by the priest but upasana is
not so. The udhgeetha that is singing the saman can be done by the priest but the
meditation on udhggeetha should be done by the sacrificer only.

Suthra-45-Arthvijya m ithi aoudulOmih thasmai hi parikreeyathE- 3-4-45

They are the priest's work, says Aoudulomi, because he is engaged for that

Acharya AoudulOmi thinks that the meditation on the udhgeetha as well as everything
connected with the sacrifice is the work of the priest only because he has been engaged,
by paying dhakshiNa, to do the work.So all his acts physical and mental, including the
fruit, has been purchased by the sacrificer. This seems to be the opinion of suthrakAra
also.In dhahara vidhya there is no injunction such as 'rthvijO vrNeethE, rthvigbhyah
dhakshiNAm dhadhAthi, he chooses the priests, he gives them their fee,' etc. The text
'yadhEva vidhyayA karOthi--thadhEva veeryavattharam, whatever he does with
knowlege it is more powerful,' refers only to the one who performs the sacrifice, that is
the priest.In dhahara vidhya since there is no mention of the priest, the rule that the fruit
of the sacrifice belongs to one who does it,'sasthraphalam prayOkthari,' (Pu.Mi.Su.9-
7-18) holds good.Thus ends the svAmyaDHikaraNam.


Suthra-46-sahakAryanthara viDhihpakshENa thrtheeyam thadhvathO
viDHyAdhivath- 3-4-46

There is an injunction for him who has that (learning) as in the case of other injunctions
(about auxiliary means) because it is the third requisite.

Regarding the text

'thasmAth brAhmaNah nirvidhya bAlyEna thishTAsEth; bAlyam cha pAndithyam
cha nirvidhya aTHa munih,
Therefore a seeker of Brahman, having finished learning, should remain like a child and
having finished this stage and with learning, he becomes meditative.'

Here the question is whether the meditation is also enjoined as the other two or just a
mention of something already existing. The opponent holds the latter view because
knowledge and learning both means the same.Hence there is no injunction
regarding meditation.

The suthra refutes this view saying that the meditation is the third requisite besides the
learning and child-like state. Just as in the text

'Thametham vedhAnuvachanEna brAhmaNA vividhishanthi yajnEna dhAnena
thapasA, (Brhd.4-4-22)
Brahmanas seek to know Him reciting the Veda, by sacrifice, gifts and penance.'

The sacrifices etc are enjoined as aids in the same way as 'hearing' and 'reflection' are
the aids enjoined in the text 'AthmA vA are dhrashtavyah, srothavyah, manthvyah.
(Brhd.2-4-5) Here also learning, childlike state and meditation are enjoined as another
aid to knowledge. The meditation is not knowledge but a constant application of mind to
the object of knowledge. Thus these three requisites are are enjoined as aids to
knowledge as the sacrifice and other duties for other asramas.

The third requisite, that is, the state of meditation, is denoted in the text by the word
'muni.' This is not in the sense of mananseelathvam, reflection, says Ramanuja 'idham
cha mounam sravaNa prathishTArTHAth mananAth arTHAnthara bhootham
upAsanAlambanasya punah punah samseelanam thadhbhAvanAroopam, '
munithvam (mounam) is something different from reflection of what is heard, being
consistent and persistent remembrance of the object of meditation.

Then Ramanuja explains the text as follows. A brAhmana has to attain knowledge of
Brahman perfectly through hearing and pondering and purifying the mind through
devotion because it is attained only by the grace of the Lord as smrthi says 'nAham
vedhaina thapasA na dhAnEna na cheEjyaya, I cannot be reached by study of the
vedas, nor by penance, nor gifts nor sacrifice,' and that He is unable to attain except by
devotion 'bakthyAthvananyayA sakyah'(BG.11-53-54)

Sruthi also confirms by saying 'nayamAthmA pravachEna labhyah,'this self cannot be
attained by study of the vedas, and goes on to say 'yamevaisha vrunuthE thEna
labhyathE,' he whom the Self chooses, by him the Self is to be attained. (Ka. Up. I, 2,

After this state he is to be like a child, which Ramanuja says, will be explained in a later
suthra.l Later he has to engage his mind in consistent and persistent thought on
Brahman which is termed as the state of muni. Thus he attains true knowledge.

The text further says 'amounam cha mounam cha nirvidhyATHa brAhmaNah,' He is
a brAhmaNa who employs amouna and mouna to reach the highest knowledge.
Amouna is explained by Ramanuja as 'mouna ithara sahakAri kalApah', that is, all the
auxiliaries of knowledge other than mouna like sacrifices etc., while mouna is
Suthra-47-krthsnabh AvAtthu grhiNopa samhArah-3-4- 47

But since the knowledge exists in all asramas the scriptural text ends with the

To the question by the opponent that if the knowledge aided by the duties of all the
asramas, with mouna as a third requisite, is the means of attaining Brahman, then how
can the duties enjoined for a householder till the end of life be explained, the suthra
replies thus:As the knowledge belongs to all asramas it is for the householder also.The
duties belonging to all asrama ends with the householder and the text 'brAhmaNAh
puthraishaNAyAscha vitthaishaNAyAscha lokaishaNAYAScha vyutTHAya aTHa
bhikshAcharyam charanthi, (Brhd-3-5-1) a BrAhmana having risen above the desire
for sons, the desire for wealth, and the desire for worlds, wanders about as a mendicant,'
relates to the duties of the ascetic exclusively.

Suthra-48-mounavath itharEshAm api upadhEsAth-3- 4-48

Like the stage of muni other stages of life are also taught.

The injunction of mouna, though refers to the one who has renounced all desires and
wanders as a mendicant, is common to all asramas.The text 'thrayO
dharmaskanDHAh, there are three branches of dharma,'(Chan. 2-23-1) which refers to
the duties of all asramas ends with 'brahmasamsTHO amrthathvamEThi, one who is
devoted to Brahman attains immortality,' which means that the term brahmasamsTha is
common to all asramas. So the text enjoining learning, childlike state and mouna are
aids to knowledge for all.This is the end of sahakAryantharaviDH aDHikaraNam.


Suthra-49-anAvishku rvan anvayAth-3-4- 49

Not manifesting oneself on account of context.

The term 'bAlya' mentioned in the suthra46 is now explained. In the text 'thasmAth
brAhmaNah pAndithyam nirvidhya bAlyEna thishTAseeth, (Brhd.3-5-1) a brAhmana
after learning should remain like a child,' should be taken to mean the action of a child.
But it has to be specified whether all actions of the child like doing as one likes or only
those qualities as absence of pride etc. are meant here. The argument that in the
absence of any particular specification all activities to be included, is disposed of by this
suthra. The nature of a child in not manifesting the qualities like pride arrogance etc. is
what is meant here because of the context. Balya is to correspond to knowledge and
hence the nature of not manifesting the qualities of an adult is only appropriate. That is,
it means simplicity and unassuming nature. The other characterestics are excluded by
the texts themselves such as
'nAviratho duschArithAnnAshAnt ho nAsamAhithah nAshAnthamAnasO
vApiprajnAnEnainam ApnuyAth, (Chan. I, 2, and 24);
He who has not turned away from wicked conduct, who is not tranquil and attentive, or
whose mind is not at peace, he can never attain the Self by knowledge.'

Thus ends anAvishkAraDhikaraN am


Suthra-50-aihikam aprasthuthaprathiba nDHE thddharsanAth- 3-4-50

Worldly prosperity arises when there is no obstacle present. It is as seen from the

There are two kinds of knowledge, one aiming towards worldly prosperity and another
relating to final release. The cause of the worldly prosperity being acts of merit the
question now arises that whether the fruit of meritorious acts comes immediately or at
some later time or life.The opponent holds the former view beause according to what is
said in Gita 'chathurvDHA bajanthE mAm janAh sukrthinO arjuna, (BG.7-11) four
kinds of men of meritorius deeds worship me.' Hence as they have already done puNya
there is no reason why the fruit should not be immediate.

The suthra replies to this saying that the result will be immediate only when there is no
obstacle to prevent its happening. Worldly prosperity is created by knowledge which
means meditation and only if there is no obstacle due to some past deed which may be
more powerful than the meritorius deeds like knowledge and meditation the result arises
immediately after or else it may come sometime later which cannot be specified. For this
reason only scripture declares 'yadhEva vidhyayA karOthi sraddhayA upanishadha
thadhEva veeryavattharam, (Chan.1-1-10) whatever one does with knowledge, faith
and Upanishad that becomes more powerful,' which means that it has the capacity to
ward off obstacles.This is the end of aihikADHkaraNam.


Suthra-51- Evam mukthiphalAniyamaht hadhavasthAvaDhr thEh
thadhavasTHAvaDHrth Eh-3-4-51

Similarly there is no rule for the fruit of final release also because of him same

This suthra is about the meditation for the sake of final release.Here also the final
release may be immediate only when there is no obstruction such as offences formerly
committed against knowers of Brahman etc.Thus ends the mukthiphalADhikaraN am.
The end of third adhyaya of sribhashya


AvrtthyaDhikaraNam- 4-1-1

Suthra-1-Avrtthyasa krdhupadhesAth- 4-1-1

Repetition (of meditation) again and again because of teaching

In the third adhyaya the meditation along with the means of it was discussed. Now the
results of meditation are considered in this adhyaya. Before that some points
regarding the nature of meditation are examined.

The texts emphasize the importance of meditation as a means of attaining Brahman by
'brahmavidhApnOthi param, (Tait.2-1-1) one who knows Brahman reaches the
highest,' 'thamEva vidhithvA athimrthyumEthi, (Sve.3-8) knowing Brahman one
transcends death,'brahmavEdha brahmaiva bhavathi, (Mund.3-2-9) he who knows
Brahman becomes like Brahman, etc. The question that now arises is whether this
meditation is to be done repeatedly or only once.

The poorvapakshin states that meditation done once is enough because in the text
'brahmavidh brahmaiva bhavathi,' only knowledge alone is mentioned and nothing is
said about the repetition. Knowledge is not a visible action instrumental for any result like
that of beating the rice grains till the husk is removed. The knowledge through meditation
is performed once only like the jyOthishtOma sacrifice done once as the AraAdhana of
the supreme person fetch the result of all purushArThas.

The suthra refutes this view and says that meditation is to be repeated
again and again. This is according to the instruction of the sasthras as the words
knowing,vEdhana , contemplation ,DhyAna and meditation, upAsana are used in the
scriptural texts as synonyms. The text that begins as 'manO brahma ithyupAseetha,
(Chan.3-18) meditate the mind as Brahman,’ ends with 'bhAthi cha thapathi cha
keerthyA yasasA brahmavarchasEna sa Evam vEdha, he who knows thus, shines
and warms with fame and celebrity and with the holy effulgence born of sacred wisdom.'
Similarly the knowledge of Raikva is first referred to as 'yasthadhvEdha tath sa vedha
sa mayA Ethadhukthah' he who knows what he knows is thus spoken by me,' and later
as 'sAdhi mAm dhevathAm upAsthE, teach me the deity whom you meditate on.'
Thus in all the texts the words vedhana and Dhyana are used synonymously.
DHyAnam, defines Ramanuja, is chinthanam, which is smrthisanthathiroop am,
continuous remembrance and not smrthimAthram, just remembrance. UpAsana also
has the same meaning, EkAgrachitthavrtthi nairanthryE pryOga dharsanath,
concentration of mind on an object with uninterrupted thought. Therefore as the words
vEdhana, DHyAna and upAsana are synonymous in the texts such as 'brahmavidh
brahmAiva bhavathi' the word 'vEdhana' etc only means repeated meditation.

Suthra-2-lingAccha- 4-1-2

Because of inferential mark

Here inferential mark means smrthi. In VishnupurANa It is said

'thadhrupaprathyayE chaika santhathischAnyanis sprhA; thadDHyAnam
praTHmaih shadbhih angaih nishpAdhyathE thaTHA,
The meditation on His form is one continuous remembrance without desiring anything
else; meditation on Him is thus generated by the six limbs of the yOga.'

So according to scriptures meditation is to be repeated again and again. Thus ends the

AthmathvOpAsanADHik araNam4-1- 2

Suthra-3-AthmEthi thu upagcchanthi grAhayanthi cha-4-1-3

Meditators worship Brahman as their self as apprehended from the scripture.

To the question whether Brahman is meditated as one's self or as different from oneself,
the poorvapakshin replies that Brahaman is worshipped as being different from oneself
as proved by the suthra 'aDHikam thu bhEdhanirdhesAth,'(BS.2-1-22)

This view is refuted by the suthra by saying that Brahman is meditated only as the self.
As the individual self is to the body, Brahman is to the individual self in the same way.
This is how the devotees of ancient times meditated as shown in the text 'thvam vA
aham asmi bhagavO dhEvathe aham vai thvamasi,Oh LOrd indeed You are me
and I am You.' This relationship is claimed by the devotee because it has been
apprehended so from the texts like 'ya Athmani thishTan Athmanah antharah
yamAthmA na vedha yasyAthmA sariram ya AtmAnam antharO yamayathi sa tha
AthmA antharyAmyamrthah, (Brhd.3-7-22) he who dwelling within the Self is different
from the Self, whom the Self does not know, of whom the Self is the body, who rules the
Self from within; he is thy Self, the inner ruler, the immortal one,' 'sanmoolAh soumya
imAh sarvAh prajAh sadhAyathnAh sathprathishTAh, EthasdhAthmyam idham
sarvam, In the sath all these beings have their root, they dwell in the sath, they rest in
the sath- (Chan-6-8) all that exists has that as Self,' and 'sarvam khalu idham brahma
thajjalAn,(chan.3-14- 1) all this is brahman,from Him they originate, in Him they merge
back and by Him they are sustained.'

All concepts are based on Brahman and all words ultimately denote Brahman as shown
by the text 'thvam va aham asmi bhagavO' etc.thus when the relationship between
Brahman and the self is understood there will be no contradiction between the texts that
teach the unity and difference. The difference is like that of individual self and the body.
and the non-difference is due to Brahman being the inner self of the individual self. Thus
ends AthmathvOpAsanADhik araNam.

PratheekAdhikaraNam -4-1-3

Suthra-4-na pratheekE na hi sah-4-1-4

The self should not be meditated on the symbol because it is not the self.

In the meditations such as 'manO brahma ithupAseetha' (Chan.3-18-1) there is a
doubt as to whether the symbols should be meditated as the self. The poorvapakshin
affirms this view because meditation on the symbol is that of Brahman who is the inner
self of the meditator .

The suthra refutes this view as the self of the meditator is Brahman and not the symbol.
The meditation is symbolic as what is not Brahman is meditated as Brahman.

Suthra-5-brahmadhrs htih uthkarshAth- 4-3-5

The symbol is to be viewed as Brahman because of superiority.

To the objection of the opponent that the symbols like mind cannot be viewed as
Brahman because of their limited power and therefore only Brahman is to be meditated
through symbols.

The suthra refutes this view. The mind etc can be viewed as Brahman because they are
inferior and not vice versa. That is, Brahman cannot be viewed as mind. It is like viewing
the servant as the king whIch is appropriate but not viewing the king as the servant
.This is the end of pratheekAdhikaraNam.

AdhithyAdhimathyaDH ikaraNam- 4-1-4

AdhithyAdhimathayas cha anga upapatthEh- 4-1-6

And subsidiary such as udhgeetha has to be viewed as Adhithya etc because it is
In the text 'yamEvAsou thapathi thamudhgeetham upAseetha,' one should meditate
upon him who shines, that is Adhithya, as the udhgeetha,' the question is whether
Adhithya should be viewed as udhgeetha which is subsidiary to the sacrifice or vice
versa. the opponent says that as already established in the previous suthra that the
inferior should be viewed as the superior, udhgeetha which is subsidiary to the sacrifice
is the means of attaining the fruit and hence superior and hence adhithya should be
viewed as udhgeetha.

The suthra refutes this view. The udhgeetha should be viewed as Adhithya because it is
consistent. Adhithya and other deities are superior because the sacrificial acts are done
to propitiate them in bringing about fruits so udhgeetha which is subsidiary to sacrifice is
inferior and therefore it is to be viewed as Adhithya.Thus ends AdhithyAdhimathyaDH

AseenAdhikaraNam- 4-1-5

Suthra-7-Aseenah sambhavAth-4- 1-7

Sitting because of possibility

After establishing that the meditation is the means of attaining release and that it has to
be repeatedly done, now the discussion turns to the manner of practicing it.

The opponent says as there is no rule about the posture, it can be practiced in any
posture like sitting, standing walking or lying down.

This view is dismissed by the suthra because mental concentration is only
possible while sitting only and this should be the posture adopted when one is
meditating. Standing and walking requires some effort while lying down will induce sleep.

Suthra-8-DHyanAccha -4-1-8

And on account of meditation

As meditation has been described to be constant remembrance of one subject
uninterrupted by other thoughts and it is enjoined by text 'nidhiDHyAsithavyah, the self
should be meditated upon.'

Suthra-9-achalathva m chApekshya-4- 1-9

Immovability is necessary for meditation.

Meditation is mentioned with reference to AkAsa, earth etc. in the text 'DHyatheeva
prthivee,DHyAyathee va anthriksham, DHyatheeva dhyouh, DhyAtheeva Apah,
DHyAyatheeva parvathAh, (Chan.7-6-1) AkAsa meditates as it were, earth meditates
as it were, heaven meditates as it were, waters meditates as it were, mountains
meditates as it were' to denote immobility of meditation which implies sitting only.

Suthra-10- smaranthi cha-4-1-10

The smrthi also declares so.

In the Gita we have the specification for meditation as 'suchou dhEsE prathishTApya
sTHiram Asanam Athmanah---thathrai kAgram manah krthva ,having established a
clean spot and a firm seat there one should meditate with mind concentrated on single
object,' etc.

Suthra-11-yathraikA grathA thathra avisEshAth-4- 1-11

Wherever concentration of mind (is possible), there the meditation to be done; there
being no specification.

For meditation the only requirement is that the place should be conducive to
concentration. The text 'samou suchou sarkarAvahni vAlukAvivarjithE, in a level and
clean place without pebbles fire and sand,' is only for the purpose of choosing a quiet
and conducive place for concentration. Thus ends the AseenADHikaraNam.

AprayANAdhikaraNam- 4-1-6

Suthra-12-AprayANAt h thathrApi hi dhrshtam-4-1- 12

Until death, for it is seen in the scriptures to be so.

To the question whether the meditation is to be continued day after day for whole life
time? The suthra affirms that it is so. Scripture declares that the meditation is to continue
from the time of starting till death as can be seen from the text 'sa khalu Evam
varthayan yavadhAyusham brahmalOkam abhisampadhyE, (Chan.8-15-1) living
thus through out his life he reaches Brahman. Here ends the AprayANADHikaraNam

ThadhaDHigamADHikar aNam-4-1- 7

Suthra-13-thadhaDhi gamauttharapurvA ghayOh aslEshavinAsou
thadhvyapadhEsAth- 4-1-13

Attaining that (meditation) results in nonclinging and destruction of earlier and later sins
because it is declared thus.

Having dealt with the nature of meditation the suthras now start discussing the
result of it. The text 'thadhyaTHA pushkarapalAse ApO na slishyanthE
EvamEvamvidhi pApam karma na slishyathE, as water does not cling to a lotus leaf,
so too no evil deed clings to him who knows this,' (Chan.4-14-3) and 'ThasyaivAthma
padhavittham vidhithvA na karmaNA lipyathE pApakEna,(Brhd.4-4-23) having
known Brahman he is not contacted by any evil deeds, '. Same idea is expressed in
'ksheeyanthE asya karmANi thasmin dhrshtE parAvarE, (Mund.2-2-8) all karma is
destroyed when one knows Brahman.' The doubt here is whether this is due to the
result of mere meditation or not, and the opponent quoting 'nAbhuktham ksheeyathE
karma kalpakotisathairapi , (Brahmavaivarthapur ANa-prakrthikAnd a-26-70) no work
not experienced will perish even after millions of aeons,' says that the nonclinging and
destruction of sins will not result from meditation and what is said to that effect is only by
way of eulogy.

The suthra refutes this saying that the scripture declares that not only the evil deeds do
not cling but also they are destroyed by the power of knowledge.
'EVamvidhEvamvidhi pApam karma na slishyathE as said in ChandhOgya(4-14-3)
shows the nonclinging of evil deeds, while the text ' ksheeyantheE asya karmANi
thasmin dhrshtE parAvarE,' (Mund.2-2-8) shows the destruction of evil deeds.

There is no contradiction between the texts quoted above and that quoted by the
opponent about the karma not being destroyed without experiencing because the two
refer to different subjects. According to the opponent work has the power to produce
result which has to be experienced. but the knowledge has the capacity to destroy the
power of past karma and to obstruct that of subsequent karma. So both declarations are
valid as the power of fire to produce heat and of water to quench it. are both valid and
not contradictory to each other.

The power of sinful actions to produce the results is due to the displeasure of the Lord
and meditation on the supreme person destroys that and hence prevents the results
from origination and destroys the results of subsequent actions. Thus ends the
thadhaDHigaNMADhika raNam.

ItharaDHikaraNam- 4-1-8

Suthra-14-itharasya api Evam asamslEshah pAthE thu-4-1-14

Of the other (good deeds) also there is nonclinging and destruction. But regarding some
deeds nonclinging occurs only after death

It has been stated that evil deeds do not cling to one who has knowledge and their
results destroyed by knowledge. This suthra is for the purpose of denoting that even the
good deeds do not cling etc. because both the good and evil deeds are obstruction to
the final release. Thus the scritures say 'sarvO pApmAno athO nivarthanthe, (Chan.8-
4-1) all sins turn away from him, and 'thath suktha dushkrthE DhoonuthE, (Kaus.-1-4)
he shakes off both good and bad deeds.' But , asks the opponent, the result of good
deeds like rain, food etc. are beneficial to a man of knowledge for assisisting in
meditation and hence why are their destruction brought about.To this the suthra replies
that some of the results which are conducive to meditation will remain till the fall of the
body. This is the end of itharADHIkaraNam.

anArabDha kAryADHikaraNam- 4-1-9

Suthra-15-anArabDha kAryE Eva thu poorvE thadhavaDHEh- 4-1-15

Only those previous deeds the results of which have not yet begun are destroyed
as the deeds which have begun to yield fruit last till death.

The question as to whether all deeds are destroyed by knowledge or only those which
have not yet begun to yield fruit, the opponent says that all deeds should be destroyed
according to the text 'sarvE pApmAnah pradhooyanthe, ' ( han.5-25-3) all sins are
burnt.' The existence of the body after he deeds are destroyed is due to the impetus as
in the case of the potter's wheel which continues to rotate even after the operation is

The suthra refutes this by saying that only those which have not yet started giving results
are destroyed because the text says 'thasya thAvadhEva chiram yavath vimokshye
aTha sampathsye.' (Chan.6-15-2) for him there is delay as long as he is not liberated
from the body. There is no proof of the impetus that keeps the body going except God's
will. Here ends the anArabDhakaryADHIka ranam

agnihOthrAdhyaDHika ranam-4-1- 10

Suthra-16-agnihOthr Adhi thu thath kAryAtyaiva thaddharsanATH- 4-1-16

AgnihOthra etc. are to be performed for generating the effect that produces
knowledge as seen from the scriptures.

Since it has been shown that there is no clinging of results of both good and evil deeds
due to the power of knowledge, the opponent comes with an argument that the acts like
agnihothra need not be performed by one who does not desire their result to accrue to

The suthra refutes this saying that they have to be performed for the sake of creating the

The scripture confirms this by the text
'thamEtham vedhAnuvachanEna brAhmaNA vividhishanthi yajnEna dhAnEna
thapasA anAsakEna, (Brhd.4-4-22)

The brAhmaNas desire to know Him by reciting the vedas, by sacrifices, by gifts, by
penance and by fasting. As the meditation has to be practiced again and again till death
the acts like agnihothra purifies the mind and hence are to be done as otherwise the
mind will lose its clarity which will obstruct meditation.

suthra -17-atho anyA api hyEkEshAm ubhayOh-4-1- 17

According to some, other than those (agnihothra etc.) there are many good deeds
done before and after the generation of knowledge.

The text 'thasya puthrA dhAyamupayanthi, suhrhdah sADhukrthyAm, his sons get
his inheritance, his friends his good deed etc. refer to the good deeds before and
subsequent to the production of knowledge, other than agnihothra and the like, which
are for generating knowledge,the results of them being obstructed by other stronger
karma. The next suthra refers to these obstruction to such results.

Suthra-18-yadhEva vidhyayA ithi hi-4-1-18

Because of the text 'yadhEva vidhyayA', that alone which is performed with
knowledge becomes more vigorous.

The text declares 'yadhEva vidhyaya karOthi thadhEva veeryavattharam, '(Chan.1-1-
10) that alone which is performed by knowledge becomes more vigorous, referring to the
power of udhgeetha to ward off the obstacles that prevent the result of sacrifice. Hence it
is understood that there is obstacle even to the works that are actually performed and
not only to those before or after the generation of knowledge. Hence the text declaring
that his friends inherit his good deeds refers to those good deeds performed by a man of
knowledge. And hence did not give out the fruit during his lifetime, which on his death
they are transferred to others. This is the end of agnihOthrAdhyaDHika raNam.

itharakshapaNADHika raNam-4-1- 11

Suthra-19-BhogEna thvitharEKshapayith vA aTha sampadhyathE- 4-1-19

After destroying the good and bad deeds which have begun to yield fruit, by
experience he attains Brahman.

In suthra 15 it is said that those good and evil deeds which have not started to yield fruit
will be destroyed by the power of knowledge. Now the question is whether those which
have started to yield fruit are destroyed at the end of that bodily existence or after
several bodily existences or there is no definite rule. The opponent is of the opinion that
they are destroyed after that bodily existence according to the text 'tasya thAvadhEva
chiram yAvanna vimOkshye aTha sampatsyE, (Chan.6-14-2) and for him the delay is
only as long as he is not freed from the body.'

The suthra refutes this view by saying that having destroyed by experience the results of
good and bad deeds that have already started yielding their fruit the man of knowledge
attains Brahman. If the fruits require many bodies to be experienced then he attains
Brahman at the death of the body in which he finishes experiencing their result because
the deeds which have begun to yield fruit must be destroyed only through experience.,
This is the meaning of the text in ChandhOgya. ( 6-14-2) It means that there is no limit
fixed for bodily existence and the embodiment will continue till all the karma that has
begun to yield fruit are exhausted by experience. As the result of works, performed after
the rise of knowledge, does not cling to him, when the man of knowledge has shed the
ultimate bodily existence his friends get his good deeds and enemies his bad deeds.
This is the end of itharakshapaNADHika raNam

The end of first padha of fourth adhyaya

Ibhashya-adhyaya4- padha2

VAgaDHikaraNam- 4-2-1

Speech combines with mind because it is seen and also known through the

Now the discussion turns to the actual progress of the man of knowledge towards
Brahman. At first the departure of the individual soul from the body is considered. In
ChandhOgya it is said 'asya soumya purushasya prayathah vANgmanasi
sampadhyathe, manah prANE, prANah thEjasi, thEjah parasyAm dhEvathAyAm,
(Chan.6-8-6) when a man departs from here the speech is combined with mind, mind
with prANa, prAna with fire and the fire with the supreme self. Here the doubt is
about the combining of the speech with mind as to whether it is the function, or, the
organ of speech that combines with mind. The view that only the function of speech is
combined with the mind as the essential nature of the speech is not dependent on the
mind is put aside by the suthra.

Since it can be seen that even when the organ of speech is not functioning the speech is
present in the mind it is only the essential nature of the speech which combines and not
merely the function of speech. From scripture also this can be seen as quoted above
which says that the vAk only combines with the mind and not merges in it and hence
the argument that the speech cannot become one with mind as the latter is not the
cause of speech cannot be valid.
Suthra-2-atha Eva sarvANyanu-4- 2-2

And for the same reason all follow after.

Speech combines with the mind is thus explained as only conjunction with the mind and
not absorption. Similarly all the other organs that follow speech are also said to combine
with mind.

'thasmath upashAntha thEjAh punarbhavam indhriyaih sampadhyamAnaih,'
Therefore with the body heat extinguished he goes for rebirth with his senses resting in
the mind.'

ManOaDhikaraNam- 4-2-2

Suthra-3-thanmanah prANa uttharAth-4- 2-3

That mind reaches prANa because of the subsequent passage.

The mind combined with all the senses is said to combine with prANa and not only the
function of the mind, (manOvrtthimAthram), according to the text 'manahprANE. '

Here the poorvapakshin comes out with a theory that the mind is absorbed in its causal
substance, by quoting the texts, ' annamayam hi soumya manah, (Chan.5-6-5) mind
consists of earth,' 'thA annam asrjantha, (Chan.5-6-4) they (waters) created earth, and
'ApOmayah prANah, prANas consist of water.' Hence the conclusion is that the mind
merges in its causal substance water as prANA is shown to have water as its causal

The suthra replies that the statement that the mind consists of earth and prANa is made
of water only means that, the mind and prAna has anna, food, (which is from earth) and
water, as their main source of nourishment, and not that they are the cause of mind and
prANa respectively. Mind is a form of ego and prANa is a form of AkAsa. The word
prANa may denote water in the secondary sense, as water is necessary for its
sustenance. This is the end of ManoaDhikaraNam.

aDHyakshaDHikaraNam -4-2-3

sO adhyakshE thadhupagamAdhibhya h-4-2-4

It (prANa) reaches the ruler of the organs (the individual self) because of the
expression 'going to' etc.
The text ' EvamEva Evam AthmAnam anthah sarvE prANAh abhisamAyanthi,' (Brhd
.4-3-38) at the time of death all prANAs go to the individual self,' declares this fact and
again they are said to go out of the body with the individual self by 'Tham
uthkrAmantham prANo anuthkrAmathi,(Chan.4-4-2) when the individual self departs
praNa follows.' The coexistence of prANA along with the self is declared in 'kasmin
uthkrAnthe uthkrAnthO bhavishyAmi kasmin vA prathishTithe prathishTAsyAmi,'
(pras.6-3) "In whose departure will I depart , in whose staying will I be staying," the
answer being given is, 'the individual soul.' So the text 'prANA thEjasi,' means that the
prANa joining with the individual self reaches the fire.

Ramanuja compares this to the statement 'Yamuna reaches the sea' though actually it
only combines with Ganges and reaches the sea together. Thus ends the

bhoothADHikaraNam. 4-2-4

Suthra-5-bhoothEshu thathsruthEh- 4-2-5

PrAna reaches the elements as declared in the sruthi.

The question as the whether the prAna combined with the individual self reaches only
the fire or all the elements, is answered by quoting the text in BrhadhAraNyaka 'sa
vAayamAthma brahma----prthiveem aya,ApOmaya, vAyumaya AkAsamaya
sthEJomaya, 'etc. (Brhd.4-4-5) which declares that when the soul departs it consists of
all elements.

Suthra-6-naikasmin dharsayathO hi-4-2-6

Not with one element because both sruthi and smrthi declares so.

The suthra refutes the view that praANa and the self join with each element in
succession because the elements are not capable of producing the effects individually.
This is supported by sruthi and smrthi. The text

'anEna jeevEna athmanA anupravisya nAmarupE vyAkaravANi thAsAm thrvrtham
thrvrthamEkaikAm karavANi, (Chan.6-3-2)
having entered these beings with this soul let me give them names and forms--let me
make each of these three tripartite,' shows that the tripartite combination of each
element is done to make it capable of producing effects.
The smrthi also denotes the same by 'nAsaknuvanprajAh srashtum asamAgamya
krthsnasah; samEthya anyOnya samyOgam parasparsamAsrayAh mahadhAdhyA
visEshAnthA andam uthpAdhayanthi thE, (VP-1-2-52.54) these (elements), being
separate from one another, were unable to produce effects without combining. But
having entered into mutual conjunction they, from the Mahat down to individual beings,
produce the cosmos. Therefore prANa and the soul combine with the aggregate of
elements and the word 'thEjas' denotes fire joined with other elements only. This is the
end of bhoothADHikaraNam.

AsrthyupakramADHIka raNam-4-2- 5

Suthra-7-samAnA cha ASrthyupakramAth amrthathvam cha anupOshya-4-

It is common till the beginning of the path.

Is the departure from the body of the soul described so far is common to men of
knowledge and the ignorant or only to those without knowledge? The poorvapakshin
says that this holds good only for those without knowledge because for the men of
knowledge there is no departure at all. He cites the text
‘YadhA sarvE pramuchyanthE kAmA yE asya hrdhi sTHiTHAh;aTHa marthyO
amrthO bhavathi athra Brahma samasnuthE, (Brhd.4-4-7)
when all the desires in the heart are cast off the mortal becomes immortal here and now,
attaining Brahman.'

This view is refuted by the suthra saying that for man of knowledge also the same way of
departure is prescribed till he attains the beginning of the path, that is, till the soul enters
the nAdis when, the knower passes out through the sushumnA nAdi. This is declared by
the sruthi also thus: 'sathE chaikA cha hrdhayasya nAdyah thAsAm
moorDHAnamabhinissr thaikA; thayOh oorDHvamAyann amrthathvam Ethi,
(Chan.8-6-5) there are hundred and one nAdis of the heart of which one goes through
the crown of the head. Moving upwards by that, man reaches immortality. ‘Up to that
moment the departure of a man of knowledge does not differ from the ignorant.

There is a difference mentioned after that point as

'thEna pradhyOthEna AthmA nishkrAmathi chakshushO vA moordhnO vA
anyEbhyO va sariradhEsEbhyah, Brhd.4-4-2)

By that light the soul departs, through the eye, through the skull or through any other
part of the body. The soul of the enlightened, passes through the head by sushumna.
while for others it is through other parts o the body. The text about attaining Brhman
here and now means that the man of knowledge through meditation experiences the
bliss of Brahman through intuitive knowledge while in embodiment.

Suthra-8-thadhApeet haih samsaravyapadhesath -4-2-8

The texts describe the state of transmigration till attainment of Brahman.

The texts such as 'thasya thAvadhEva chiram yAvanna vimokshyE, (Chan.6-14-2)
there is delay for him till he is not released from the body,' and 'asva iva rOmANi
vidDHooya pApam chandhra iva rahOrmukhAth pramuchya DhoothvA sariram
akrthah krthAthmA brahmalOkam abhisambhavAmi ( Chan.8-13) Shaking off all evil
as a horse shakes his hairs, and as the moon frees himself from the mouth of RAhu;
having shaken off the body , having fulfilled all ends, I attain the uncreated world of
Brahman,' show that till the attainment of Brahman takes place after the soul travelled
through the path of light to a certain place, the state of samsara exists.

Suthra-9-sukshmam pramANathascha thaTHOpalabDHEh- 4-2-9

The subtle body persists which is known from pramANa and being seen from the

The scripture says that the knowing self engages into conversation with moon and
others when he is on the path of devas (DevayAna). From this it is known that the subtle
body persists till that stage and hence bondage is not destroyed.

Suthra-10-nOpamardh EnAthah-4- 2-10

Hence not destruction of bondage

Attaining immortality here and now in the passage quoted earlier does not mean that
kind of immortality where bondage is dissolved as it seems.

suthra-11-asyaiva chOpapattherooshmA 4-2-11

Warmth belongs to the subtle body which is reasonable.

At the time of death it is usually observed that warmth is left in some part of the body. As
this cannot be attributed to the gross body it is inferred that it belongs to the subtle body
which is about to make its departure. This confirms the view expressed in suthra-7 that
the departure is common to all.

Suthra-12-prathishe DHAth ithi chEth na,sArirAth spashtah hyEkEshAm-4-

If it is said that the departure is denied in the scriptures it is not so because it is
said only about the non-separation of prANa from the individual self. According to
some, this is clear.

From the text 'aTHa akAmayamanah, yO akAmO nishkAma ApthakAma
AthmakAmah, na thasya prANA uthkrAmanthi, brahmaiva san brahma apyEthi, But
he who does not desire, who is without desire, free from desire, who has obtained his
desire, who desires the Self only, of him (tasya) the prÃnas do not pass forth,--being
Brahman only he goes into Brahman, ' Thus the departure from the body of the soul is
denied with reference to a man of knowledge, says the opponent.
This view is refuted by the suthra. Here the departure of prANAs are denied from the
individual soul only and not from the body because the subject of the passage denoted
by the word thasya is the individual soul from whom the prANa does not depart in the
path of devas till he reaches Brahman.

The expression in the suthra 'according to some it is clear,' means the
mAdhyandhinas who read the text as 'na thasmAth prANA uthkramanthi, ' the prANas
do not depart from him, which makes the point clear.

Suthra-13-smaryathE cha-4-2-13

Smrthi also declares thus.

In YAjnyavalkyasmrthi it is said 'oordDhvamEkah sTHithasthEshAm yO BHitthvA
suryamandalam; brahmalOkam athikramya thEna yAthi parAm gathim,' 'Of those,
one is situated above which pierces the disc of the sun and passes beyond the world of
Brahman; by way of that the soul reaches the highest goal' (YAjnavalkya smrthi-III-167)
which denotes that even for enlightened ones the departure is from the nAdi in the head.
This is the end of AsrthyupakramADHika raNam.

parasamptthyaDHikar aNam-4-2- 6

Suthra-14-thAni parE thaTHA hyAha-4-2-14

These merge in the supreme self for the scripture says so.

It has been shown that the individual self at the time of departure from the body merges
with the subtle elements along with the senses and the prAnas and that there is no
difference in the mode of departure with respect to the enlightened soul and to the
ignorant. Now the question is whether these subtle elements move on to produce their
effects with some other soul or merge in the supreme self. The view of the opponent that
they proceed further to produce their effects according to karma and meditation, to other
souls is refuted by the suthra saying that they merge with the supreme self. The
evidence for this is provided by the scripture 'thEjah parasyAm dhEvathAyAm,
(Chan.6-8-6) the fire merges with the supreme deity that is Brahman.Thus ends
parasamptthyadDhika raNam.

avibhAgADHikaraNam- 4-2-7

Suthra-15-avibhAgo vachanAth-4- 2-15
Non-difference (of the individual self with the supreme self) according to
statement of the scripture

The question is raised regarding the meaning of merging, sampatthi, as to whether it is
like dissolution to its cause as in deluge or does it mean the merging in the form of non-
differentiation .

The answer is given in the suthra that it is non-difference that is meant. The individual
self with subtle element becomes indistinguishable from the supreme self. This is proved
by the text 'thEjah parasyAm dhEvathAYam, the fire in the supreme self,' has to be
connected with the previous one, 'vAngmanasi sampadhyathE, the speech merges in
the mind,' and the word merges is of special significance. There is no evidence of the
elements entering into their cause as there is no statement to that effect.This is the end
of avibhAgADHikaraNam.

ThadhOkODikaranam- 4-1-8

Suthra-16-thadhOKO agrajvalanam thathprakAsithadvAr O
vidhyAsamarthyAth thacchEshagathyanus mrthiyOgAccha- 4-2-16

The individual self is blessed by the Lord residing in the heart due to the power of
meditation and the meditation on the path, which is its subsidiary, and his abode
becomes lighted from above. The passage thus illuminated by the Lord, he departs
through the hundred and first nAdi.

To the objection that it is difficult to ascertain by which nAdi the soul departs as they are
minute and numerous, the suthra says the soul of the man of knowledge departs from
the hundred and first nAdi in the crown of the head. The knower can easily distinguish
this particular one by the power of meditation and the repeated remembrance of the
path, which is the subsidiary of meditation which pleases the Lord who is in the heart,
when, the heart, the residence of the soul is lighted from above. Thus by the grace of the
Lord the enlightened person is able to discern the particular nAdi through which he
departs. Here ends the thadhOKODHikaraNam

rasmyanusArADHikara Nam-4-2-9

Suthra-17-rasmyanus Ari-4-2-17

Following the rays

Scripture says that the soul of the man of knowledge, departing through the hundred and
first nAdi, following he rays of the sun reaches the orb of the sun.
'aTha yathra EthadhasmAth sarirAth uthkrAmathi aTha EthairEva rasmibhih
oorDhvam AkramathE, (Chan.8-6-5)
When he departs from this body he goes upwards by these rays only.’

The objection here is that the departure cannot said to be strictly following the rays of the
sun because when one dies in the night there are no sunrays visible. So it could only
refer only to some cases.

This view is refuted by the suthra. The word Eva in the text clearly shows that the soul
of a knower leaves following the rays of the sun only. As the nights in summer are hot it
is evident that the rays are present also in the night though not visible. In winter also
they are present but are overpowered by the cold.

Scripture definitely indicates a connection between the nAdis and the rays
of the sun.
This is known from
'thdhyaThA mahApaTha Athathah ubou grAmou gacchatheemanchAmum cha,
EvamEva Etha Adhithyasya ubou lOkou gacchantheemamchAmu ncha;
amushmAdhAdhithyAth prathAyanthE thA Asu nAdeeshu srpthAh;AbhyO
nAdeebhyO prathAyanthe thE amushmAn AdhithyE srpthAh,
'As a very long highway goes to two villages, so the rays of the sun go to both worlds, to
this one and to the other. They stretch themselves forth from the sun and enter into
these nAdis'; they stretch themselves forth from these arteries and enter into yonder
sun.' (Chan. VIII, 6, 2)

Therefore rays being present in the night also, the souls of those who attain Brahman
follow the rays of the sun only. Thus ends rasmyanusArADHikara Nam.

nisADhikaranam- 4-2-10

Suthra-18-nisi nEthicheth na sambanDhasya yAvaddhEhabhAvithva th
dharsayathi cha-4-2-18

If it is said that it cannot be the night, it is not so because the connection persists as long
as the body lasts. The scripture also declares this.

The question now is whether the soul of one who dies in the night attains Brahman or
not. The opponent says that they do not reach brahman because the death at daytime is
praised by the scriptures and that in the night is said to be highly objectionable.

The suthra refutes this view and says that because the karma of the man of
knowledge comes to an end at the time of leaving his body in his last life, he attains
Brahman though he dies at night. This is proved by the text, 'thasya thAvadhEva
chiram yAvanna vimOkshyE aTha sampathsyE,(Chan.6-14- 2) the text quoted by the
opponent, namely, 'dhivA cha suklapakshaschautth arAyaNam Eva cha;
mumoorshathAm prasasthAni vipareetham thu garhitham, Daytime, the bright half
of the month and the northern progress of the sun are excellent for those about to die;
the contrary times are unfavorable, ' is for those who have not attained knowledge. Thus
ends the nisADHikaraNam

dhakshiNAyanAdDhika raNam-4-2- 11

Suthra-19-athaschAy anEpi dhakshiNe-4- 2-19

For the same reason even dying in dakshiNAyana the enlightened attains

But a doubt arises that because it is said that those who die in DhakshiNAyana reach
the world of pithrs and while those who die in utthraAyaNa reach the moon. The former
are said to return to earth when their merits are exhausted. Bhishma and others who
were knower’s awaited the uttharAyaNa and hence it looks as though those who die in
dhakshiNAyana cannot attain Brahman.

The answer to this is that those who have knowledge even when they go to the world of
the moon do not return to earth but go further to attain Brahman and the stay in the
world of the moon is only a rest for them. Mahanarayana upanishad declares that from
there one reaches Brahman.' thasmAth brahmaNAah mahimAnam Apnothi.' (
(Mahanarayana. 25-1) Bhishma and others postponed their death not because they
cannot attain Brahman by dying in dhakshiNAyana but only to demonstrate the glory of
uttharAyana for promoting dharma and AchAra.

Suthra-20-yOginahpr athi smaryathEsmaArthE chaithe-4-2- 20

And those two paths are mentioned in the smrthi with reference to yogis.

In the gita it is said that those who die during the day etc .do not return to earth but those
who die at night etc. do return. This is not said in order to denote a special time to die
but it relates only to the two paths, devayAna ,the path of the devas and pithryAna, path
of the pithrs for persons practicing yoga. Thus ends the dhakshiNAynADHikara Nam.

The end of the second padha of the fourth adhyaya


suthra-1-archirAdhi nA thathpraTHithEh- 4-3-1

The self of the knower reaches Brahman through the path of light as well known
from the scriptures.

The path through which the soul of a knower of Brahman passes and attains Brahman is
discussed in this padha. There are various passages on the subject and in ChAndhOgya
there is a detailed description as

'aTha yadhuchaivAsmin cchavyam kurvanthiyadhi cha na,archisham Eva
abhisambhavanthi, archishah ahah, ahnah ApooryamANa paksham,
ApooryamANa pakshAth yAn shad udhang Ethi mAsAn,tnanmAsEbhyah
samvathsaram, samvathsarath Adhithyam,AdhithyAt h chandhramasam,
chandhramasah vidhyutham tath purushO amAnavaha EnAn brahma gamayathi,
Esha dhEvapaThah brahmapaThah EthEna prathipadhyamAnAima m mAnavam
Avartham nAvarthanthe. '

The meaning of this passage is as follows:
Now as for such persons, that is the knower’s of Brahman, whether the cremation rites
are performed or not, they go to light, from light to the day, from the day to the bright
fortnight, from the bright fortnight to the six months of uttarAyaNa,from that to the year,
from the year to the sun, from the sun to the moon, from the moon to the lightning when,
a person from the region of Brahman comes and guides them to realize Brahman. Those
who go by this path do not return to this mortal world. Another description is also given in
the same upanishad later as

'aTHa yathra asmAth sarirAthuthkrAmathi aTha EthairEva rasmibhih oorDhvam
AkramathE--- yAvath ksipyEthmanah thAvath Adhithyam gacchathi; Ethadhvai
khalulOkadhvAram vidhushAm,

when he departs from the body he proceeds upwards through these very rays---as long
as it takes the mind to travel, in that short time he goes to the sun. That indeed is the
door to the world of Brahman for the knower’s.'

There is a different version in Kousheetaki upanishad as

'sa Etham dhEvayAnam panTHAnam Apadhya agnilOkam Agacchathi,sa vAyu
lOkam, sa varuNa lOkam, sa indhralOkam, sa prajApathi lOkam sa brahmalOkam .
'Thus the journey is described as from devayana to world of fire, that of air, that of water,
that of Indhra and to that of Brahma, the creator, and from there to brahmalOka.

The poorvapakshin presents a view that these roads are several and independent. This
is refuted by the suthra. All roads are one, that of light only and the difference in
description is only due to the details.As the divinities mentioned are the same they differ
only in minor points.

This is the end of archirAdhyaDHikaraN am

vAyvaDhikaraNam- 4-3-2

suthra-2-vAyumabdhA th avisEshAbhyAm- 4-3-2

From the Year to Vayu because of general and specific words.

The different texts describing the path of the man of knowledge, though are of same
content, the order of the places reached seem to differ in each.

In Chandhogya the soul is said to reach the month, year and the sun in that order, while
in BrhadhAraNyaka the order is given as the month, the world of devas and the sun
respectively. Since the path is the same according to both texts, the additional
information given in each has to be supplemented in the other. In ChAndhOgya for
instance the period described seems to be from that of shorter to that of longer duration.
So since the month is shorter than the year, it should come before the year while the
year should precede the world of devas.

In BrahadhAraNyaka also there is the text

'yadhA vai purushO asmAth lOkAth praithi sa vAyum Agacchathi thasmai cha
thathra vijiheethE yaTHA raTha chakrasya kham;thEna sa oordhvam Akramathe,
sa Adhithyam Akramathi, (Brhd.5-10-1)
when a man departs from this world he goes to the air, who makes for him an opening
like wheel of a chariot through which he proceeds upwards and comes to the sun.'

The kousheetaki text on the other hand places the world of vAyu after that of agni, light,
and before the world of devas. But as the term upward has greater force than the
succession, vAyu has to be placed before the sun.

Now it is clear that the world of devas and Vayu come after the year and before the sun.
But there is a doubt whether the world of devas and that of Vayu mean one and the
same thing or different. The poorvapakshin says that they are different which is refuted
by the suthra. This is proved by the general and specific words used to denote it. the
word 'the world of the devas' is used in the general sense which includes that of vAyu as
well while the term 'vayu' is specific denoting only the deity Vayu. the _expression 'world
of vAyu only means that the world that is vAyu,the air.That vAyu may be viewed as the
world of devas is known from the text,'Yo ayam pavathE Esha Eva dhEvAnAm grhAh,
( Jaimini upanishad-brAhman- 3-1) he who blows(vayu) is the home of devas. This is the
end of vAyvaDHikaraNam.

varuNADHikaraNam- 4-3-3

suthra-3-thatithO aDHi varuNah sambnDhAth-4- 3-3

Beyond lightning there is VaruNa because of connection.

In kouisheetaki text it is said that the soul goes to the worlds of vAyu,varuNa ,Indhra,
prajApathy and to the world of of Brahamn in that order. Hence there is a doubt whether
the world of the deities mentioned are to be included after vAyu or after lightning at the
end according to the text of ChAndhOgya ' samvathsarAth Adhithyam , AdhithyAth
chandhramasam, chandhramasah vidhyutham.' (Chan.4-15-5)

The view of the poorvapakshin that the order mentioned in the kousheethaki text is to be
accepted is refuted by the suthra. VaruNa is placed after lightning because of the
connection of varuNa ,the deity of waters, with lightning which is the part of rain bearing
clouds. As the order according to the meaning is stronger that the mentioning of the
order in the text, varuNa, along with Indhra and prajApathy must come at the end after
lightening. This is the end of varuNADHikaranam.

AthivAhikADHikaraNa m-4-3-4

suthra-4-Athivahika h thallingAth- 4-3-4

They are those who guide , this being indicated.

To the question as to whether the light , vayu etc. mentioned with respect to the
progress of the soul towards Brahman are the landmarks indicating the path to be
pursued or places of enjoyment, the suthra replies that they are not mere signposts to
indicate the path but the divinities ordained by the Lord to guide the soul. This is known
by the text 'thathpurusho amAnavah sa EnAn brahma gamayathi, (Chan.5-10-2)
there is a divine person who leads them to Brahman.'

suthra-5-vaidhyuthE naivathathah thacchruthEh- 4-3-5
From there by him who belongs to lightening, because of sruthi

Only that divine person guides the soul from the stage of lightning to Brahman while the
others like varuNa and VAyu assist the divine person. Thus ends the

kAryaDhikaraNam- 4-3-6

suthra-6-kAryam bAdharirasya gathyupapatthEh- 4-3-6

Badhari thinks that the deities conduct only him who meditates on kAryabrahman,
that is, HiraNyagarbha, because for him only going is possible.

To the question whether the deities mentioned lead the one who meditates on karya
brahman, the HiraNyagarbha or those who meditate on the supreme brahman,
BhAdhari answers that the group of deities lead only the one who meditates on
HiraNyagarbha because for him only the going applies. To the one who meditates on
parabrahman there is nowhere he has to go as he realizes Brahman as his own self,
who is immovable all pervading etc.

suthra-7-visEshitha thvAccha- 4-3-7

Because it is specified also.

The text 'purushO mAnasa Ethya brahmalOkAN gamayathi, (Brhd.6-2-15) the person
consisting of mind leads them to the worlds of Brahman means only the worlds of
HiraNyagarbha as specified by the use of the plural 'worlds.' also there is reference to
the one going by the path of light reaching the world of HiraNyagarbha by the text
'prajApathEh sabhAm vEsma prapadhyE, I enter the hall of prajApathy, the abode.'

suthra-8-sAmeepyAtt hu thadhvyapadhEsah-4-3-8

Because of nearness the designation is given.

The objection that in the text 'thathpurushO amAnavah sa EnAn brahma gamayathi,
(Chan.5-10-2) the word Brahman is put in neuter,denoting supreme brahman only as
other wise it should be brahmAnam gamayathi in masculine if it were to refer
HiraNyagarbha instead of brahma gamayathi', BAdhari replies that because HiraNya
garbha is next to Brahman as the first created being, the designation 'brahma' has been
assigned to HiraNya garbha.

suthra-9-kAryAthyay e thadhaDhyakshENa saha athah paramaBhidhAnAth-
With the dissolution of the of the world of HiraNyagarbha along with him the soul
of the one who has reached there goes beyond . So it is stated.

There is a further objection that if the individual soul goes to the world of HiraNyagarbha
the texts that state the attainment of immortality such as 'thayOrDhvamAyAn
amrthathvamEthi, (Chan.4-15-6) will have no meaning as according to the statement
of the Lord in the Gita 'AbrhambuvanAllOkAh punarAvrtthinO arjuna, the worlds up
to that of Brahma are subject to return.' Also because the scritures state the dissolution
of HiraNyagarbha at the end of the period known as dviparArDHa.

To this BAdhari replies that on the dissolution of the world of HiraNya garbha along with
him the individual self attains true knowledge and goes through the path of light and
attains immortality. This, he says, is also evident from the text 'thE brahmalOkE thu
parAntha kAle parAmrthAth parimuchyanthi sarvE, (Mund.3-2-6) they attain
immortality in the world of Brahman at the end of time known as the end of the life of

suthra-10-smrthEsch a-4-3-10

From the smrthi also.

there is also evidence from the smrthi that the souls in brahmalOka attain brahman at
the end of the time known as 'Para,' from the text 'brahmaNAsaha thE
sarvesamprApthE prathisancharE parasyAnthE krthAthmAnah pavisanthi param
padham, ( KurmapurANa- 1-12-269) at the dissolution all of them together with brahma
enter the supreme abode.'

suthra-11-param jaiminih mukhyathvAth-4-3-11

The supreme Brahman only, says Jaimini because of the primary meaning.

Jaimini is of the opinion that the deities lead only those who meditate on Brahman
because of the text 'thathpurusho amAnavah sa EnAn brahma gamayathi,' a divine
person leads them to Brahman.The primary sense of the word 'brahman' being
appropriate there is no need of resorting to the secondary meaning of HiraNyagarbha.
Even though Brahman is all pervading, the final realisation comes only by the soul
reaching a particular place. From the text 'thamEtham vEdhAnuvachanEna
brAhmanA vividhishanthi,(Brhd.4-4-22) it is known that the origination of knowledge
depends on varNAsrama dharma, the duties of asrama and caste, soucha, purity,
AchAra, good conduct and dhEsakAla, place and time.

The plural in 'brahmalOkAn, worlds of Brahman' does not indicate the worlds of
HiraNyagarbha but as in the case of 'nishAdhasThapathi' which denotes a nishAdha
who is a sThapathi, the word brahmalOka means Brahman who is itself a lOka and the
plural indicates that the divine worlds which spring from the will of Brahman are infinite.
suthra-12-dharsanAt h cha-4-3-12

Because sruthi also says so.

The text 'Esha samprasAdhO asmAth sarirAth samutthAya paramjyOthirupasamp
dhya svEna rupENa abhinishpadhyathE, now the serene one, rising out of this body,
attains the supreme light and appears in his own true form' declares that the individual
self traveling through the devayAna attains the supreme self.

suthra -13-na cha kAryE prathyabhisanDhih-4-3-13

And there is no desire to attain the kAryabrahman.

There is no desire to attain the world of HiraNya garbha on the part of the aspirant but
only to attain Brahman as can be seen from the text 'yasO ham bhavAmi
brAhmaNanam, (Chan.8-14-I) I become the glory of the brAhmaNaAs,' shows that the
intention is to shed the ignorance and realise the supreme self, because of the
preceding passage

'asva iva rOmANi viDHOOya pApam, chandhra iva rAhOrmukhAth pramuchya
Dhoothva,sariram akrtham krthAthma brahmalOkam abhisambhavAmi,
as a horse shakes his hairs and as the moon frees himself from the mouth of Rahu;
having shaken off the body I may attain the eternal world of Brahman.'

Therefore , claims Jaimini, the deities beginning with light lead only those who meditate
on Brahman.

suthra -14-apratheekAlamba nATh nayathi ithi bAAdharyaNah; ubhayaTHA
cha dhOshAth, thathkrathuscha- 4-3-14

Bhadharayana says that the deities lead those who do not meditate on symbols,
as both cases are defective and there is also the law of thathkrathu, ie. one
becomes what he meditates.

Now Badharayana declares his own view as the final conclusion. He says that both the
views of Badhari and Jaimini are defective. To say that the deities lead those who
meditate on Hiranyagarbha goes against the declaration of the sruthi 'asmAth sarirath
samutthAya pram jyOthirupasampadhya ,'(Chan.8-3-4) that the soul rising up from
the body attains the supreme light.And the view of Jaimini that they conduct only those
who meditate on supreme self will contradict the text 'thadhya iTTHamvidhuryE
chEmE araNye sraddhA thapa ithyupAsathe thE archisham abhisambhavanthi'
(Chan.5-10-1) those who have the knowledge of the five fires and those who meditate in
the forest with faith and austerity go through the path of light.
And there is also the law of thathkrathu, based on the text 'yaTHAkrathurasmin lOke
putusha bhavathi thTHaithah prEthya bahvathi,(Chan.3-14- 1) which means that,
after departing from this world, one becomes that which he meditates on. So the
meditator on Brahman attains Brahman and not others.

suthra-15 visesham cha dharsayathi- 4-3-15

And the scriptures shows the difference.

The text 'yAvannAmnO gatham thathrAsya yaTHA kAmachArO bhavathi, (Chan.7-
1-5) He who meditates on name as Brahman, for him there is movement as he wishes
as far as name extends,' shows that the fruit of meditation of those who meditate on
symbols, beginning with name and ending with prANa is of limited duration. The deities
do not lead those who meditate on sentient mixed with insentient matter and only those
who meditate on Brahman or on the individual self separated from prakrthi, having
Brahman as its self are led by the deities through the path of light This is the settled
conclusion, says Ramanuja,
'api thu param brahmOpAseenAN AthmAnam cha prakrthi viyuktham
brahmAthmakam upAseenAn AthivAhikO gaNo nayatheethi siddham.'

The end of the third padha of the fourth adhyaya



suthra-1-sampadhyAv irbhAvah svEna sabdhAth-4-4- 1

After attaining Brahman the individual soul manifests in his own true nature which
is known by the word 'svEna.'

This last padha of the last adhyaya discusses the kind of existence the released souls
enjoy. To the question whether the soul rising up from the body and attaining the
supreme light acquires a new divine body or manifests himself in his own natural form,
the poorvapakshin says that the individual self acquires a new divine body. He argues
that the release would have no advantage otherwise as the true nature of the self
cannot be the desirable goal. The release is described as not merely a cessation of pain
but a definite state of infinite bliss. It cannot be argued that the nature of the soul is one
of infinite bliss which is concealed by nescience in the transmigratory state which is
regained on the attainment of light. Moreover if the release is only manifestation in true
form there is no meaning in the text 'svena rupENa abhinishpadyathE, (Chan.8-12-3)
he becomes manifest in his true form.' Thus the word 'appear' means origination and the
true form mentioned is the one particular form qualified with absolute bliss etc.

This view is rejected by the suthra. The individual self becomes manifest in his true form
which does not mean origination and this can be seen from the words 'in one's own,
svEna rupENa,' in the text. if it means the acquisition of a new body it cannot be termed
as own true form .

suthra-2-mukthah prathjnAnAth- 4-4-2

It is only the released self according to the promise.

To the objection that as the true nature of the soul is eternally accomplished the
manifestation of it on attaining the supreme light will have no meaning, the suthra replies

What the text refers to as manifestation of the true nature is that even though the true
nature is eternally established it is concealed by nescience ,the removal of which is the
manifestaion. This is known from the promise. After describing the self as being freed
from sin, freed from the connection with three stages of waking, dream and deep sleep,
from the body acquired through karma resulting in joy and sorrow,

the passage on prajApathy's instruction concludes with
'Evam Eva Esha samprasAdhah asmAth sarirAth samutthAya param
jyOthirupasampadhya svEna rupENa abhinishpadhyathE,(Chan.8-12- 3)
this serene soul rising from the body, attaining the supreme light manifests in its own
true form.

suthra-3-AthmA prakarNAth-4- 4-3

It is the self, because of the context.

To the objection that the self is in its natural state in deep sleep, which is only cessation
of pain and which cannot be the goal desired to reach, the suthra replies that from the
context it is known that the individual self possesses in its essential nature all the
characteristics such as freedom from evil etc., but it is obscured by nescience which is
destroyed when it reaches the supreme light and the true nature manifests itself. The
text is 'ya AthmA apahathpApmA vijarO vimrthyuh visOkO vijighathsOapipAsah
sathykamah sathyasankalpah, the self who is free from sin, from old age, from death,
from hunger and thirst, and of true will and desire.' So it is not origination but
manifestation of the qualities already exists. ‘

Ramanuja here quotes Bhagavan Sounaka who says
'yaTHA na kriyathE jyOtsnAmalaprakshAl anAnmaNEh; dhOsha prahANAnna
jnAnam Athmanah kriyathE thaTHa.'
Just as by polishing a gem no new lustre is produced similarly by destruction of evil no
knowledge is produced in the self but what is already there manifests. Thus ends the
sampadhyAvirbhAvAdh ikaraNam.

avibhAgEna dhrshtathvADHikaraN am-2

avibhAgEna dhrshtathvAth- 4-4-4

Released self experiences Brahman as inseparable from itself because it is seen
to be so from the scriptures.

Is the individual self on attaining Brahman experiences his own self as separate or
inseparable from Brahman? The poorvapakshin adopts the former view citing the texts
such as ;sO asnuthE sarvAn kAmAn saha brahmaNA vipaschithA, ( Taitt.-2-1-1) he
attains all the attributes along with the omniscient Brahman.' and 'thadhAvidhvAn
puNyapApE viDhooyaniranjanah paramam sAmyam upaithi, (Mund.3-1-3) then,
possessing perfect knowledge, and shaking off good and evil, free from all passions he
reaches the highest equality (with Brahman)'

The suthra rejects this view and says that the released self experiences his own self as
inseparable from Brahman and this is known from the scripture which declares that the
individual self manifests in his true nature on attaining Brahman. The true nature is
having Brahman as the inner self and the individual self standing in relation of mode to

Ramanuja quotes several texts such as 'Thathvamasi, that thou art,' (Chan.6-8-7) ,
'ayamAthmA brahma, this self is Brahman,' 'EtahAthmyam idham sarvam, all this is
ensouled by that,' etc. which show the relation between the individual self and the
supreme self in coordination 'sAmAnADHikaraNya nirdhEsAth.'

That the relationship is one of sarira and sariri is known by the text

'ya Athmani thishTan Athmanh antharh yamAthmA na vedha yasya AthmA
sariram ya AthmAnam antharo yamayathi sa tha AthmA antharyAmyamrthah,
(Brhd.mAdh.3- 7-22)

The passages describing the similarity with Brahman mean that as a mode the
individual soul is equal to Brahman.Hence there is no contradiction. Here ends the
avibhAgEna dhrshtathvADHikaraN am.

BrAhmADHikaranam- 4-4-3
suthra-5-BrAhmENa jaiminih upanyAsA dhibhyah-4-4- 5

Jaimini is of the opinion that the released soul becomes like Brahman based on
the scriptural statement to that effect.

The text in ChAndhOgya 'ya AthmA apahatha pApmA vijarO vimrtyuh vishOkO
vijighathsO apipAsah sathya kAmah sathyasankalpah, (Chan.-7-7-1) the self, free
from sin, from old age, from death, from grief, hunger and thirst, and of true desire and
will,' the qualities ascribed to the individual self are the same qualities pertaining to
Brahman as mentioned in dhaharavidhya in earlier section. Hence Jaimini says that the
individual self manifests himself with the attributes of Brahman.

suthra-6-chithithan mAthrENa thadhAthmakathvAth ithi aoudulOmih-4- 4-6

Aoudulomi thinks that the released self manifests as mere consciousness
because it is of this nature.

The text in BrhadhAraNyaka declares the nature of the self to be of consciousness.
'sa yaTHA sainDHavaganah anantharO abAhyah krthsnah rasaghana Eva, Evam
vA arE ayam AthmAanantharOabAhy ahkrthsnah prajanaghanaEva,(Brhd.4-4-13)
as the lump of salt has neither inside nor outside but is of homogeneous mass of salty
taste, similarly this self is of consciousness through out. Hence Aoudulomi says that the
essential nature of the self is of consciousness which manifests in the state of release.

suthra-7-Evamapyupa nyAsAth poorvabhAvAth avirOdham
bAdharAyanah- 4-4-7

Because of the attributes mentioned earlier and statements to that effect there is
no contradiction, says Badharayana.

The view of Badharayana reconciles the two views stated above. He says that there is
no conflict. As the salt being a mass of salty taste, the qualities like hardness, form etc.
are not contradictory to its nature of being salty. Similarly even though the self is
essentially consciousness the qualities like freedom from sin etc. are not contradictory to
its essential consciousness.

However the text (Brhd.4-4-13) does not convey the meaning of the self being nothing
but knowledge, but only that the self is essentially self-illumined, that is , not depending
on any other means of knowledge.

Ramanuja explains the purport of the passage thus:

'YaTHA trasvathsu AmraphalAdhishu thvagAdhipradhEsa bhEdhEna rasabhEdhE
sathyapi sainDHavaghanasya sarvathra Ekarasaikathvam, thaTHA AthmanOpi
vijnAnasvaroopathva m, svaprakAsa roopathvam ithyarThah.'
This means, 'just as, while mango and other tasteful things taste differently in different
parts, the salt is salty throughout, the self is also of the nature of knowledge throughout
or of self luminosity. Thus ends brAhmADHikaranam
sankalpADHikaraNam- 4-4-4

suthra-8-sankalpAdh Eva thacchruthEh- 4-4-8

By mere will, because the scripture says so.

The text 'thathra paryEthi jakshath kreedan ramamANah streebhirvA yAnairvA
jnAthibhirva nOpajanam smarannidhamsariram , (Chan.8-12-3) there he moves
about , laughing, playing, rejoicing with women,vehicles or relations, not remembering
this body in which he was born,' denoting thus all wishes are realized for the released
self through will. Here the doubt arises whether these happen by mere will as that of the
supreme self or through any effort.

The view of the poorvapakshin that it requires effort as in the case of kings whose will is
realised through effort only, is rejected by the suthra. The realisation of all wishes is only
through mere will as stated by the scripture. The text 'sa yadhi pithrlOka kAmO
bhavathi sankalpAdhEva asya pitharah samutthishTanthi,(chan.8-2-1) if he
becomes desirous of the world of fathers by his will the fathers arise.'

suthra-9-atha Eva cha ananyADHipathih- 4-4-9

And therefore there is no one as his Lord.

Because he realizes all his wishes the released soul has no one as his Lord. This is
what is meant by 'sa svarat bhavathi, (Chan.7-25-2) he is his own ruler,' which means
that there is no one else but himself.This is the end of sankalpAdhikaraNam.

abhAvADHiakaraNam- 4-4-10

suthra10-abhAvam bAdharirAha hyEvam- 4-4-10

There is absence of body and senses for the realised self because the scripture
says so, Badhari thinks.

The text says 'na ha vai sasarirasya sathah priyApriyayOh apahathirasthi;
asariram vA va santham na priyapriye sprsathah, (Chan.8-12-1) as long as he is in
the body there is no freedom from pleasure and pain; the pleasure and pain do not touch
him when he is free from the body' And there is also the declaration that the released
self is free from the body. "asmAth sariraaaaAth samutthAya param
jyOthirupasampadhya svEna rupENa abhinishpadhyathE,(Chan.8-12- 3) rising out
of this body attains supreme light and appears in his own true form.' Hence Badhari
claims that the released soul does not have body and senses.

suthra-11-bhAvam jaiminih vikalpAmananAth- 4-4-11

Because the text declares manifoldness the released soul has body and senses,
says Jaimini.

The text 'sa EkaDhA bhavathi thriDHA bhavathi panchDHA sapthaDHA, (CHan.7-
26-2) he is one, he is threefold, he is fivefold ,he is sevenfold,' denotes diversification
into many forms. Vikalpa in the suthra means viviDhah kalpah, manifoldness. So jaimini
says the released self has body and senses. The statement of disembodiment only
means freedom from body due to karma.

suthra-12-dvAdhasAh avath ubhayaviDham bAdharAyanah- 4-4-12

Badharayan says the released soul is of both kinds as in the case of twelve days

Badharayana holds the view that the released soul can exist in both ways, that is, with
or without body by his will. This is akin to the twelve days sacrifice which is called as
sathra or ahina according to the will of the sacrificers and the injunction is denoted by
upaithi(Resortsto) and yajathi (he sacrifices).

suthra-13-thanvabhA vE sanDhyadhuthpatthEh - 4-4-13

In the absence of a body it is possible as in dreams.

It has been said that the released soul can create a body at his will. Now the suthrakara
says that it is not invariably created by the soul only but as in dream a person
experiences things created by the Lord in released state also he can experience in the
world created by the Lord.

The reference here is to the text in BrhadhAraNyaka upanishad which says ' na thathra
raTHA na raThayOgA na panTHAnO bhavanthi aTha raTHAn raTHaygAn paTHan
srjathE----sa hi karthA,' he creates chariots horses road etc,. he is the creator.

suthra-14-bhAvE jAgradhvath- 4-4-14

When there is a body as in the waking state.

Even when the individual soul creates a body by its own will through which he
experiences joy of sport as in waking state, still it falls under the realm of the will of the
supreme self only.
suthra-15-prasdheep avathAvEsah, thaTHA hi dharsayathi- 4-4-15

The entrance into many bodies of the released soul is like that of the lamp; thus
the scripture shows.

To the objection that the individual soul being atomic in size how can he be connected to
many bodies, the reply is given in this suthra that just as the lamp existing in one place
spreads its light all over, the individual soul ,though atomic pervades all the bodies
through his attributive consciousness and makes them his own. But this attributive
consciousness (dharmabhoothajnAna which is one of the exclusive concepts of
visishtadvaita) is contracted in the embodied state due to karma and attains its infinite
proportions at the state of release. This is also declared by the scripture. In the text
'vAlAgrasathabhAgas yasathaDHA kalptithasya cha;bhAgO jeevah sa vijnEyah sa
cha AnanthyAya kalpathE, (Svet.5-8) a hundredth part of the point of hair, divided into
a hundredfold, one part of which is the size of the individual self and he is capable of

suthra-16-svApyayas ampatthyOhanyath rApEksham Avishkrtham hi-4-4-16

It refers to deep sleep or death as is shown by the scripture.

To the objection that it is said in the scriptures that when the individual self reaches
Brahman all its inner and outer consciousness cease to exist 'prAjnEna AthamanA
samparishvakthah na bAhyam kimchana vEdha nAntharam,'(Chan.4-3- 21)
embraced by the omniscient self the individual soul knows nothing within and without,'
and hence how can it be possible for the soul to have al pervading consciousness, the
suthra replies as follows:

The text quoted does not refer to the state of release but only to deep sleep or death.
this is shown by 'purushasya prayathah vAngmanasi sampadhyathE manah prANE
praNA thEjasi thEjah parasyAm dhEvathAyam, (Chan.6-8-6) When a man departs
his speech merges in mind ,mind in prana, prana in thejas and thejas in the supreme

That in deep sleep there is no consciousness is declared in
'naha khalu ayam idham samprthyAthmAnam jAnAthi ayam aham asmi ithi nO Eva
imAni bhoothAni vinAsam Eva apeethah bhavathi,' (Chan.8-11-1)
this one does not know himself as "I am he," nor indeed these beings. It seems as if he
has gone to annihilation. ' In the same text there is an account of the omniscience of the
released self as

'sa vA Esha Ethena dhaivEna chakshushAmansA EthAn kAmAn pasyan ramathE
ya EthE brahmalOkE,
through this divine eye in the mind experiences all desired objects which are in the
world of Brahman.

In BrhadhAraNyaka the absence of consciousness is mentioned in death. 'EthEbhyah
bhoothEbhyah samutTHAya thAnyEvAnuvinasyath i, rising up from these elements
he goes to destruction after them. The phrase 'he goes to destruction' only means that
he does not perceive. Therefore the meaning of the text 'prAjnEna AthmanA
samparishvakthah' refers to the two states, deep sleep and death. Here ends

jagathvyApAravarjAD HikaraNam- 4-4-6

suthra-17-jagathvyA pAravarjamprakar aNAth asannihithathvAccha -4-4-17

The released souls possess all powers of the Lord except cosmic activity,
because of subject matter and non-proximity.

The view of the poorvapakshin is that, the released soul attains equality with the
supreme self as denoted by the text 'niranjanah paramam sAmyam upaithi, (Mund.3-
1-3) free from taint he attains the highest equality,' and also because it is mentioned that
such soul acquires the power of realizing all its desires which is possible only with

The sutra refutes this view and says that the released self acquires all the powers of the
supreme self except the control of the cosmos. The individual self becoming free from all
karma that conceals his true nature, acquires the power to perceive the essential nature
of Brahman intuitively but does not possess the powers of controlling the world of
beings. This is known from the subject matter.

The text

'yathO vA imAni bhoothAni jAyanthE yEna jAthAni jeevanthi yasmin
abhisamvisanthi, (Tait.3-1-10)

from whom all these beings emerge by whom they are sustained and into whom they
merge back,' denotes that the Brahman alone has the power to create, sustain and
annihilate the world of sentient and insentient beings. This would not be considered as
the definition of Brahman if the released souls also contain this power.

There are many more texts to this effect such as 'sadhEva soumya idham agra
Aseeth EkamEva adhvitheeyam, thadhaikshatha bahusyAm parajAyEya, thatthEjO
asrjatha, (Chan.6-2) all this was sath only in the beginning, one only without a second, It
willed to become many and it created the fire,'

Moreover in the context where Brahman is spoken of as the controlling power of the
world the individual self is nowhere mentioned as having these powers.

suthra-4-4-18- prathyakshOpadhE sAth na ithi chEth, na,ADhikArikamandal
asTHa ukthEh- 4-4-18

If it is said that it is not so because of direct statement, it is not so, because the
text refers to the enjoyment of that within the spheres of special deities.

The poorvapakshin quotes the text ' sa svarAt bhavathi, thasya sarvEshu lOkEshu
kama charO bhavathi, (Chan.7-25-2) he is self-ruler and moves in all the worlds
according to his desire,' to prove that the cosmic activity belongs to the released soul.
But this the suthra refutes saying that what is implied in the text is that the released soul
enjoys freely in all the worlds which are under the control of the deities appointed by
Brahman where the power of Brahman is fully manifest.

suthra-19-vikArAvar thi cha thaTHA hi sTHithim Aha-4-4-19

Brahman is beyond all change; and the scripture declares that the self abides in

To the objection that if the released soul also confined to certain regions of enjoyment
then there is no difference between that state and that of bondage, the suthra replies
that the scripture declares that the released soul abides in Brahman as the enjoyer.

Ramanuja explains this as

'nirDhootha nikhila vikAramnikhila hEyaprathyaneeka kalyANaikathAnam
nirathisayAnandham param brahma savibhoothikam sakalakalyANaguNam
anubhaVathi mukthah; thadhvibhoothyantha rgathathvEna vikARAvarthinAm
lOkanam api mukthabhOgyathvam,
the supreme self which is free from all change and free from evil and abode of all
auspicious qualities along with its manifestations of glory , is the object of enjoyment for
the released soul. Even the worlds which are subject to change also being included in
the manifestation of the glory of Brahman become the object of experience for the
released soul.'

The text 'yadhA hyaivEsha Ethasmin adhrsyE anAthmyE anirukthe anilayanE
abhayam prathishTAm vindhathE, aTha sO abhayam gathO bhavati, (Tait.2-7)

when he abides in that which is invisible, without a body, undefined, unsupported, then
he has attained the fearless,' mentions Brahman to be the abode of the released soul.
That the whole world is the manifestation of His glory is known from the text 'thasmin
lOkAh sTHithAhsarvE thadhu nAthyEthikaschana, (Kous.5-8) on HIm the worlds
rest and no one goes beyond Him.'

Therefore the meaning of the passage beginning with 'sa svarAt bhavathi ,'(Chan.7-25-
2) saya Ramanuja, is that the released soul, conscious of Brahman and His glories
experiences the objects which lie within the limited spheres of HiraNyagarbha and the
like and does not indicate the powers of controlling the universe on the part of the
individual soul, because they exclusively belong to the Lord.

suthra-20-dharsayat haschaivam prathyakshanumAne- 4-4-20

And thus sruthi and smrthi show.

Prathyaksha refers to sruthi and anumana to smrthi. The texts such as

'bheeshASmAth vAthah pavathE, bheeshAdhEthi suryah bheeshAsmAth agnih
cha indhrascha mrthyur dhAvathi panchamah,'(Tait.2-8-1)
which means that from the fear of Him the wind blows the sun goes, the fire, Indhra and
Yama do thieir work, and

'EthasyEvA aksharasya prasAsanE gargi suryAchandhramasou viDHoothou
thishTathah, (Brhd.3-8-9)
by the command of this imperishable one, oh gargi, the sun and moon stand apart,'
shows Him to be the controller of the universe.

The smrthi also confirms this as could be seen in the Gita, 'mayADHyakshENa
prakrthihsooyathE sacharAcharam,(BG.9-10) under my control the prakrthi gives birth
to sentient and insentient beings.'

Both sruthi and smrthi declare that the supreme self is the causeof the bliss enjoyed in
the state of release. ' Esha hyEvAnandhayathi, He alone causes bliss,' (Tait.2-7-1) and

'mAm cha yO avyabhichArENabhakt hiyOgEna sEvathe sa guNAn
samatheethyaithAn brahmbhooyAya kalpathE;brahmaNO hi prathishTAham
amrthasya avyayasyacha, sAsvathasya cha dharmasya sukhasyaikAnthikasy a
cha, (BG-15-26/27)
He who serves me with unswerving devotion he surpasses the guNas and becomes
qualified to attain Brahman.I am the abode of the infinite, immortal Brahman of eternal
dharma and absolute bliss.'
The qualities like freedom from evil etc , are of the essential nature of the realized soul
nevertheless depends upon Brahman as well as their permanency. Thus the equality
with the Lord of the released soul does not extends to the cosmic activity.

suthra-21-bhOgamAth rasAmyalingAccha - 4-4-21

And because if the indication of equality with enjoyment only.

The text 'sO asnuthE sarvAn kAmAn sahabrahmaNA vipschithA,

he attains all objects of desire together with the all-knowing Brahman,' denotes that the
equality of the released soul with Brahman is only with respect to mere enjoyment. Thus
in accordance with the texts mentioning Brahman to be the sole controller of the
universe it is concluded that the power of the released soul is devoid of cosmic activity.

suthra-22-anAvrtthi sabdhAth anAvrtthin sabdhAthh-4- 4-22

There is no return because the scriptures say so. (This statement is repeated to
denote the end of the sasthra)

To the question that if the power and glory of the released soul depends on the will of
the supreme self will there be a possibility of return to the world by the soul thus
released., the suthra answers that it is not so.

Ramanuja explain this in his own style.

'yaTHA nikhila hEya prathyaneekakalyANa ikathAnah jagajjanmAdhikAraNa m
samasthvasthyuvilak shaNah sarvajnah sathyasankalpah AsrithvAthsalyaikaj
alaDHih paramakAruNikah nirastha samAbhyaDHikasambhA vanah
parabrahmAbhiDHAnah paramapurusho asthi ithi sabdhAth avagamyathE, Evam
aharahanushteeyamAn a varNasramadharma anugrheetha thadhupAsanarupa
thathsamArADHanpree thah upAseenAn anAdhikAlapravrttha anantha dhusthara
karma sanchayarupa avidhyAm vinivarthya sva yATHAthmyarupa anavaDHika
athisayAnandham prApayya punarnAvarthayathee thyapi sabdhAdhEva

The meaning of the passage is this.

Only through scriptures it is known that there is a supreme self, who is free from all evil,
source of all auspicious qualities, the cause of the world, different from everything else,
omniscient,true- willed, the ocean of love to those who take refuge in Him, who has
infinite mercy, to whom there is none equal or superior, and who is known as the
parabrahman. Similarly from the scriptures alone we come to know that the supreme
purusha who is pleased with those who follow the varNasramadharma every day and
meditate on Him and worship Him, destroys the nescience which is the cause of
beginningless karma which is otherwise difficult to overcome, and bestows infinite bliss
that enables them to experience Him in His true essential nature and He does not cause
their return to samsara.

There is scriptural evidence to this, says, Ramanuja, quoting the text

'sa khalu Evam varthayan yAvadhAyusham brahmalOkam abhisampadhyathE,
he, indeed lives thus throughout life, attains the world of Brahman and never returns

smrthi also confirms this.
'AbrahmabuvanAlOkAh punarAvrtthinO arjuna, mAmupEthya thu kounthEya
punarjanma na vidhyathE, (BG.8-16)
all the worlds up to that of BrahmA are subject to return but attaining Me there is no birth

Ramanuja says,

'na cha ucchinnakarmabanDha sya asankuchithajnAnasy a parabrahmAnubhavaik
a svabhAvasya thadhEkapriyasya anavaDHik athisayAnandham brahma
anubhavathah anyApEksha athadharTHArambhAdh yasambhavAth punarAvrtthi
shanka; na cha parampurushah sathyasankalpah athyarTHa priyam jnAninam
labDHvA kadhAchith Avarthayishyathi.
That is, for the released soul who has destroyed all his karma,his knowledge being
expanded to its real form , his nature established in the experience of Brahman cannot
have any possible desire and no work to be undertaken on that account. The Lord ,who
is of infallible will make his most dear devotee return to samsara again.

This has been the promise made by the Lord Himself. In Gita He says

'priyO hi jnAninO athyarTHam aham sa cha mamapriyah;UdhArA sarva Evaithe
jnAnee thvAthmaiva mE matham;AsTHithassa hi yukthAthma
mAmEvAnutthamAm gathim; bahoonAm janmanAm anthE jnAnvAn mam
prapadhyathE; vAsudhEvassarvam ithi sa mahAthmA sudhurlabhah.

" I am very dear to a jnani and he is dear to Me. All these are great (meaning Arthtee,
the suffering, arTHarthee, one who yearns for something, jijnAsu, one who is desirous
of knowledge) but jnani, a a man of knowledge is Myself. It is because having his mind
integrated in Me alone he resorts to Me as his highest goal. A man of knowledge
reaches Me after many births and such a man for whom VasudhEva is everything is
very rare to find.'

Thus ends the fourth padha of the fourth adhyaya.

The end of sribhashya