Brahma Sutra Catusutri

NOTE:
1. Swami Paramarthananda has not verified the transcription of these

classes. The transcriptions have been done with Swamiji’s blessings by his
disciple.
2. Arsha Avinash Foundation has user-license from copyright-Owner Vedanta

Vidyarthi Sangha to post discourses of Swami Paramarthananda in the
form of books.
3. The users should not reproduce these books or part of the books in any
website or other channels or on the internet or in any form.
User License
Copyright Notices On behalf of the copyright owner Vedanta Vidyarthi

Sangha(VVS)
Copyright management (books © & digital streaming) ©Yogamalika and Mantra.
Swami Paramarthananda's talks are digitally recorded, mastered, archived and

streamed by Yogamalika LLC and Mantra authorised by VVS. All rights reserved. We
take security vulnerabilities, copyright violation and user privacy very seriously.
Terms & Conditions and User License of Discourses by Swami

Paramarthananda in the form of Books & posts etc
Books and Posts are for single user license only. These artefacts may not be
reproduced by the user in part or in full or archived in any website, or any other
channels. We request users to avoid posting and circulating these artefacts of Swami
Paramarthananda’s classes & books on the internet or in any form.
Contact
For any reporting please contact the administrator at mantraglobus@gmail.com.

|| ||
SWAMI PARAMARTHANANDA
Verbatim Transcription of Swamiji’s Classes

on the first four Sūtras only (based on Śaṅkara Bhāṣyam)
(with Sānskrīt texts and Diacritic marks in Unicode)
(the balance will be presented as and when ready)
Transcribed by
Sri P.S. Ramachandran, Nana Nani Homes,
Coimbatore
Note: Swami Paramarthananda has not verified the transcription of talks.

The transcriptions have been done with Swamiji’s blessings by his disciples.
December 2021
Published by:
Arsha Avinash Foundation

104, Third Street, Tatabad,
Coimbatore 641 012, India
Ph. 91 94873 73635
Email: arshaavinash@gmail.com
www.arshaavinash.in
SWAMI PARAMARTHANANDA
His Holiness Swami Paramarthananda, disciple of His Holiness Dayananda Saraswati

studied Vedanta and Sanskrit under him for a period of three years at Sandeepany
Sadhanalaya, Mumbai. After his studies and initiation he came to Chennai and
started teaching Bhagavad-Gita, Upanishads and other Vedantic texts. He has been
conducting several weekly classes in different parts of Chennai since 1978. He is
well- read in the sastras and is a great Sanskrit scholar. His talks are known for their
clarity, simplicity and are an excellent guide for practical use of Vedantic truths in
daily life.
This is the verbatim transcription of Swamiji’s live-classes on the first four sutras of
Brahma Sūtra based on Śaṅkara Bhāṣyam.
Key to Transliteration
अ आ इ ई उ ऊ ऋ
a ā i ī u ū ṛ
ॠ लृ ए ऎ ओ औ
ṝ lṛ e ai o au
क ख ग घ ङ
ka kha ga gha ṅa
च छ ज झ ञ
ca cha ja jha ña
ट ठ ड ढ ण
ṭa ṭha ḍa ḍha ṇa
त थ द ध न
ta tha da dha na
प फ ब भ म
pa pha ba bha ma
य र ल व ं
ya ra la va
श ष स ह :
śa ṣa sa ha ḥ
Svāmi Paramārthananda’s classes on Brahma Sūtras
Contents
001 General Introduction ............................................................................................ 3

002 Introduction II. ..................................................................................................... 11
003 Daśa śānti mantras ............................................................................................. 22
dhyānaślōkāḥ ........................................................................................................... 37
004 Dhyāna slōkas. ..................................................................................................... 41
005 Outline Of Brahma sutras .................................................................................. 55
The brief outline of the Brahmasūtra. .................................................................. 59
Definitions of sūtram, bhāṣyam and adhikaraṇam ............................................ 62
Sūtram, bhāṣyam and adhikaraṇam. ............................................................................................ 62
006 Outline Of Brahma sūtras .................................................................................. 67

Two types of Inferences ......................................................................................... 67
007 Adhyāsa bhāṣyam ............................................................................................... 77
008 Adhyāsa-bhāṣyam ............................................................................................... 89
009 Adhyāsa bhāṣyam .............................................................................................100
010 Adhyāsa bhāṣyam .............................................................................................112
011 Adhyāsa bhāṣyam, Samanvaya adhyāyaḥ ......................................................123
Adhikaraṇa 001: Jijñāsādhikaraṇam ...................................................................123
Adhikaraṇa 001 jijñāsādhikaraṇam .......................................................................129
012 Sūtra 1.1.1 – Jijñāsādhikaraṇam ......................................................................134
013 Sūtra 1.1.1 - Jijñāsādhikaraṇam .......................................................................144
014 Sūtra 1.1.1 Jijñāsādhikaraṇam .........................................................................157
015 Sūtra 1.1.1 Jijñāsādhikaraṇam ..........................................................................168
016 Sūtra 1.1.1 Jijñāsādhikaraṇam .........................................................................179
017 Sūtra 1.1.2 Janmādhyadhikaraṇam .................................................................191
Adhikaraṇa 002 janmādyadhikaraṇam || .........................................................191
Definition of Brahman ..........................................................................................191
018 Sutra 1.1.2 Janmādhyadhikaraṇam .................................................................203
Table of Contents www.arshaavinash.in Page 1


022 Sutrās 1.1.2, 1.1.3, Janmādhyadhikaraṇam ....................................................252
023 Sūtra 1-1-3 Janmādhyadhikaraṇam.................................................................265
Adhikaraṇa 003 Śāstrayōny-adhikaraṇam || ....................................................267
024 Sutra 1.1.3 Śāstrayōni adhikaraṇam ...............................................................277
025 Sutra 1.1.4 Samanvāyadhikaraṇam.................................................................288
Adhikaraṇa 004 Samanvayādhikaraṇam || ......................................................288
026 Sūtra 1.1.4 Samanvayādhikaraṇam.................................................................299
027 Sūtra -1-1-4 Samanvayādhikaraṇam ................................................................310
028 Sūtra - 1-1-4 Samanvāyadhikaraṇam ..............................................................321
029 Sūtra -1-1-4 Samanvāyadhikaraṇam ...............................................................332
030 Sūtra 1.1.4 Samanvayādhikaraṇam.................................................................346
031 Sūtra 1.1.4 - Samanvāyadhikaraṇam ..............................................................358
032 Sutra 1.1.4 Samanvayādikaraṇam ...................................................................371
033 Sūtra -1-1-4 Samanvāyadhikaraṇam ................................................................384
036 Sūtra -1-1-5 Ikṣatyadhi ......................................................................................422
Table of Contents www.arshaavinash.in Page 2

001 General Introduction
ॐ सदाशिव समारम्भाम् िङ् कराचार्य मध्र्माम् अस्मदाचार्य पर्यन्ताम् वन्दे गुरु परम्पराम् ॥ ॐ
This pūja has been organized with two intentions; firstly to show our gratitude
to the Lord for the successful completion of our upaniṣad course. Normally, in
my upaniṣads courses, I take six upaniṣads avoiding the big upaniṣads like
Cāndōgya and Brihadāraṇyaka and I wanted to each all the 10 upaniṣads
including Cāndōgya and Brihadāraṇyaka; at least in one course. With that
intention, I took Cāndōgya and Brihadāraṇyaka etc. also. And therefore this
upaniṣad course has been an unusually long course; Brihadāraṇyaka itself
taking nearly 4 years. And that we could complete this not only because of our
efforts; more than our effort, it has been because of the grace of the Lord only
and therefore in keeping with the tradition I wanted to have a pūja thanking the
Lord for that purpose. This is the first-intention of this pūja.
The second-intention of this pūja is seeking a similar grace for the successful
study of our next-course, that is a course on Brahma Sūtra, which is another big
project; and of course our effort is required and more than that, we require the
grace of the Lord for the successful completion of the Brahma Sūtras also. I will
be starting my Brahma Sūtra classes from next Saturday only; however, I
thought today, I will pass some general remarks regarding Brahma Sūtra and
also discuss some points.
Brahma Sūtra is a vēdāntic-work written by Vyāsācārya. The word Sūtra, very

careful, Sūtra, not śūdra (some person asked is it Brahma śūdra) because in
Tamil the word sutra and the word śūdra almost appear the same. Therefore
not brahma Sūdra, it is brahma sūtra. Sūtraṁ means a small statement with lot
of ideas packed in it. Therefore it is a pithy statement, a statement in capsule
form, which has got lot of ideas packed in it; in English, they translate sūtraṁ as
aphorsims. So Brahma Sūtra consists of 555 sūtras or 555 aphorisms dealing
with Brahman or dealing with the vēdāntic-teaching. In our tradition, it was the
teaching was handed over and received only through the mouth. Our tradition
was an oral-tradition and audio-tradition, not a video or a visual-tradition. So
General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 3

writing was not there; and even when the writing came, it was not used very
much; the teaching was received through the ears, remembered in the mind
and transmitted to the next generation. Because of this oral-tradition, they had
to find out methods of storing the ideas in the mind. They did not store in books
and cassettes; they stored all the ideas in the mind. It was a memory oriented
tradition, being an oral tradition. And therefore for the sake of memorization,
they devised wonderful methods. There are two methods used for that. One
method is keeping the ideas in sūtra-form. If they use the sūtra-method, a big
topic which runs into pages can be condensed in one sūtra. Similarly a huge
book can be condensed into a few statements and they used to remember the
sūtras and through that they could keep the whole book or books and books in
their mind. Therefore sūtra-method has been developed for the sake of
memory. And we have got a huge Sūtra-literature, in all fields, whether it is
mathematics, logic, whether it is astrology, whether it is grammar, whether it is
ethics, or whether it is philosophy; for all sciences we have got in Sūtra-form;
the purpose is to remember.
And the second-method they used for putting all the ideas in metrical verse
form. Poetry form; it is difficult to remember a prose work; whereas it is easier
to remember a verse work, because there is a rhythm and you can tune and you
can sing also. And that is why along with the Sūtra-literature, they developed
the metrical literature also. Stories like Rāmāyaṇa and Mahäbhäratha are in
metrical form, which you can sing. 18 Purāṇās in metrical form. Thus because it
was an oral tradition, because it was memory oriented tradition, we had these
two types of literature; one is Sūtra and another is poetry. And Brahma Sūtra is
such a literature which all the ideas have been packed in 555 sūtras which if you
write in a note book it will not come to even 10 pages. But if you expand these
555 sūtras, hundreds of books are written on these; each Sūtra is like an atom
bomb. In short, Brahma Sūtra, a Sūtra work on Brahman or Vēdānta.
In this Brahma Sūtra work, Vyāsācārya takes up three tasks. Three projects he
has got in this Brahma Sūtra. First is he takes up some of the key statements of
the upaniṣads. Not all the upaniṣads, some of the key statements of the

upaniṣads, especially the 10 upaniṣads we saw and he analyses these important

mantras and through proper analysis, he extracts, he brings out the entire
vēdāntic-teaching. He does not independently present, but by way of analyzing
some of the key upaniṣadic statements, he arrives at the vēdāntic-teachings. It
involves interpretation of the upaniṣadic mantras and the establishing of the
right-interpretation and also refuting all possible wrong-interpretations. This is
his first project.
He takes the key statements of the upaniṣads, arrive at the right interpretation,
dismiss the wrong interpretation through analysis and by way of that, arrive at
the vēdāntic teaching in a systematic manner. This is one task of Brahma Sūtra.
Now the second task is defending the vēdāntic-teaching when other systems of
philosophy charge the teaching with logical-defects. Because several other
systems are there, who refute the vēdāntic-teaching, who charge the teaching
with various inadequacies. Either they say the interpretation is wrong or they
say it is illogical and Vyāsācārya defends the vēdāntic-teaching by refuting all
the possible charges on the Vēdānta. Therefore the second task for the
Vyāsācārya is defending vēdāntic-teaching. Thirdly and finally, he says all those
systems which are finding fault with the vēdāntic-teaching do not have a right
to find fault with us because all their systems of philosophy are full of
inaccuracies. So from defence he goes to offence.
What right you have to talk about logical-defect, when your system is full of
logical loopholes. And thus all those systems which were prevalent in those
days are taken and their defects are clearly pointed. This is the third task.
So extracting the vēdāntic-teaching through upaniṣadic interpretation,

defending Vēdānta by answering all the charges and by refuting all other
systems by showing their fallacies. These are the three main tasks
accomplished by Vyāsācārya through these 555 sūtras. This is the topic.
Now the next question is: who is qualified to study the Brahma Sūtra, who can
study with advantage. Now, I said that Vyāsācārya is analyzing the upaniṣadic
mantra by arriving at the right interpretation and refuting wrong interpretation.

Once the question of interpretation comes, naturally, you know hair-splitting is

involved. Therefore every word is looked into deeply and hair-splitting analysis
of the words is involved. Hair-splitting analysis of sentences is involved. Hair-
splitting analysis of ideas is involved. Whether it is the interpretation of the
upaniṣadic statements or whether it is refuting the charges on us or whether it
is charging him with inaccuracies, all these three projects of Vyāsācārya involve
logical hair-splitting. And therefore those who want to study Vēdānta should be
mentally-prepared for this particular thing and if a person is not prepared for
this, he may feel too dry a text for him. If a person is intellectual, logically-
oriented, then he will enjoy; otherwise this book may appear too dry for them.
Therefore, the first thing is be ready for lot of tarka, lot of nyāya; lot of analysis
and lot of hair-splitting. Hair-splitting not horizontally but vertically. . And
therefore grammar will come; derivation of words will come; etymology;
grammar; all those things a person should be ready. This is the first-
qualification. Readiness for hair-splitting.
Now the second-qualification is a study of at least 10 upaniṣad will be required

because Vyāsācārya is analyzing the upaniṣadic statement and extracting
meaning. It is not an independent teaching, but a teaching by way of analyzing
the upaniṣadic statement. Especially the 10 upaniṣads we did. Therefore if a
person has not studied the 10 upaniṣads then that person may find these
statements which are analyzed would look odd; and he may find it out of place.
And therefore a student who has studied the 10 upaniṣads is the ideal student;
because many statements are taken from Cāndōgya and Brihadāraṇyaka. If 6
upaniṣads if a person has studied, or studied only the Gīta, then Brahma Sūtra
will not be of much use. And therefore I would suggest that students who come
should have studied the 10 upaniṣads. I do not say ‘under me;’ I say the 10
upaniṣads under any competent teacher. And if a person is familiar with the
mantras also, then he can enjoy much more; because a person can study the 10
upaniṣads without familiarizing himself with the mantras. Then another method
of study is not only I am familiar, with the upaniṣads, I am familiar with the
mantras also, then a person can enjoy more. And therefore the best way is
having the pārāyaṇaṁ of the 10 upaniṣads during the study of the Brahma

Sūtra; so that we are aware of the mantras occurring in various places. I am not
going to find out who has studied and who has not studied, there is no detector
or anything, I am just giving a clue so that you can get maximum benefit and if
you are not very sure whether you are qualified or not, attend a few classes,
then you yourselves will know, whether to continue or not. So this is the
regarding the qualification.
And the next question is Swamiji do we require Brahma Sūtra for jñānaṁ. Very
legitimate question; do we require Brahma Sūtra for jñānaṁ? And for mōkṣa?
We do not require Brahma Sūtra for jñānaṁ and mōkṣa. If a person studies
Bhagavad Gīta and a few upaniṣads under a competent teacher, that itself is
more than enough to gain ātma jñānaṁ and mōkṣa, because when a
competent teaches Gīta and upaniṣads, the teaching is based on Brahma Sūtra
only. Any competent teacher teaches Gīta and upaniṣads only and therefore
study of Gīta and upaniṣads under a competent teacher is indirect study of
Brahma Sūtra also. That you yourselves will recognize during the study of
Brahma Sūtra. And therefore one need not come to Brahma Sūtra with the false
notion that if I do not attend brahma Sūtra, my knowledge is incomplete;
nobody need feel like that; anybody wants to what you call stop the learning
with the study of Gīta and Upaniṣads, it is perfectly fine. And a person need not
compare himself or herself with another student who has studied Brahma
Sūtra: you can happily say that I have not studied Brahma Sūtra without any
complex. Thus let it be clear that Brahma Sūtra is not required for jñānaṁ and
mōkṣa.
And then comes the next question; legitimate question; if Brahma Sūtra is not
required for jñānaṁ and mōkṣa; why the heaven are you teaching this
Brahma Sūtra? There are two reasons. Brahma Sūtra is considered one of the
three basic texts of vēdāntic-teaching. Brahma Sūtra is considered as one of the
three basic texts of vēdāntic-teaching. Together they are called prasthāna
trayam. Prasthānam here means basic txt; trayam, means three; three-fold
basic text. One is Bhagavad Gīta, the popular one; which we are studying and
we have studied. It is known as smṛti prasthānam; it is known as smṛti

prasthānam; first basic text, because Bhagavad Gīta comes under smṛti. Do not
ask me what is smṛti. Then the second one is the Upaniṣads, at least the 10
upaniṣads; this is the second basic text, technically call śṛuti-prasthānam. Śṛuti
prasthānam and the third basic text is brahma Sūtra, which is called nyāya
prasthānam. Nyāya prasthānam. As the very word indicates, it is a text book,
which deals with the logical aspect of the teaching; logical establishment of the
teaching, logical refutation of our charges; and logically charging other systems
of philosophy. That smṛti-prasthānam; śruti-prasthānam and nyāya-
prasthānam; these three put together is called prasthāna-trayam, they are the
pillars of Vēdānta. Of these three prasthānams, I have been generally regularly
teaching Gīta and Upanisad, very often. I might have minimum taught Gīta ten
times in different places and many of you heard also many times. So while I am
talking the smṛti-prasthānam and śruti-prasthānam repeatedly, I have not done
nyāya-prasthānam even once completely. And therefore I thought at least once;
like Brihadāraṇyaka, it will be nice if I do Brahma Sūtra; even though I do not
want to include it as a regular course material; at least once I wanted to teach
the Brahma Sūtra so that prasthāna-trayam is complete. This is one intention.
Completion of prasthāna trayam at least once.
The second-intention is because I am teaching Gīta and Upaniṣad repeatedly, I

do not personally get much time to dwell on Brahma Sūtra. OK. This is the
secret reason I should not be saying it; but since you are close to me, I am
telling you. I am not getting much time to dwell upon Brahma Sūtra; therefore I
found if I teach one, I get a wonderful opportunity to dwell upon it. Therefore,
for selfish reason (), just to enjoy myself, I am taking this Brahma Sūtra. And
when I am loudly thinking, loudly dwelling upon, if anybody wants to overhear
and get some benefit, it is welcome; otherwise it is primarily for my own sake.
Because remember, for students, for seekers of mōkṣa, Brahma Sūtra is not
compulsory; but for a teacher of Vēdānta, Brahma Sūtra is quite useful. From
the teachers’-angle, Brahma Sūtra has very important place; from learners’
angle Brahma Sūtra is not compulsory. Therefore as a teacher, I wanted to
enjoy. This is the second reason for my taking up of Brahma Sūtra text.

Then the next question, how am I going to approach the study. As I said,
Brahma Sūtra is a brief consisting of free statements containing packets of
ideas. Therefore if you translate any particular Sūtra, we would not get head or
tail out of it, because it is like a code word. Therefore, the Sūtra by simple
translation will not make any meaning to the reader. Therefore generally they
do not teach Brahma Sūtra. Therefore the Sūtra generally studied along with
the Bhāṣyaṁ or a commentary. Very rarely people study Brahma Sūtra.
Generally the study is Brahma Sūtra bhāṣyaṁ. So Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣyaṁ is
studied because bhāṣyaṁ brings out all the ideas packed in it. Even though this
is the traditional method, I am not going to go by this traditional method; I am
not going to teach Brahma Sūtra bhāṣyaṁ; I am not going to teach Brahma
Sūtra bhāṣyaṁ. I am going to teach Brahma Sūtras only, but my teaching will
be based on the bhāṣyaṁ. My teaching will not be of the bhāṣyaṁ, which
means I would not read the bhāṣyaṁ line by line and explain, but I will be
explaining the sūtras based on the bhāṣyaṁ Śankarācārya famous commentary
on Brahma Sūtra. It is his magnum opus. Śankarācārya is well known for his
Brahma Sūtra bhāṣyaṁ only. Closely following the Sūtra bhāṣyaṁ, I will be
explaining the Brahma Sūtras. And I am not taking the bhāṣyaṁ for various
reasons. But even when I am going to explain the sutras, it is going to take a lot
of time, at least 3 years, minimum 3 years it will take, to cover the whole śūtrās
based on bhāṣyaṁ but I will bring out the important ideas contained in the
bhāṣyaṁ. If you remember my Brihadāraṇyaka Classes, during my teaching of
Brihadāraṇyaka, wherever there is a bhāṣyaṁ enquiry, I gave you that enquiry
based on that bhāṣyaṁ. Similarly, I will bring out all the ideas contained in the
bhāṣyaṁ without reading it. This is going to be my method of teaching.
Now finally the question is what type of book we have to follow. I said that I am
not going to teach the bhāṣyaṃ and therefore for our classes we will require
only the Brahma Sūtra mūlam. And therefore I have arranged for a book which
contains the mūlam only. You do not worry about the book now, because the
first few classes would be only introductory classes. You would not require the
book in the first few classes. In the meantime, I will arrange the book for you.
But if you any one of you is interested in keeping the bhāṣyaṁ and closing

following; the bhāṣyaṁ books are available, I am not arranging for that; but
they are available; Motilal Banarasi Dass; they have published Brahma-sūtra
Śañkara Bhāṣyaṁ; Śañkara Bhāṣyaṁ alone is available. If anyone wants sub-
commentary for Śañkara’s commentary, many commentaries are available; all
such books are available with Motilal Banarasi Dass publishers and their
bookshop also is there in Chennai. Anybody interested can contact me, I can
help you in procuring that book. Ramakrishna Mission has brought out a
Brahmasūtra book which has got all the sūtras and the English translations of
the entire Śañkara Bhāṣyaṁ. It is also available; those who would like to verify
whether I am quoting or reading properly  (I am just joking, you have got
śraddha in me), you can have that book for reference also. Otherwise just keep
the mūlam only, mūlam I am arranging. Bhāṣyaṁ you have to procure on your
own. So this is what I wanted to say as a preparatory instruction. From next
class onwards, I will start my introduction and thereafter we will go to the text.
And for the successful completion, we will pray to the Lord and to the entire
guru paraṁpara.
ॐ पूर्यमदः पूर्यममदम् पूर्ायत्पूर्म

य ुदच्र्ते पूर्यस्र् पूर्यमादार् पूर्म
य ेवावशि्र्ते ॥ ॐ िा्न्तः िा्न्तः िा्न्तः ॥ रिः रः ॐ.॥

002 Introduction II.
ॐ सदाशिव समारम्भाम् िङ् कराचार्य मध्र्माम् अस्मदाचार्य पर्यन्ताम् वन्दे गुरु परम्पराम् ॥ ॐ ॥
Human goal
आहार-निद्रा-भय-मैथुिं च समािमेतत्पशुभभिनराणाम् ।
बुद्धिर् नह तेषामधिको निशेषो िमेण हीिााः पशुभभाः समािााः ॥
āhāra-nidrā-bhaya-maithunaṁ ca samānamētatpaśubhirnarāṇām |
dharmō hi tēṣāmadhikō viśēṣō dharmēṇa hīnāḥ paśubhiḥ samānāḥ ||
is a popular verse which talks about the superiority of human beings. The slōka
points out that many things are common between animal and human being
and human being basically an animal only. Those common features are āhara –
eating; nidrā sleeping; bhayaṁ sense of insecurity, maithunam, desire for the
propagation of species; all these are common to animals and human beings.
Samānamētat paśubhir narāṇām. If everything is common, why do we say
humans are the roof and crown of creation? It is because of buddhir hi
tēṣāmadhikō viśēṣaḥ, the buddhi, the evolved-intellect, or intelligence is
tēṣāmadhikō viśēṣaḥ, or the power of reasoning is the extra faculty because of
which the human being is different from all the other animals and therefore
buddhyā-vihīnāḥ paśubhiḥ-samānāḥ. If you take thinking faculty, the buddhi,
from human being, the human being is as good as an animal only. So buddhi is
the unique feature. And because of the buddhi, the intellect, the human being is
able to judge, reason out and come to conclusions regarding various things of
the creation. As be gathers experiences, as he interacts with the world, based
on his experiences and interaction, he is able to reason out and form
judgments regarding the world judgments regarding himself, judgments
regarding the laws. And not only he is able to judge and form opinions on
things, he is able to have clear-cut goals in his life, which is not there in the case
of animals. They lead an instinctive life and do not have a planned goal or a set
of goals. Because of the intellect, human being is able to form opinion and he is
able to have goals and human being able to work for achievement of that goals.
Thus every human being is a thinker with clear set of ideas. Every human being
is a thinker, whatever be his level of thinking, he is a thinker with a clear set of

ideas, clear set of goals and a vision to achieve that. But there are some human
beings, who dedicate their lives for the study of human life and for the study of
human goals and for the accomplishment of that goal. They seriously think and
seriously study. An ordinary human being is a casual thinker and he forms
opinions casually but a serious thinker consistently studies, analyses and forms
set of conclusions. And such serious thinkers will have to necessary study some
of the important things in life.
And we say six topics are important which are connected with human being o
human thinking. Every serious thinker will have to analyse these topics and
form a clear view, judgment or conclusion. What are the six topics?
 The first-one is jīvaḥ; who is or what is a living being. Everybody should form
an opinion regarding jīvaḥ.
 The second topic with regard to which a serious think should have to form
an idea is the jagat or the world. What is this world?
 And the third topic is Īśvaraḥ, the cause or the source of these two, of all the
jīvās and the entire universe; that cause is Īśvaraḥ. This is the third topic.
 The fourth topic is bandaḥ, why the human suffering; why humans have
bondage; why there are problems. You may call it misery, you may call it
bondage, you may call it saṁsāra. Every thinker will have to discuss that
consistently and form an opinion. And naturally, once the banda topic has
come.
 the fifth-topic is mōkṣaḥ or muktiḥ; or freedom from bondage. You may call
it liberation; you may call it salvation; you may use different technical terms,
but freedom from bondage is the topic and
 the six and final topic is the sādhanaṁ or the means by which a person goes
from bondage to the liberation. Like a bridge; sētuḥ, or a bridge between
banda and mōkṣa so that a person who is on the shore of banda while
trekking the bridge can come to mōkṣa shore.
Thus jīvaḥ; jagat, Īśvara, banda, mōkṣa and sādhanāni these six topics will have
to be discussed by all serious thinker. And then a thinker seriously discusses
these topics and comes to a systematic conclusion. Not one conclusion today,

another tomorrow; unlike some believers of God. In Maharashtra, a political

leader, who had faith in a God and believed that his wife should not die. And
when his dear wife died and he became so frustrated and he decided to
become an atheist; temporarily perhaps. So this is a capricious philosophy, a
whimsical view, we are not talking about that casual thinker, but a serious
thinker who has consistently thought of all these topics and formed a
conclusion. And such a thinker who forms such a philosophy is called
dārśanikaḥ and the philosophy is called darśanaṁ. A consistent view or
teaching regarding these six topics is called darśanaṁ and the one who founds
such a philosophy is called dārśanikaḥ and because of his consistency, there will
be naturally be people who become followers. At least in India, anyone start
anything, there are followers. Anybody starts anything and there are certain set
of people to follow him. And there are some regulars who will go to everything
also. I am not saying right or wrong. I am talking about the practice or
phenomenon. Therefore a dārśanika becomes a propagator of his philosophy.
Through his books and through his disciples, and in due course, it gets a huge
following with books and commentaries and various other treatise, etc. These
are called darśanās and the founders are called ācāryas or dārśanikaḥ. And in
our Indian tradition, we talk about twelve famous or well-known philosophies.
Or twelve such darśanaṁs. And of those twelve systems six are called nāstika
darśanāni; and six are called āstika-darśanāni. What is the difference between
them. Nāstika darśanaṁs are those systems, which do not accept vēda-
pramāṇam. Therefore, their philosophies are based on pratyakśam and
anumānam, perception, inference and reasoning. There are six nāstika
darśanās. Nāstika means vēda-pramāṇam nāsti iti yaḥ vadati saḥ nāstikaḥ. Then
naturally you can understand what is āstika darśanaṁ. Āstika darśanas are
those which accept Vēda as valid source of knowledge. Reliable source of
knowledge. Therefore vēda pramāṇam asti iti yaḥ vadati saḥ āstikaḥ. Thus there
are six āstika darśanas also.
Now I will give you a brief background of all these twelve darśanaṁs. First we
will take up the six nāstika darśanas. The first one is called caruvāka darśanaṁ.
Caruvāka darśanaṁ

First is called Carūvaka darśanam or materialism. The source of this philosophy

is Brihaspati himself, the Dēva guru. The purpose of this philosophy is to
mislead asūras. He did not accept this philosophy; but released this philosophy
to destroy the asūras, so that the asūras will follow this materialistic philosophy;
they will not accept Vēdas and they can be destroyed. Therefore Brihaspati is
supposed to be the founder of this philosophy and his prathama śiṣya is
supposed to be Caruvākaḥ who popularised this materialistic philosophy, which
does not accept Vēdas, which does not accept punar janma, which does not
accept heaven or hell, which does not accept dharma, which accepts only sense
pleasures as the ultimate goal and which does not accept the ātma also. The
body alone is the be-all and end-all. This is the materialistic philosophy; the
modern science is close to this philosophy. They do not accept ātma; for
modern science, Consciousness is temporary product of matter. This is the
approach of Carūvāka and he got this name because his speech is so sweet and
convincing.
यािज्जीिेत् सुखं जीिे रिणं कृत्िा िृतं नपबेत् ।

भस्मीभूतस्य दे हस्य पुिरागमिं कुताः ॥ सिनदशनिसंग्रह, चािानकदशनिम् ७ ॥
yāvajjīvēt sukhaṁ jīvēd rṇaṁ krtvā ghrtaṁ pibēt |
bhasmībhūtasya dēhasya punarāgamanaṁ kutaḥ || sarvadarśanasaṁgraha,
cārvākadarśanam 7 ||
Yavad jïvē, sukham jīvē. Enjoy life Riṇam kṛtva, gritam phibēt; is his motto. Enjoy
even by borrowing money from other. Should you not return it. That is other
persons’ problem. It is not my problem. If he is capable, let him take away from
me. I would not bother about returning. Will you not incur pāpam and go to
naraka by this cheating? Who knows or where is the question of return of the
body. What about sūkṣma-śarīraḥ? Who has seen sūksma-śarīram? Who has
seen kāraṇa-śarīram, who has seen ātma? Therefore there is no sūksma
śarīram, there is no kāraṇa-śarīram, there is no ātma. But the scriptures talk
about sūksma śarīram; I do not believe in scriptures. In fact, he does not accept
even inference as pramāṇam; for him there is only one source, that is
pratyakśam; kēvala pratyakśam; pratyakśam-mātra pramāṇa vādhi. This is
carūvāka darśanaṁ; cāru means beautiful, vāk means speech. It consists of
beautiful speech very very nice to hear. This is materialistic philosophy. The

founder is Brihaspathi. This cāruvāka darśana is not discussed in Brahma sūtra,

because it is supposed to be so uncivilised; and so prākṛtam and so wild that it
is not considered in Brahma Sūtra at all, whereas the other 11 darśanās are
discussed in Brahma Sūtra and criticized. Or other 10 darśanās are analyzed
and criticized in Brahma Sūtra. This is the cāruvāka darśana.
Jaina darśanaṁ
The next one is Jaina darṣana. The Jaina philosophy is supposed to be given by
24 acāryās called tirthānkara. Beginning with Riśab ācārya ending with
Vardhamāna Mahāvīra. These 24 tirthānkaras are supposed to be the beginners
of this system of philosophy. Vardhamāna Mahāvīra had another name called
Jinah and jināḥ means one who has conquered himself. He has conquered his
sense organs, mind etc. Jayati iti jināḥ. the one who has conquered himself, i.e.,
that means he had śama, dama, etc. Conquered his sense organs, and
conquered his mind, passion, anger, etc. Therefore self-conqueror is the
meaning of jinaḥ and this jinaḥ alone is responsible for the wide popularity of
his teaching and therefore it got the name Jaina matham or Jainism. I am not
talking about their teaching, because in the course of Brahma Sūtra, Vyāsācārya
will discuss the essential teaching of this system as and when the topic comes in
Brahma sutra.
Bauddha darśanaṁ
The next one is Bauddha darśanaḥ. And as the very name shows, the basic
founder of this darśanaṁ is Bhuddaḥ, the well known Prince Siddārtha, and
who later became Bhuddaḥ, the enlightened one. Buddha did not teach any
systematic philosophy but only through various dialogues he had given some
stray statements. There was no systematic philosophy given out by him, having
disciples, but he gave stray-statements who approached him therefore
Buddhism was not a well-developed system initially. Thereafter many people
started following Bhuddha, even some of the kings like Ashoka also followers of
Bhuddha and they wanted to collect the teaching the Buddha and therefore
they called a big seminar of all bhuddistic monks of those days and they
collected the ideas and brought out 3 books called Tripitakams. Three means

three and pitakam means basket. The three pitakams or Sūtra pitakam or
abhidharma pitakam and Vinaya pitakam. But in Pāli language, they are called
Abhidamma pitakam, Sūtta-pitakam and Vinaya pitakam. These are three the
basic books. The Sūtra Pitakam deals with statement of Bhuddha, in a simple
Sūtra form, in a simple sentence form; the second one Abhidamma-pitakam
deals with the philosophy, which is based on the statements of Bhuddha. So the
first one deals with the statements of the master, second one deals with the
philosophy and the third one deals with the Code of conduct or the Code of
disciple, Ācārya, for the monks, for the followers of the Buddhism, what should
be the lifestyle. Thus three books came on Buddhism and later many scholars
started analyzing and commenting upon their own books and started having
difference of opinion, and one Buddhism gave birth to four branches of
Buddhism. One basic Buddhism gave birth of four branches of Buddhism.
 Of that the first one is called Soutrantika Buddhism; because this is based on
the Sūtra book called Supta p takam; and since the philosophy is based on
the sutranta, that is the contents of Supta pitakam, it got the name
Sautrantika.
 Then the second branch is called Vaibhāsika. This is based on a commentary
on abhidamma-Pitakam; this is based on a commentary upon Abhidhamma -
pitakam, which commentary is called Vibhāsa and since it is Vibhāsa
commentary based, it got the name Vaibhāṣikam.
 Third one is called Yōgācāra-Buddhism. It got this name because it is
supposed to give emphasis to yōga, the practice of yōga and also the
practice of ācāraḥ.
 The fourth branch of Buddhism is called Mādhyamika Buddhism, because
they claim to follow the true teachings of Buddha, which is the golden
middle path. Madhyama mārgaḥ, that the moderation, avoidance of all
extremes; the middle path; as we say in Gīta,
युक्त-आहार-निहारस्य युक्त-चेष्टस्य कमनसु । ॥ ६-१७ ॥

yukta-āhāra-vihārasya yukta-cēṣṭasya karmasu | || 6-17 ||
Since they follow the madhyama, they are called Mādhyamika. Thus
Soutrantika, Vaibhāsika, Yōgācāra and Mādhyamika; four branches of

Buddhism. I am not going to deal with their teachings now, because in Brahma
Sūtra, all of them are analyzed and criticized by Vyāsa.
I just wanted to give the background. Thus totally we have got totally six nāstika
darśanaṁs; caruvāka, Jaina darśana, four Bauddha darśanāni; 1+ 1+ 4; even
though we say six, four out of it is Buddhism, one Jainism and one caruvāka
darśanaṁ. And in the Jaina system also there are two groups, Svetāmbara-Jaina,
the white robed one, and Digaṁbara-Jaina, the space-robed one; space is there
dress means what? They do not wear anything. Even though they are two
groups, their philosophy is one. The difference is only in some external
practices. Therefore while analyzing philosophy, we have got only one
philosophy and that is why one Jaina-darśanaṁ is taken. Thus we have got six
nāstika darśanaṁs out of which five are analysed in Brahma Sūtra and criticized
and therefore their details we will be seeing there.
Six āsthika darśanas.
 The first one is the Sāìkhya darśanaṁ of Kapila muni.

 The second one is yōga darśanaṁ of Pathanjali.
 The third one is Nyāya darśanaḥ of Gautama.
 The fourth one is the Vaiśēṣika darśanaṁ of Kaṇāda. It is the name of the
founder.
 Purva–mimāmsa-darśanaṁ is the fifth one by Jaiminiḥ Rishi.
 And the final one is the Uttara mimāmsa darśanaṁ of Vyāsācārya.
These are the six āstika darśanaṁs. The common factor in all of these is that all
of them accept Vēda pramāṇam. Therefore they are called āstikas. But the
peculiar thing is that even though all of them are āstikas, accepting vēda-
pramāṇam; all of them do not accept Īśvara. Peculiarly, though they are all
āstikas, because they accept Vēda-pramāṇa, but all of them do not accept
Īśvara; three do not accept Īśvara and they are Sāṅkhya, Vaiśēṣika and Purva-
mimāmsa. Therefore if someone asks whether they are atheists or theists, what
should be our reply; with regard to acceptance of Vēdas, they are theists,
āstikas but with regard to God or Īśvara, they are atheists. Therefore they are

called āstika-nāstika. Theistic-atheism. Just all words. The idea is that all accept
Vēda pramāṇa. This is one common factor.
And the second-point to be noted is that of these six, the first four accept Vēda
pramāṇa but give more importance to tarka-pramāṇam, or reasoning.
Therefore those four systems are tarka-pradhāna, and Vēda is only
apradhānam. They give importance to tarka and when the conflict arises
between Vēda and tarka, what they do is to give importance to tarka. Therefore
the first four are tarka-pradhāna; tarka is primary and vēda is secondary. They
are supporting pramāṇa. Therefore Śankarācārya calls all of them tārkikāḥ. In
fact, not only them, all the nāstika darśanaṁs are called tārkikāḥ. Therefore
nāstika darśanaṁs are also called tārkikāḥ, because they base their philosophy
on tarka and they do not accept Vēdas; whereas the first four darśanās accept
Vēdas but still they are tārkikās only because vēda plays a secondary only;
whereas the last two darśanās, Purva mimāmsa and uttara mimāmsa are vēda
pradhāna darśanaṁs. Vēda is given primary importance, and tarka is taken for
supporting or understanding or assimilation of the vēdic-teaching. Therefore it
is vēda pradhāna, vēda is primary, and tarka is secondary. In the first four, tarka
is primary, vēda is secondary. In nāstika darśanās tarka is primary vēda is not
there. See gradually they come. The first six keep the tarka but discarded Vēdas.
The next four keep the tarka and vēda is given secondary importance, whereas
the last two have Vēdas as the primary source, and tarka as secondary
importance. These are the six āstika darśanās.
Of these, Purva-mimāmsa is based on Vēda-purva-bāgha or karma-kānḍa based

philosophy, because they say the upaniṣadic portion is less important; they give
importance to the karma-kānḍa; whereas in Uttara-mimāmsa is importance is
to vēda-anta-bāghaḥ or uttara bāghaḥ. Uttaram means antaṁ, end portion,
later portion. So uttara mimāmsa means a teaching which is based on vēda-
anta-bāghaḥ and in this the vēda-purva is not thrown away but that is
supporting the vēda-anta. And this is uttara-mimāmsa. And the one common
feature of all these darśanaṁ is all of them have been presented in Sūtra form
by their founders. All these darśanaṁs have been presented by their founders
in Sūtra form. Thus we have Sāñkya-sūtrani, yōga-sūtrani, nyāya-sūtrani,

viśēṣika-sūtrani, pūrva-mimāmsa-sūtrani, and uttara –mimāmsa-sūtrani. And all

of them are in Sūtra form. And I told you in my previous introduction itself that
Sūtra is a brief statement with a packed idea. And this uttara mimāmsa sūtrani
alone has got different names; one popular name is Brahma Sūtrani. Uttara –
mimāmsa-sūtrani is known as Brahma sūtrani because it deals with Brahman.
Another name is Vēdānta-sūtrani, because it deals with vēda-anta-bhāgaḥ.
Another name is śārīraka-sūtrani. Śārīrakam means ātma; this is popular among
Sanskrit commentators. In Sanskrit commentary they mainly use that word.
That is why that Sarvajñatma Muni who wrote condensed version of Brahma
Sūtra named it as Sankṣēpaka śārīrakam. There the very word is śārīrakam
because it is the condensed form of śārīraka-Sūtrani. And another name is
Vyāsa-Sūtrani or Bādarāyaṇa-Sūtrani; because Vyāsa’s another name is
Bādarāyaṇa. Of these we are going to see Brahma Sūtrani.
And as I said Sūtra is very a brief statement with packed ideas, even the
sentence will not be grammatically complete and therefore we have to
complete the sentence and we have to take out or extract all the ideas;
therefore if you read the simple translations you will not be able to get head or
tail. And therefore as I said in the last class, many commentaries came
explaining the Brahma Sūtra; these commentaries are called Brahma Sūtra
Bhāṣyams. And many people write commentaries on these Brahma Sūtraṁ and
here also a problem came. What is that? The statements are brief and when it is
a brief statement, there are chances of ambiguity or doubt regarding the
intention of the author. And especially when the author is not around. (if he
were around, we could have caught his collar and checked with him, what are
you saying? ) When the local constitution which has been formed forty years
before are sixty years before, that itself what you call, subject to so many
interpretation, article 370 ~ how many days? If what happened just a few years
before can create controversy in its interpretation, imagine the Brahma Sūtrani
which was written ten and thousands of years before. And these sūtras are
based on the Upaniṣads or Vēda but when you read śārīrakam Vēda itself
people get doubts regarding the understanding of the vēda. Because vēda talks
about dvaitam; advaitam and therefore whether you study the sūtras or
whether you study the Vēda itself, there can be problems in perception and
therefore for Brahma Sūtra itself different bhāṣyaṃs have come presenting
different types of teaching. They call is schools of philosophy. These Brahma
Sūtra itself have given rise to 10 systems /schools of interpretation. All of them
base their teaching on the Brahma Sūtra and the Vēda anta but when they
come out with a philosophy or approach is totally different and thus several
bhāṣyaṃs are there giving birth to different approaches. Of these several
interpretations three of them are very popular (even though more are there).
 One is the advaitam, nirviṣēṣa-advaitam as revealed by Śankarācārya’s

bhāṣyaṁ; nirviṣēṣādvaitam. Advaitam Brahma without any attribute.
 And popular one is viśiṣtādvaitam; it is based on the interpretation of
Rāmānujācārya; and his commentary on Brahma Sūtras is called Sri
Bhāṣyaṃ; and
 the third one is dvaitam which is based on the commentary by Sri
Madhvacārya; which is called Anubhāṣyaṃ.
And nirviṣēṣādvaitam through (there is no name) it is only Śankarācārya’s

bhāṣyaṃ; saririka mimāmsa bhāṣyaṃ. Of these our learning of the Brahma
Sūtras is going to be based on Śañkara’s bhāṣyaṃ and for that Śañkara’s
bhāṣyaṃ itself many commentaries, sub-commentaries, sub-sub-commentaries
literature is so vast and the literature is so vast for Sri Bhāṣyaṃ itself; and also
for Anubhāṣyaṃ itself; branches and branches. Thus our philosophical
literature is so vast that it is oceanic and we would not be able to complete even
one system and therefore we are going to learn Brahma Sūtra based on
Śañkara’s bhāṣyaṃ.
This is our approach and before learning the Bhāṣyaṃ we have got a ritualistic
method of learning, which is adopted in the tradition. When they study
bhāṣyaṃ and especially when they study Brahma Sūtra bhāṣyaṃ they have got
a ritualistic method and I just want you to be aware of that. For next one class,
we will adopt that method; In that method, we will chant the 10 śānti paṭās,
daśa śānti mantras; and we will chant the Daksinamurthy slōkās and two
namaskārams for each slōka; half Daksinamurthy slōkās is chanted in the
beginning, at the end the other half of Dakṣiṇāmurthy slōka is chanted and for

these slōkās namaskāra is done. Therefore one class for sample, we will adopt
that method, and thereafterwards we will go to our regular method of sahana
bhavatu. So daśa śānti Mantras are popular. which gives those śānti mantras
you can take that and next class I will do that and give the meaning of the śānti
mantras also, and thereafter we will be go further.
ॐ पूर्यमदः पूर्यममदम् पूर्ायत्पूर्यमुदच्र्ते पूर्यस्र् पूर्यमादार् पूर्यमेवावशि्र्ते ॥ ॐ िा्न्तः िा्न्तः िा्न्तः ॥ रिः रः
ॐ.॥

003 Daśa śānti mantras
Today we will see the daśa śānti mantras which are traditionally chanted before
the study of any bhāṣyaṃ, especially Brahma Sūtra bhāṣyaṁ. Of these 10 śānti
mantras, 9 of them we will chant together, because you are familiar with those
mantras. And thereafter, I will chant and you can repeat after me. You must be
having the Daśa śānti mantra book with you; we will chant together.
ॐ शं िो धमत्राः शं िरुणाः । शं िो भित्ियनमा । शं ि इन्द्द्रो बृहस्पनताः । शं िो निष्णुरुरुक्रमाः । िमो ब्रह्मणे िमस्ते िायो ।
त्िमेि प्रत्यक्षं ब्रह्मासस । त्िमेि प्रत्यक्षं ब्रह्म िददष्याधम । ऋतं िददष्याधम सत्यं िददष्याधम । तन्द्मामितु तद्वक्तारमितु ।
अितु मामितु िक्तारम् ॥ ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् ॥'
ōm̐ śaṁ nō mitraḥ śaṁ varuṇaḥ | śaṁ nō bhavatvaryamā | śaṁ na indrō br̥ haspatiḥ |
śaṁ nō viṣṇururukramaḥ | namō brahmaṇē namastē vāyō | tvamēva pratyakṣaṁ brahmāsi
| tvamēva pratyakṣaṁ brahma vadiṣyāmi | r̥ taṁ vadiṣyāmi satyaṁ vadiṣyāmi |
tanmāmavatu tadvaktāramavatu | avatu māmavatu vaktāram || ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ
|| taittirīyōpaniṣat ||
ॐ सह िािितु । सह िौ भुिक्तु । सह िीयं करिािहै । तेजस्स्ि िाििीतमस्तु । मा निनद्वषािहै ॥ ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः

शानन्द्ताः ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् ॥
ōm̐ saha nāvavatu | saha nau bhunaktu | saha vīryaṁ karavāvahai | tējasvi
nāvadhītamastu | mā vidviṣāvahai || ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || taittirīyōpaniṣat ||
ॐ यश्छन्द्दसामृषभो निश्वरूपाः । छन्द्दोभ्योऽध्यमृतात्सम्बभूि । स मेन्द्द्रो मेिया स्पृणोतु । अमृतस्य दे ि िारणो भूयासम् ।

शरीरं मे निचषनणम् । द्धजह्वा मे मिुमिमा । कणानभ्यां भूररनिश्रुिम् । ब्रह्मणाः कोशोऽसस मेिया नपनहताः । श्रुतं मे गोपाय ॥
ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् ॥
ōm̐ yaśchandasāmrṣabhō viśvarūpaḥ | chandōbhyō:'dhyamrtātsambabhūva | sa mēndrō
mēdhayā sprṇōtu | amrtasya dēva dhāraṇō bhūyāsam | śarīraṁ mē vicarṣaṇam | jihvā mē
madhumattamā | karṇābhyāṁ bhūriviśruvam | brahmaṇaḥ kōśō:'si mēdhayā pihitaḥ |
śrutaṁ mē gōpāya || ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || taittirīyōpaniṣat ||
ॐ अहं िृक्षस्य रेररिा । कीरतताः पृष्ठं नगरेररि । ऊध्िनपनित्रो िाद्धजिीि स्िमृतमस्स्म । द्रनिणँ सिचनसम् । सुमेिा अमृतोभक्षताः ।
इनत नत्रशङ् कोिेदािुिचिम् ॥ ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् १-१०-१ ॥
ōm̐ ahaṁ vrkṣasya rērivā | kīrtiḥ prṣṭhaṁ girēriva | ūrdhvapavitrō vājinīva svamrtamasmi |
draviṇam̐ savarcasam | sumēdhā amrtōkṣitaḥ | iti triśaṅkōrvēdānuvacanam || ōm̐ śāntiḥ
śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || taittirīyōpaniṣat 1-10-1
Daśa śānti mantras www.arshaavinash.in Page 22

ॐ पूणनमदाः पूणनधमदम् पूणानत्पूणम

न ुदच्यते । पूणनस्य पूणनमादाय पूणम
न ेिािसशष्यते ॥ ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥
बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ॥
ōm̐ pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidam pūrṇātpūrṇamudacyatē | pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya
pūrṇamēvāvaśiṣyatē || ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat ||
ॐ आप्यायन्द्तु ममाङ्गानि िाक्प्प्राणश्चक्षुाः श्रोत्रमथो बलधमद्धन्द्द्रयाभण च । सिानभण सिं ब्रह्मोपनिषदं माहं ब्रह्म निराकुयां मा मा
ब्रह्म निराकरोदनिराकरणमस्त्िनिराकरणं मेऽस्तु । तदात्मनि निरते य उपनिषत्सु िमानस्ते मधय सन्द्तु ते मधय सन्द्तु ॥ ॐ
शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ केि, छान्द्दोग्योपनिषत् ॥
ōm̐ āpyāyantu mamāṅgāni vākprāṇaścakṣuḥ śrōtramathō balamindriyāṇi ca | sarvāṇi
sarvaṁ brahmōpaniṣadaṁ māhaṁ brahma nirākuryāṁ mā mā brahma
nirākarōdanirākaraṇamastvanirākaraṇaṁ mē:'stu | tadātmani niratē ya upaniṣatsu
dharmāstē mayi santu tē mayi santu || ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || kēna, chāndōgyōpaniṣat
||
ॐ िाङ्मे मिसस प्रनतधष्ठता । मिो मे िासच प्रनतधष्ठतम् । आनिरानिमन एधि । िेदस्य म आणीस्थाः । श्रुतं मे मा प्रहासीाः ।
अिेिािीतेिाहोरात्राि् संदिाधम । ऋतं िददष्याधम सत्यं िददष्याधम । तन्द्मामितु तद्वक्तारमितु । अितु माम् । अितु
िक्तारमितु िक्तारम् ॥ ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ ऐतरेयोपनिषत् ॥
ōm̐ vāṅmē manasi pratiṣṭhitā | manō mē vāci pratiṣṭhitam | āvirāvirma ēdhi | vēdasya ma
āṇīsthaḥ | śrutaṁ mē mā prahāsīḥ | anēnādhītēnāhōrātrān saṁdadhāmi | rtaṁ vadiṣyāmi
satyaṁ vadiṣyāmi | tanmāmavatu tadvaktāramavatu | avatu mām | avatu vaktāramavatu
vaktāram || ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || aitarēyōpaniṣat ||
ॐ भद्रं िो अनप िातय मिाः । ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ ऋग्िेद १०-२५-१ ॥

ōm̐ bhadraṁ nō api vātaya manaḥ | ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || rgvēda 10-25-1 ||
ॐ भद्रं कणेभभाः श्रुणुयाम दे िााः । भद्रं पश्येमाक्षभभयनजत्रााः । स्थस्थरैरङ्गै स्तुष्टुिांसस्तिूभभाः । व्यशेम दे िनहतं यदायुाः ॥ स्िस्स्त ि
इन्द्द्रो िृिश्रिााः । स्िस्स्त िाः पूषा निश्विेदााः । स्िस्स्त िस्तार्क्ष्यो अररष्टिेधमाः । स्िस्स्त िो बृहस्पनतदन िातु । ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः
शानन्द्ताः ॥ प्रश्न, मुण्डक, माण्डू क्प्योपनिषत् ॥
ōm̐ bhadraṁ karṇēbhiḥ śruṇuyāma dēvāḥ | bhadraṁ paśyēmākṣabhiryajatrāḥ |
sthirairaṅgaistuṣṭuvāṁsastanūbhiḥ | vyaśēma dēvahitaṁ yadāyuḥ || svasti na indrō
vrddhaśravāḥ | svasti naḥ pūṣā viśvavēdāḥ | svasti nastārkṣyō ariṣṭanēmiḥ | svasti nō
brhaspatirdadhātu | ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || praśna, muṇḍaka, māṇḍūkyōpaniṣat ||
यो ब्रह्माणं निदिानत पूिं यो िै िेदांश्च प्रनहणोनत तस्मै । तँ ह दे िमात्मबुद्धिप्रकाशं मुमुक्षुिै शरणमहं प्रपद्ये । ॐ शानन्द्ताः
शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषत् ६-१८ ॥
yō brahmāṇaṁ vidadhāti pūrvaṁ yō vai vēdāṁśca prahiṇōti tasmai | tam̐ ha
dēvamātmabuddhiprakāśaṁ mumukṣurvai śaraṇamahaṁ prapadyē | ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ
śāntiḥ || śvētāśvatarōpaniṣat 6-18 ||
ॐ िमो ब्रह्माददभ्यो ब्रह्मनिद्यासम्प्रदायकतृनभ्यो िंशरषतभ्यो महद्भ्यो िमो गुरुभ्याः । सिोपप्लिरनहताः प्रज्ञािघिाः प्रत्यगथो
ब्रह्मैिाहमस्स्म ॥ सम्प्रदाय परम्परा श्लोकानि ॥

ōm̐ namō brahmādibhyō brahmavidyāsampradāyakartrbhyō vaṁśarṣibhyō mahadbhyō

namō gurubhyaḥ | sarvōpaplavarahitaḥ prajñānaghanaḥ pratyagarthō brahmaivāhamasmi ||
sampradāya paramparā ślōkāni ||
Now we will chant the first five slōkās of the Dakṣīṇāmūrti sthōthram.
निश्वं दपनणदृश्यमाििगरी
तुल्यं निजान्द्तगनतम्,
पश्यन्नात्मनि मायया
बनहररिोद्भूतं यदा निद्रया ।
याः साक्षात्कुरुते प्रबोिसमये
स्िात्मािमेिाद्वयम्,
तस्मै श्रीगुरुमूतनये िम
इदं श्रीदभक्षणामूतनये ॥ १ ॥
viśvaṁ darpaṇadrśyamānanagarī
tulyaṁ nijāntargatam,
paśyannātmani māyayā
bahirivōdbhūtaṁ yadā nidrayā |
yaḥ sākṣātkurutē prabōdhasamayē
svātmānamēvādvayam,
tasmai śrīgurumūrtayē nama
idaṁ śrīdakṣiṇāmūrtayē || 1 ||
बीजस्यान्द्तररिान्द्कुरो जगदददं
प्राङनिरितकल्पं पुि-
मानयाकस्थल्पतदे शकालकलिा
िैसचत्र्यसचत्रीकृतम्।
मायािीि निजॄम्भयत्यनप
महायोगोि याः स्िेच्छया
तस्मै श्रीगुरुमूतयर्े नम
इदं श्रीदक्षिर्ामूतयर्े ॥२॥
bījasyāntarivānkurō jagadidaṁ
prāṅanirvikalpaṁ puna-
rmāyākalpitadēśakālakalanā
vaicitryacitrīkrtam|
māyāvīva vijrmbhayatyapi
mahāyōgōva yaḥ svēcchayā
idaṁ śrīdakṣiṇāmūrtayē ||2||
यस्यैि स्फुरणं सदात्मकम

सत्क ल्पा थनकं भासते
साक्षाित्त्िमसीनत िेदिचसा

यो बोियत्याभश्रताि्।
यत्साक्षात्करणाद्भिेन्न
पुिरािृभिभनिाम्भोनििौ
इदं श्रीदभक्षणामूतनये ॥३॥
yasyaiva sphuraṇaṁ sadātmakama

satka lpā rthakaṁ bhāsatē
sākṣāttattvamasīti vēdavacasā
yō bōdhayatyāśritān|
yatsākṣātkaraṇādbhavēnna
punarāvrttirbhavāmbhōnidhau
िािास्थच्छद्रघटोदरस्स्तथ-
महादीपप्रभाभास्िरं
ज्ञािं यस्य तु चक्षुरादद
करणद्वारा बनहाः स्पन्द्दते।
जािामीनत तमेि भांतमिु-
भात्येतत्समस्तं जगत्
इदं श्रीदभक्षणामूतनये ॥४॥
nānācchidraghaṭōdarastitha-
mahādīpaprabhābhāsvaraṁ
jñānaṁ yasya tu cakṣurādi
karaṇadvārā bahiḥ spandatē|
jānāmīti tamēva bhāṁtamanu-
bhātyētatsamastaṁ jagat
दे हं प्राणमपीद्धन्द्द्रयाण्यनप
चलां बुद्ित च शून्द्यं निदाः
स्त्रीबालांिजड़ोपमास्त्िह-
धमनत भ्रान्द्ता भृशं िाददिाः।
मायाशसक्तनिलासकस्थल्पत
महाव्यामोहसंहाररण॓
इदं श्रीदभक्षणामूतनये ॥५॥
dēhaṁ prāṇamapīndriyāṇyapi

calāṁ buddhiṁ ca śūnyaṁ viduḥ

strībālāṁdhajaṛōpamāstvaha-
miti bhrāntā bhrśaṁ vādinaḥ|
māyāśaktivilāsakalpita
mahāvyāmōhasaṁhāriṇa
Now the following सम्प्रदार् परम्परा श्लोकानन (sampradāya paramparā ślōkāni) prayers
you can chant after me.
िारायणं पद्मभुिं िससष्ठं

शक्क्तत च तत्पत्र पराशरं च
व्यासं शुकं गौडपदं महान्द्तं
गोनिन्द्द योगीन्द्द्रमथास्य सशष्यं ।
श्री शङ् कराचायनमथास्य पद्मपादं
च हस्तामलकं च सशष्यं
तं तोटकं िारततककारमन्द्याि्
अस्मद्गुरून्द्सन्द्ततमाितोस्स्म ॥
nārāyaṇaṁ padmabhuvaṁ vasiṣṭhaṁ
śaktiṁ ca tatpatra parāśaraṁ ca
vyāsaṁ śukaṁ gauḍapadaṁ mahāntaṁ
gōvinda yōgīndramathāsya śiṣyaṁ |
śrī śaṅkarācāryamathāsya padmapādaṁ
ca hastāmalakaṁ ca śiṣyaṁ
taṁ tōṭakaṁ vārtikakāramanyān
asmadgurūnsantatamānatōsmi ||
सदासशि समारम्भां शङ् कराचायन मध्यमां ।

अस्मदाचायन पयनन्द्तां िन्द्दे गरुपरम्पराम् ॥
sadāśiva samārambhāṁ śaṅkarācārya madhyamāṁ |
asmadācārya paryantāṁ vandē garuparamparām ||
श्रुनत स्रुनत पुराणािाम् आलयम् करुणालयम् I

िमाधम भगित्पाद शङ् करम् लोकशङ् करम् I I
śruti smruti purāṇānām ālayam karuṇālayam I
namāmi bhagavatpāda śaṅkaram lōkaśaṅkaram II
शन्द्करं शन्द्काराचायनम् कॆशिं बादरायणम् ।

सूत्र भाष्य कृतौ िन्द्दे भगिन्द्तौ पुिाः पुिाः ।
śaṅkaraṃ śaṅkarācāryaṃ keśavaṃ bādarāyaṇam.
sutra bhāśya kṛtau vande bhagavantau punaḥ punaḥ.
ईशरो गुरुरामेनत मूरततबि

े निभानगिे ।

व्योमिद् व्यप्त दे हाय दक्षीणामूतय

न े िमाः
īśarō gururāmēti mūrtibēdhavibhāginē |
vyōmavad vyapta dēhāya dakṣīṇāmūrtayē namaḥ
अशुभानि निराचष्टे तिोतु शुभसन्द्तनतम् ।

स्मृनतमात्रेण यत्पुम्सां ब्रह्मतन्द्मन्द्गलं परम् ।।
aśubhāni nirācaṣṭē tanōtu śubhasantatim |
smrtimātrēṇa yatpumsāṁ brahmatanmangalaṁ param ||
अनतकल्याण रूपत्िात् नित्यकल्याण संस्रयात् ।

मतृनणां िरदत्िात् च ब्रह्मतन्द्मन्द्गलं नििुाः ॥
atikalyāṇa rūpatvāt nityakalyāṇa saṁsrayāt |
martrṇāṁ varadatvāt ca brahmatanmangalaṁ vidhuḥ ||
ॐकारश्चाथ शब्दश्च द्वािेतौ ब्रह्मणाः पुरा ।

कंठं भभत्िा निनियानतौ तस्मात् माङ् गसलकािुभौ ॥
ōm̐kāraścātha śabdaśca dvāvētau brahmaṇaḥ purā |
kaṁṭhaṁ bhitvā viniryātau tasmāt māṅ–galikāvubhau ||
यै नह मे गुरुभभाः पूिनम् पद िाक्प्य प्रमाणताः ।

व्याक्प्यादा सिन िेदान्द्तााः ताि् नित्यं प्रणतोस्महं ॥
yai hi mē gurubhiḥ pūrvam pada vākya pramāṇataḥ |
vyākyādā sarva vēdāntāḥ tān nityaṁ praṇatōsmahaṁ ||
ॐअथ ॐअथ ॐअथ

ōm̐ atha ōm̐ atha ōm̐ atha
So this is the traditional beginning śānti pāḍā.
Now I will give you the meanings of the śānti pāḍās, that we chanted today. Of
these śānti pāḍās, most of them are taken from the 10 upaniṣads which we
have seen and therefore I do not want to give the meaning elaborately; I will
give the essence of those śānti pāḍās which we have already seen. The new
ones I will explain.
i) First śānti pāḍa is Om śanno mitra śam varunaḥ. which occurs in

Taittariya upaniṣad Ṡīkṣā-valli.
ॐ शं िो धमत्राः शं िरुणाः । शं िो भित्ियनमा । शं ि इन्द्द्रो बृहस्पनताः । शं िो निष्णुरुरुक्रमाः । िमो ब्रह्मणे िमस्ते िायो ।
त्िमेि प्रत्यक्षं ब्रह्मासस । त्िमेि प्रत्यक्षं ब्रह्म िददष्याधम । ऋतं िददष्याधम सत्यं िददष्याधम । तन्द्मामितु तद्वक्तारमितु ।
अितु मामितु िक्तारम् ॥ ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् ॥'

ōm̐ śaṁ nō mitraḥ śaṁ varuṇaḥ | śaṁ nō bhavatvaryamā | śaṁ na indrō br̥ haspatiḥ |
śaṁ nō viṣṇururukramaḥ | namō brahmaṇē namastē vāyō | tvamēva pratyakṣaṁ brahmāsi
| tvamēva pratyakṣaṁ brahma vadiṣyāmi | rtaṁ vadiṣyāmi satyaṁ vadiṣyāmi |
tanmāmavatu tadvaktāramavatu | avatu māmavatu vaktāram || ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ ||
Taittirīyōpaniṣat ||
So the essence of the following.
i) First, the students for maṅgalyaṁ or auspicious. He asks through the

śānti pāda maṅgalya prārthana.
ii) Secondly, Hiraṇyagarbha namaskāraḥ, offering of prostration to
Hiraṇyagarbha who is the who is the embodiment of all the dēvatas,
jñānēndriya dēvata, karmēndriya dēvata,
iii) and then samaṡṭi; the glorification of the hiraṇyagarbha as the very vāyu
tattvam, the prāṇa tattvam, Namastē vāyōḥ. Hiraṇyagarbha is also seen as
embodiment of all the virtues; ṛtam vadiṣyāmi; satyam vadiṣyāmi. That
Hiraṇyagarbha-stutiḥ is done.
iv) Then there is a prayer of guru-śiṣya rakṣanaṁ that protect guru śiṣya. So
May the teacher be protected and May the student be protected so that there
can be healthy communication. Guru-śiṣya rakṣanaṁ; these are the four things
which are there in the first śānti-pāta.
2) The second śānti-pāta occurs in Taittariya upaniṣad Brahmānandvalli,
second chapter.
ॐ सह िािितु । सह िौ भुिक्तु । सह िीयं करिािहै । तेजस्स्ि िाििीतमस्तु । मा निनद्वषािहै ॥ ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः

शानन्द्ताः ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् ॥
ōm̐ saha nāvavatu | saha nau bhunaktu | saha vīryaṁ karavāvahai | tējasvi
nāvadhītamastu | mā vidviṣāvahai || ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || taittirīyōpaniṣat ||
The essence of this mantra is the following:
i) First the student and the teacher prays for Guru-śiṣya rakṣanaṁ; the
protection of the teacher and the protection of the student for communication.
ii) Then there is a guru-śiṣya prayathna-prārthana; a prayer for putting forth
sufficient efforts for communication. The teacher must be able to put forth
enough effort to communicate in a way that the student can grasp and the
student should also put forward sufficient effort; it should not a passive

listening; it should be a active-participatory-involving listening. That is sufficient

effort. Vīryaṁ karavāvahai. Not only there should be effort, during the
communication of the class, before also there must be sufficient effort in the
form of homework; home work is required both for the student as well as the
teacher. If the teacher does not do homework, he cannot communicate
properly, and if the student does not do the homework, he cannot listen or
grasp fully; the more homework both of them do, the more is the amount of
grasping. If no homework is done, not that listening will not take place, but the
percentage grasped will become lesser and lesser. In good homework, on both
parts, the grasping can be almost 100%; and that is also Vīryaṁ. Oh! Lord, let us
be able to put forth sufficient effort; therefore prayatnārtham prārthana.
iii) The third part of this prārthana is guru-śiṣya sauhārdaḥ. Sauhārdaḥ
means mutual goodwill; mutual good relationship. Any communication will
work only when there is a good relationship. A good relationship on the part of
the teacher is compassion towards the student; on the part of the student,
good relationship is faith or trust in the teacher. So trust on the part of the
student, compassion on the part of the teacher will lubricate, so that the
communication is smooth; especially this mutual goodwill is required when two
people live together. This rule is applicable in a family set up and there is
constant relationship between husband-wife; parents and children, employer-
employee; wherever there is a set up; wherever there is constant interaction;
wherever efficient communication is required; sauhārdaḥ is important.
Otherwise in the family, it will end up in broken-family; in guru-śiṣya sambanda
it will end up in guru-śiṣya separation; that should not happen; mā vidviṣā
vahai. Thus guru-śiṣya rakṣanaṁ; guru-śiṣya-prayathnaḥ, guru-śiṣya-sauhārdaḥ;
these are the three things included in the second prayer.
3) Third prayer is also taken from Taittariya upaniṣad śīkṣā-valli;
ॐ यश्छन्द्दसामृषभो निश्वरूपाः । छन्द्दोभ्योऽध्यमृतात्सम्बभूि । स मेन्द्द्रो मेिया स्पृणोतु । अमृतस्य दे ि िारणो भूयासम् ।

शरीरं मे निचषनणम् । द्धजह्वा मे मिुमिमा । कणानभ्यां भूररनिश्रुिम् । ब्रह्मणाः कोशोऽसस मेिया नपनहताः । श्रुतं मे गोपाय ॥
ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् ॥
ōm̐ yaśchandasāmrṣabhō viśvarūpaḥ | chandōbhyō:'dhyamrtātsambabhūva | sa mēndrō
mēdhayā sprṇōtu | amrtasya dēva dhāraṇō bhūyāsam | śarīraṁ mē vicarṣaṇam | jihvā mē
madhumattamā | karṇābhyāṁ bhūriviśruvam | brahmaṇaḥ kōśō:'si mēdhayā pihitaḥ |
śrutaṁ mē gōpāya || ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || taittirīyōpaniṣat ||

This is a well-known prayer for development of mēdhā-śakti. And in this prayer,

the following things are asked for by the student;
i) firstly he asks for grahaṇa-śakti; let me be able to grasp the teaching.

Secondly he asks for jñānaṁ;
ii) So let me gain the jīvātma-paramātma-aikya-jñānaṁ, which is the goal.
iii) Thirdly he asks for śarira-yōgyatha. Let my śukṣma-śariram and stūla-
śariram be fit for this great pursuit; śarira-yōgyatha.
iv) Fourthly a student asks for continuous śravaṇam without obstacles; the
prayer that I should be able to attend the classes without any obstacles. So
continuous śravaṇam.
v) And finally the student asks for dhāraṇam; it is not enough that I go on
hearing; it must be retained. Śrutaṁ mē gōpāya; let me retain what is heard
from the guru. So these are the five things that are asked for through this third
mantra.
4) Then the fourth mantra is also taken from Taittariya upaniṣad śīkṣā valli.
This is another well-known japā meant for ātma-jñāna-śiddhiḥ; japā for ātma-
jñāna-śiddhiḥ; the previous one is for mēdhā śakti; memory power; this is for
jïānam.
ॐ अहं िृक्षस्य रेररिा । कीरतताः पृष्ठं नगरेररि । ऊध्िनपनित्रो िाद्धजिीि स्िमृतमस्स्म । द्रनिणँ सिचनसम् । सुमेिा अमृतोभक्षताः ।
इनत नत्रशङ् कोिेदािुिचिम् ॥ ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् १-१०-१ ॥
ōm̐ ahaṁ vrkṣasya rērivā | kīrtiḥ prṣṭhaṁ girēriva | ūrdhvapavitrō vājinīva svamrtamasmi |
draviṇam̐ savarcasam | sumēdhā amrtōkṣitaḥ | iti triśaṅkōrvēdānuvacanam || ōm̐ śāntiḥ
śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || taittirīyōpaniṣat 1-10-1
And in this we are quoting the statement of a great Brahma-jïāni. In this

mantra, we are putting within quotation, quoting the statements of a great
Brahma-jïāni, known as Triśaṅku; Triśaṅku ṛṣē vacanam and which statement
comes after gaining this knowledge.
i) And in this statement the Tṛiśaṅku ṛṣi says that I am as great as Īśvara. I
have got Īśvara-śakti. I am omni-potent as the Lord is. In fact, I enliven,
invigorate the whole creation. So Īśvara–śakti I have.
ii) Then he says Īśvara–vibhūti I have. All the glories of Īśvara are my glories.

iii) And thirdly in this mantra, Tṛiśaṅku says I have got the greatest wealth in
the world; which is Brahma-jñānam.
a. So I am as great as the Lord;
b. I am as glorious as the Lord;
c. I have got the great wealth in the world, Brahma-jñānam (in his
hand, there is not even a paisa, yet he says I am the wealthiest in the world).
And the student may not understand the implication of this statement; but even
though he does not understand, he chants it as a japā so in due course he is
also able to own up this statement. So this is the fourth śānti mantra.
5) Then the fifth śānti mantra is the well-known prayer occurring in the
Brihadāraṇyaka upaniṣad and this mantra contains the essence of the
upaniṣads; three points are highlighted here.

न ेिािसशष्यते ॥ ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥
बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ॥
ōm̐ pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidam pūrṇātpūrṇamudacyatē | pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya

pūrṇamēvāvaśiṣyatē || ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat ||
 Firstly jīvātma-paramātma-aikyam.
 Secondly it says jīvātma-paramātma have got kārya-kāraṇa saṁbandhaḥ;
jīvātma, Kāryaṁ a product; paramātma, a kāraṇam. But here one may get a
confusion, first we talk about aikyam and secondly we talk about bhēdaḥ;
kārya-kāraṇa saṁbandhaḥ when you say, saṁbandhaḥ means bhēdaḥ.
Therefore we should understand the aikyam is from the standpoint of ātma,
and the kārya-kāraṇa-saṁbandhaḥ is from the standpoint of anātma. Ātma-
dṛṣṭya,
 jīvātma-paramātmanōḥ aikyaṁ is the first point; and
 the next point is anātma dṛṣṭya jīvātma-paramātmanōḥ kārya-kāraṇa
saṁbandhaḥ.
 And thirdly and finally, and most importantly, it conveys that of these two,
ātma and anātma; ātma alone is sathyam, because if you remove ātma,
anātma cannot exist independently; therefore anātma is mithya.

So these are the three essential topics of the upaniṣads summarized in this well-known śānti
pāta.
6) Then the sixth śānti pāta is the sāma-vēda śānti-mantra occurring in

Cāndōgya upaniṣad and Kēna upaniṣad.
ॐ आप्यायन्द्तु ममाङ्गानि िाक्प्प्राणश्चक्षुाः श्रोत्रमथो बलधमद्धन्द्द्रयाभण च । सिानभण सिं ब्रह्मोपनिषदं माहं ब्रह्म निराकुयां मा मा
ब्रह्म निराकरोदनिराकरणमस्त्िनिराकरणं मेऽस्तु । तदात्मनि निरते य उपनिषत्सु िमानस्ते मधय सन्द्तु ते मधय सन्द्तु ॥ ॐ
शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ केि, छान्द्दोग्योपनिषत् ॥
ōm̐ āpyāyantu mamāṅgāni vākprāṇaścakṣuḥ śrōtramathō balamindriyāṇi ca | sarvāṇi
sarvaṁ brahmōpaniṣadaṁ māhaṁ brahma nirākuryāṁ mā mā brahma
nirākarōdanirākaraṇamastvanirākaraṇaṁ mē:'stu | tadātmani niratē ya upaniṣatsu
dharmāstē mayi santu tē mayi santu || ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || Kēna, Cāndōgyōpaniṣat
||
And through this śānti mantra, the student asks for the following blessings.
 Firstly he asks for śarira–yōgyatha (see how much importance is given to the
śarira. Even though the discussion is of ātma, they understood the
importance of śariram and therefore repeatedly they seek śarira–yōgyatha).
Fitness of śariram. When you say śariram, two meanings are there; both
stūla-śariram and śukṣma-śariram which consists of seventeen organs must
be healthy.
 Secondly, the student asks for śraddha, faith in Brahman until he
understands Brahman, because when we say Brahman cannot be known
through the sense organs; Brahman cannot be handled through the
karmēndriyas; it cannot be handled through the sense-organs; it cannot be
thought of through the mind; no pramāṇam can reveal it; and it is not
available for any transaction; initially the description of Brahman when a
student hears, he will conclude that the Brahman is non-existent. In fact
many philosophers say nirguṇaṁ-Brahma is horse-horn; many philosophers
having studied prasthāna trayam, they conclude nirguṇaṁ-Brahma is non-
existent. From that it is very clear that easily a student can negate nirguṇaṁ-
Brahma and therefore the student says nāhaṁ Brahma nirakuryāt; (even if I
do not understand now, I should continue to have faith that nirguṇaṁ-
brahma is there and is existent; so that one day I would be able to

understand; it is not that it is something I experience; but it is Myself, the

experiencer) !. Till I understand that, let me have śraddha.
 And then thirdly the student asks for Īśvara-anugrahaḥ; I should not reject
Brahman and let not therefore Brahman also not reject me. Let me not
negate Īśvara and let not Īśvara desert me. So therefore Īśvara-prasādaḥ
and
 Fourthly and finally asks for daivi-sampat; let me enjoy all the virtues
required for the assimilation of jñānam. Tadātmani niratē ya upaniṣatsu
dharmāstē mayi santu tē mayi santu. In this place, dharmaḥ means daivi-
sampat; amānitvam; adaṁbitvam; abhayam, satva samśuddhiḥ; sādhana-
catuśṭaya-saṁpattiḥ, etc.; let all these kinds of virtues may reside in me in
great measure.
These are the four things asked for from the sixth mantra. Śarira–yōgyatha;
śraddha; anugrahaḥ and daivi-sampat.
7) Then the next mantra is belonging is the Ṛg-vēda occurring in the

Aitarēya upaniṣad.
ॐ िाङ्मे मिसस प्रनतधष्ठता । मिो मे िासच प्रनतधष्ठतम् । आनिरानिमन एधि । िेदस्य म आणीस्थाः । श्रुतं मे मा प्रहासीाः ।
अिेिािीतेिाहोरात्राि् संदिाधम । ऋतं िददष्याधम सत्यं िददष्याधम । तन्द्मामितु तद्वक्तारमितु । अितु माम् । अितु
िक्तारमितु िक्तारम् ॥ ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ ऐतरेयोपनिषत् ॥
ōm̐ vāṅmē manasi pratiṣṭhitā | manō mē vāci pratiṣṭhitam | āvirāvirma ēdhi | vēdasya ma
āṇīsthaḥ | śrutaṁ mē mā prahāsīḥ | anēnādhītēnāhōrātrān saṁdadhāmi | rtaṁ vadiṣyāmi
satyaṁ vadiṣyāmi | tanmāmavatu tadvaktāramavatu | avatu mām | avatu vaktāramavatu
vaktāram || ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || aitarēyōpaniṣat ||
And through this śānti mantra, the student asks for the following blessings.
i) First he asks for ārjavam. Ārjavam is harmony of thought and words. What I
think I should utter through my mouth, and my mind should think of it only;
let there not be a split between my thought and words, in which we can
include the deed also. Therefore harmony or concordance o kāyica, vācika
mānasa personality.
ii) Then secondly, the student asks for grahaṇam; the capacity to grasp /
understand the teaching. So he is requesting the Vēda itself or the Lord to

bring the vēdic knowledge into his ears; (even if I do not go out and seek the
Vēda, let the Vēda come in search of me ! (See the depth of the
search/seeking). (Let the cassette that is played in someone elses’ house be
heard by me, even if I do not play it!). Vēdasya ma āṇīsthaḥ | Ānanaya
kartarau; āni means ānanayam; grahaṇam;
iii) Then thirdly the student asks for dhāraṇam; retention of whatever I have
heard.
iv) And fourthly the student asks for anusaraṇam; let my life be in keeping with
my learning; let me not be Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Learning Vēdānta and
doing akramaṁ. Let my life be in keeping with my understanding;
anukaraṇam.
v) And then finally guru-śiṣya rakṣanaṁ; let both the teacher and the student
be protected; blessed with good health so that this great yajña can continue.
These are the prayers in this seventh śānti mantra.
8) Then the 8th śānti mantra we have not seen before.
ॐ भद्रं िो अनप िातय मिाः । ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ ऋग्िेद १०-२५-१ ॥
ōm̐ bhadraṁ nō api vātaya manaḥ | ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || rgvēda 10-25-1 ||
It is a small mantra; it is interpreted in two ways; I will give you both the
meanings.
 Vātaya; Oh Lord gently lead. Vātaya means to gently lead holding the hand.
Gently lead or gently take; take what? Naḥ manaḥ; our mind; Oh! Lord
Gently take our minds to badraṁ; badraṁ means the auspicious things;
which is Brahman or Ātman or truth. Badraṁ here means Brahman or
Brahma-jñānam. Oh Lord! May you lead our mind to Brahman. This is one
meaning. In the first meaning; it is addressed to the Lord.
In the second meaning, they say it is addressed to our mind itself. He Manaḥ;
Oh! Mind, Vātaya; or abhivātaya naḥ; so please lead us to Brahman; naḥ here is
dvitiya vibhakthi. There is not much difference. Oh! Lord lead our mind to
Brahman!; or Oh! Mind, lead us to Brahman. Either way, the essence is that we
all should reach Brahman. This is the 8th śānti Mantra.

9) Then the ninth Mantra occurs in the Atharvaṇa Vēda; in

Mundakōpaniṣad; Prasnōpaniṣad; Māndūkya Upaniṣad.
ॐ भद्रं कर्ेक्षभः श्रुर्ुर्ाम दे वाः भद्रं पश्र्ेमािक्षभर्यजत्ाः स्थिरैरङ्गै स्तुष्टुवांसस्तनूक्षभः व्यिेम दे वनरतं र्दार्ुः ॥ स्वस्स्त
न इन्द्रो वृद्धश्रवाः स्वस्स्त नः पूषा नवश्ववेदाः स्वस्स्त नस्तार्क्ष्र्ो अिः रष्टनेममः स्वस्स्त नो बृरस्पनतदय धातु ॐ िा्न्तः
िा्न्तः िा्न्तः ॥ प्रश्न, मुण्डक, माण्डू क्र्ोपननषत् ॥
ōm̐ bhadraṁ karṇēbhiḥ śruṇuyāma dēvāḥ | bhadraṁ paśyēmākṣabhiryajatrāḥ |

sthirairaṅgaistuṣṭuvāṁsastanūbhiḥ | vyaśēma dēvahitaṁ yadāyuḥ || svasti na indrō
vrddhaśravāḥ | svasti naḥ pūṣā viśvavēdāḥ | svasti nastārkṣyō ariṣṭanēmiḥ | svasti nō
brhaspatirdadhātu | ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ || praśna, muṇḍaka, māṇḍūkyōpaniṣat ||
Through this mantra the student asks for two things;
 one is maṅgalya prārthana; auspicious; badraṁ means maṅgalam; Svasti na

Indra; Svasti na pūṣaː Svasti na Vraddasvāḥ; Svasti also means maṅgalam.
Badraṁ and Svasti both words means maṅgalam; let there be auspicious in
our lives.
Second prayer is for śarira–yōgyatha; repeatedly this will come. This is the ninth
śānti pāta.
10) Then the tenth śānti pāta occurs in the Svētaṡvathara Upaniṣad.
र्ो ब्रह्मार्ं नवदधानत पूवं र्ो वै वेदांश्च प्रनरर्ोनत तस्मै तँ र दे वमात्मबुद्धद्धप्रकािं मुमि
ु ुवै िरर्मरं प्रपद्ये ॐ िा्न्तः
िा्न्तः िा्न्तः ॥ श्वेताश्वतरोपननषत् ६-१८ ॥
yō brahmāṇaṁ vidadhāti pūrvaṁ yō vai vēdāṁśca prahiṇōti tasmai | tam̐ ha

dēvamātmabuddhiprakāśaṁ mumukṣurvai śaraṇamahaṁ prapadyē | ōm̐ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ
śāntiḥ || śvētāśvatarōpaniṣat 6-18 ||
We have not seen this mantra before. So I will give you the meaning of this
mantra. Again another beautiful mantra.
Here the student says surrendering to the Lord! śaraṇāgathi mantra; I am

surrendering to you, Lord; it is your job to rescue me from saṁsāra. What all
qualifications are needed for that, You please give. If I require a guru, You
provide. If the guru is not competent, You make the guru competent! And if I
am not competent; make me competent. All responsibility yours.
Surrendering attitude. People feel when jñāna yōga comes, there is no scope

for bhakti and surrender. What a wonderful prayer in the upaniṣads. .

Therefore remember, jñāna yōga is preceded by śaraṇāgathi; and it ends in
śaraṇāgathi only and this is indicated here. And who is that Lord; that Lord is
glorified; Yaḥ Brahmāṇam pūrvaṁ vidadāti; who creates Brahmāji himself in the
beginning of the creation. Brahma means Hiraṇyagarbhaḥ. We have seen in
Tatva Bōdha; Īśvara is samaṣṭi-kāraṇa-śariram. Hiraṇyagarbha is samaṣṭi-
sūkṣma-śariram. The samaṣṭi-śukṣma-śariram is created out of samaṣṭi-kāraṇa-
śariram. Therefore Īśvara is Hiraṇyagarbha’s father. Therefore I surrender to
that Īśvara, who has created Hiraṇyagarbha and not only that: yō vai vedāṁśca
prahiṇoti tasmai | And that Īśvara alone sends the Vēdas to Hiraṇyagarbha. So
Hiraṇyagarbh-Brahmāji is also a disciple of Īśvara, because he gets the Vēdas
from Īśvara alone. Only difference is that Brahmāji does not require this
systematic teaching; it is all telepathy; it is sent in an invisible manner. Brahmāji
grasps the whole thing; doing tapas itself he gathers this wisdom, in the form of
intuition as it were; he gathers from Īśvara. For us all, we have to come to the
class, listen, take notes, then struggle to read it what we ourselves wrote, etc.
etc. ; then it will appear that we are understanding something. Between
Brahmāji and Īśvara it is invisible connection.
गुरोस्तु मौिं व्याख्यािं सशष्यास्तुस्थच्छन्नसंशयााः ॥ श्री दभक्षणामूरतत स्तोत्रम् ॥

Gurōstu maunam vyākhyānaṁ; śiṣyāstu cinna śamśayāḥ;
that is their relationship. Taguঁṁ ha dēvaṁ; - to such a Lord who is the guru of
hiraṇyagarbha and who gave the Vēdas to Hiraṇyagarbha, such an Īśvara, māya
sahitam Brahma; I surrender. And what is the name of that Īśvara; a beautiful
title is given; ātma–buddhi-prakāśaṁ; ātma buddhiḥ means ātma-jñānam;
buddhiḥ means jñānam; prakāśaṁ means one who reveals; revealer; I
surrender to that Lord, who is the revealer of self-knowledge.
तेषां सततयुक्तािां भजतां प्रीनतपूिनकम् ।

ददाधम बुद्धियोगं तं येि मामुपयानन्द्त ते ॥ श्रीमद्भगिद्गीता १०-१० ॥
tēṣāṁ satatayuktānāṁ bhajatāṁ prītipūrvakam |

dadāmi buddhiyōgaṁ taṁ yēna māmupayānti tē || Śrīmadbhagavadgītā 10-10 ||

The same idea is conveyed here. So the student says: Oh! Lord you have
revealed to Brahmāji; do not stop with that!; you should reveal that self-
knowledge for my sake also. And why do I want self-knowledge; because
mumukṣuḥ; because I am mumukṣuḥ, the seeker of mōkṣa; therefore śaraṇam
ahaṁ prapadyē; I surrender unto you. With this the daśa śānti mantras are
over.
ध्यािश्लोकााः
dhyānaślōkāḥ
The next prayer is another popular prayer.
ॐ िमो ब्रह्माददभ्यो ब्रह्मनिद्यासम्प्रदायकतृनभ्यो िंशरषतभ्यो महद्भ्यो िमो गुरुभ्याः । सिोपप्लिरनहताः प्रज्ञािघिाः प्रत्यगथो
ब्रह्मैिाहमस्स्म ॥ सम्प्रदाय परम्परा श्लोकानि ॥
ōm̐ namō brahmādibhyō brahmavidyāsampradāyakartrbhyō vaṁśarṣibhyō mahadbhyō
namō gurubhyaḥ | sarvōpaplavarahitaḥ prajñānaghanaḥ pratyagarthō brahmaivāhamasmi ||
sampradāya paramparā ślōkāni ||
In this, the entire guru paraṁpara is worshipped; beginning from where;

Brahmādibhyaḥ; beginning from Hiraṇyagarbhaː vaṁśa rṣibhyaḥ; all the
paraṁpara rṣi; vaṁśa rṣi, when I say, you should remember! In the
Brihadāranyaka, at the end of the first Kānḍam; madhu kāndaṁ; and upāsana
Kānḍam; etc. we had seen a paraṁpara of vaṁśa brāhmaṇaḥ; all those vaṁśa
rṣis; and all of them have done what: Brahmavidyā saṁpradāya kartrbhyaḥ;
those who have perpetuated this teaching; the torchbearers; like the Olympic
torch which starts from Greece and goes through different countries and
ultimately to the Olympic ground; just like passing the torch from one to
another; so all these are the torch bearers; brahmavidyā saṁpradāya
kartrbhyaḥ; and therefore mahadbhyaḥ; we cannot compare, whether Vyāsa is
great or Viśvāmitra is great; or Śañkara is great; we cannot compare at all; each
one is incomparable; and to all those gurus, namaḥ; I do namaskāra. And
because of my association with them; either directly or indirectly through their
works; because of my association with them; I have discovered a great thing;
what is that; Brahmaivāhaṁ asmi; I am that Brahman. And what type of I; not
vācyartha-I; sarva upaplava rahitaḥ. Upaplavaḥ means dōṣaḥ; means sarva-

dōṣa-rahitaḥ; nirdōṣaṁ hi samam Brahma; nirduṣtaḥ; it means śuddham.

Prajñanāghanaḥ, which is nothing but pure consciousness; svarūpa jñānam; not
vṛtti jñānam; and which is pratyagarthaḥ, which is the inner essence, inner
reality; antarātma; and such I am identical with Brahman. This knowledge I
remember, because I got this knowledge through the blessings of these ṛīśis.
And thereafterwards, the Daksinamurthy stōtra comes; I am not going to enter

into the meaning of that stōtram; then it will become a class by itself; I have
taken this before, you can refer to. The Daksiṇāmurthy stōtraṁ contains the
essence of all the upaniṣads; and remembering the essence of the upaniṣads,
the student offers prostrations to Lord Daksiṇāmurthy.
Now some more śānti pātās are there; that we will see in the next class. Now
today we will conclude this class in the traditional manner. Once again chanting
the next five Daksiṇāmurthy slōkās and we will do namaskāra and conclude.
राहुग्रस्तददिाकरेंदसदृशो
मायासमाच्छादिात्
संमात्राः करणोपसंहरणतो
योऽभूत्सुषुप्ताः पुमाि्।
प्रागस्िाप्सधमनत प्रबोिसमये
याः प्रत्यभभज्ञायते
इदं श्रीदभक्षणामूतनये ॥६॥
rāhugrastadivākarēṁdusadrśō
māyāsamācchādanāt
saṁmātraḥ karaṇōpasaṁharaṇatō
yō:'bhūtsuṣuptaḥ pumān|
prāgasvāpsamiti prabōdhasamayē
yaḥ pratyabhijñāyatē
बाल्याददष्िनप जाग्रदाददषु
तथा सिानस्ििस्थास्िनप
व्यािृिास्ििुितनमािम-
हधमत्यन्द्ताः स्फुरन्द्तं सदा।
स्िात्मािं प्रकटीकरोनत

भजतां यो मुद्रया भद्रया

इदं श्रीदभक्षणामूतनये ॥७॥
bālyādiṣvapi jāgradādiṣu
tathā sarvāsvavasthāsvapi
vyāvrttāsvanuvartamānama-
hamityantaḥ sphurantaṁ sadā|
svātmānaṁ prakaṭīkarōti
bhajatāṁ yō mudrayā bhadrayā
निश्वं पश्यनत कायनकारण-

तया स्िस्िाधमसम्बन्धताः
सशष्याचायनतया तथैि
नपतृपुत्राद्यात्मिा भेदताः।
स्िप्ने जाग्रनत िा य
एष पुरुषो मायापररभ्राधमताः
इदं श्रीदभक्षणामूतनये ॥८॥
viśvaṁ paśyati kāryakāraṇa-
tayā svasvāmisambandhataḥ
śiṣyācāryatayā tathaiva
pitrputrādyātmanā bhēdataḥ|
svapnē jāgrati vā ya
ēṣa puruṣō māyāparibhrāmitaḥ
भूरम्भांस्यिलोऽनिलोऽम्बर-
महिानथो नहमांशुाः पुमाि्
इत्याभानत चराचरात्मकधमदं
यस्यैि मूत्यनष्टकम्।
िान्द्यत्त्कञ्चि निद्यते
निमृशतां यस्मात्परस्मानद्वभो-
स्तस्मै श्रीगुरुमूतनये िम
इदं श्रीदभक्षणामूतनये ॥९॥
bhūrambhāṁsyanalō:'nilō:'mbara-
maharnāthō himāṁśuḥ pumān
ityābhāti carācarātmakamidaṁ
yasyaiva mūrtyaṣṭakam|
nānyatkiñcana vidyatē
vimrśatāṁ yasmātparasmādvibhō-

stasmai śrīgurumūrtayē nama

सिानत्मत्िधमनत स्फुदटकृतधमदं
यस्मादमुस्ष्मि् स्तिे
तेिास्य श्रिणािदथनमि-
िाियािाच्च संकीतनिात्।
सिानत्मत्िमहानिभूनतसनहतं स्यादीश्वरत्िं स्िताः
ससद्ध्येित्पुिरष्टिा पररणतम्
चैश्वयनमव्याहतम्॥१०॥
sarvātmatvamiti sphuṭikrtamidaṁ
yasmādamuṣmin stavē
tēnāsya śravaṇāttadarthamana-
nāddhayānācca saṁkīrtanāt|
sarvātmatvamahāvibhūtisahitaṁ syādīśvaratvaṁ svataḥ
siddhyēttatpunaraṣṭadhā pariṇatam
caiśvaryamavyāhatam||10||


004 Dhyāna slōkas.
In the last class, we saw the meaning of the daśa-śānti mantras; taken from the
various parts of the vēdas, which are chanted before the study of bhāṣyam,
especially Brahma sūtra bhāṣyam; and along with the 10 śānti mantras some
prayer verses are also chanted, which we chanted in the last class; Narāyaṇaṃ
Padmabhuvam Vāsiṣtam; etc. Today I will start with the meaning of those
prayer verses. These 10 śānti mantras are uniformly given in all the books;
there is no variation. But these following prayer verses are not uniformly
chanted everywhere; in some books, certain prayers are given, in some other
books, certain different prayers are given, these prayer verses are not uniform;
but the daśa śānti mantras are uniformly given. With regard to the prayer
verses, I am going to follow the Daśa śānti mantra book which I gave you
before and in that Daśa śānti mantra book, in the last page we get these prayer
verses. So the first two verses goes together;
ॐ िारायणं पद्मभुिं िससष्ठं शक्क्तत च तत्पुत्रपराशरञ्च ।

व्यासं शुकं गौडपदं महान्द्तं गोनिन्द्दयोगीन्द्द्रमथास्य सशष्यम् ॥
श्रीशङ् कराचायनमथास्य पद्मपादं च हस्तामलकं च सशष्यम् ।
तं तोटकं िारततककारमन्द्यािस्मद्गुरून्द्सन्द्ततमाितोऽस्स्म ॥
ōm̐ nārāyaṇaṁ padmabhuvaṁ vasiṣṭhaṁ śaktiṁ ca tatputraparāśarañca |
vyāsaṁ śukaṁ gauḍapadaṁ mahāntaṁ gōvindayōgīndramathāsya śiṣyam ||
śrīśaṅkarācāryamathāsya padmapādaṁ ca hastāmalakaṁ ca śiṣyam |
taṁ tōṭakaṁ vārtikakāramanyānasmadgurūnsantatamānatō:'smi ||
Ahaṁ asmat guruṃ mānataḥ asmi. So I offer my salutations to all our gurus,
the entire guru paraṃpara, I offer my salutations; santataṃ means always. And
what is this guru paraṃpara. It starts from Nārayaṇa, or Bhagavān Viṣṇu is the
first ācārya, we saw in the śānti mantra itself; yo Brāhmaṇam vidadati pūrvaṁ
tvam yo vai vēdaṁsca prahinōti tasmai. So Viṣṇu created Brahmāji and then,
Brahmāji became not only Viṣṇu′s putra, Brahmāji became the first disciple of
Viṣṇu; and then Brahmāji taught to further ācāryās; and therefore the first
ācārya is Bhagavān Viṣṇu himself and therefore Nārayaṇaṁ, the first ācārya
and Padmabhuvaṁ; it should be Padmabhuvaṁ, it is given as Padmabhavaṁ;
Dhyāna slōkas www.arshaavinash.in Page 41

that is also OK; but the regular reading is Padmabhuvaṁ; Padmabhuvaṁ

means Brahmāji or Hiraṇyagarba; he is called Padmabhuvaṁ, because
according to purāṇa; we know that from Viṣṇu’s navel came and on that lotus
Brahmāji appeared. So since Brahmāji appeared out of lotus, he is called
Padmabhūḥ; so padmāt bhavati, saṁbhavati, utpadyatē; bhavati iti
Padmabhūḥ; and Padmabhuvaṁ means Brāhmaṇam, who is the second-
ācārya; and we should remember the second-ācārya is the disciple of the first
ācārya. It is not a linear order but guru-śiṣya order also.
And Brahmāji being a special creation, he gained knowledge not by regular

method, tad vijñānarthaṁ sā guruṁēva abhigaccēt; (going to regular classes,
long śravaṇaṁ, etc. he did not need). So by sheer meditation you are able to
grasp the teaching. So svayaṁ bhādha vēdaḥ, he is called; svayaṁ bhādha
vēdaḥ means when he was meditating itself; because of Viṣṇu’s anugrahaḥ;
vēdic wisdom arose for Brahmāji. So Viṣṇu served not as a visible guru but
Viṣṇu served as the invisible aśarīri guru. And the third ācārya is vāsiṣtam; who
is the disciple of Brahma and each one happens to be the putra as well as the
śiśya; two-in-one. Then Vāsiṣtasya śiṣyaḥ is Śaktiḥ; Śakti is the name of a ṙṣi;
who is the son of Vāsiṣta. Not only the son but also the disciple. Śakti and his
putra happens to be Parāśaraṁ ca; tat putra; so Parāśara ṙṣiḥ, is the next
ācārya and the next one is Vyāsaḥ; who happens to be again putra and śiśya of
Parāśara. That is why Vyasācārya is also called as Pārāśaryaḥ; it comes in
Bhagavad Gīta; Parāśarya vaca sarōjaṁ amalaṁ; so Vyāsa is called Pārāśaryaḥ
because he is Parāśarasya putraḥ; then Vyāsa’s śiśya and putra is Śuka mahaṙṣi.
And that is why we have got a popular verse
व्यासं िससष्ठिप्तारं शक्तेाः पौत्रमकल्मषम् ।

पराशरात्मजं िन्द्दे शुकतातं तपोनिधिम् ॥ श्रीनिष्णुसहस्रिामस्तोत्रम् ३ ॥
vyāsaṁ vasiṣṭhanaptāraṁ śaktēḥ pautramakalmaṣam |
parāśarātmajaṁ vandē śukatātaṁ tapōnidhim || śrīviṣṇusahasranāmastōtram 3 ||
Vyāsaṁ vāsiṣta napthāraṁ; Vyāsa is napthā; great grand-son; Vyāsa is the great
grandson of Vāsiṣta; Śaktēḥ Pautraṁ, grandson of Śakti; Parāśarātmajaṁ, son
of Parāśarā; and Śuka tātaṁ; father of Śuka. In this one verse we have five
generations; including Vyāsa. and Śuka; all these are given; and tasya śiśyaḥ,

Gaudapāda; hereafterwards only śiśya paraṁpara is only coming; not putraḥ

paraṁpara is not there, tasya śiśyaḥ Gaudapāda; the great author of Kārikas;
Gaudapāda Kārika on Māṇḍūkya Kārika; Gaudapāda is the same as Gaudapāda;
both are same only; both readings are correct; not a printing mistake. For metre
sake it has been made Gaudapādaṁ. And the next one is Govinda Yōgindraṁ;
Gaudapāda′s śiśya is Govinda Yōgindraṁ of Govinda Bhagavatpāda. And tasya
śiśyaṁ, Govinda Bhagavatpāda’s disciple is Sri Śaṅkarācārya. So Ādi
Śaṅkarācārya is the disciple of Govinda Bhagavatpāda. And his disciples; when
Śaṅkarācārya comes, four disciples are mentioned; who are they; Padmapāda;
Hastāmalaka, Tōdakācarya, and Vartikakāraḥ; these are the four famous
disciples of Śaṅkarācārya. We should not say that these are the four disciples of
Śaṅkarācārya; if ordinary swamis can have so many disciples; how many
disciples would have been there for Śaṅkarācārya. Many disciples should have
been there; perhaps in thousands; out of those, these are the four prominent
disciples; perhaps they taught more, or because of their Works they did,
because when an ācārya writes some vēdāntic work in the form of Works, their
names are remembered. That is why Govinda Bhagavatpāda is not that popular,
because we do not have many Works available of him; Gaudapāda is popular
because of Kārika. Similarly Vyāsa. Therefore their Works made them popular; if
the Works are not there; they are not popular; but remember they are not
inferior. Śaṅkarācārya also must have had many great disciples, but these four
are prominent and famous. That is Padmapādācārya; Hastāmalakācārya,
Tōdakācarya, and Vartikakārācārya. And for each name they give the story also;
how Padmapāda came walking across the river when Śaṅkarācārya called him
and when he walked, wherever he placed his foot, one one lotus appeared.
Because of his guru-bhakti, he did not wonder how to cross the river; he just
walked and lotus came and served as a lotus-bridge; and therefore he got the
name Padmāni Pādē yasya Padmapādācārya. And Hastāmalakācārya the one
who has the vision of Brahman as clearly as the āmalaka in the hasta. Āmalaka
means the berry; the Nellikāi is called āmalaka. And when you keep a berry on
the palm how we cannot miss at all; how clearly it is visible; similarly this ācārya
understood the teaching and therefore he got the name Hastāmalakācārya. In
Tamil also, they have this saying Ullaṁkai Nellikānipōl.

Then the third disciple called Tōdakācārya, because he wrote certain Works in a
particular metre called Tōdaka metre. So his Tōdākśṭakaṁ is a famous aśṭakaṁ
wherein he glorifies Śankarācāryaː
निददतात्खलशास्त्रसुिाजलिे
मनहतोपनिषत् कसथताथननििे ।
हृदये कलये निमलं चरणं
भि शंकर दे सशक मे शरणम् ॥ १॥
viditákhilashastrasudhájaladhe
mahitopanisatkathitárthanidhe
hrudaye kalaye vimalam charanam
bhava Shañkara deshika me sharanam.(1)
This particular tune is called Tōdaka metre; not only Śankarācārya stōtra he
wrote; he wrote another work called Śruti-sāra-samuddaraṇam; taking the
essence of the sruti, the Vēdās, about 170 verses he wrote the essence of the
Vēdānta; it is a beautiful work and that is also in the metre called Tōdaka; and
therefore he got the name Tōdakācārya. In fact at the end of that Śruti Sāra
Samuddaraṇam alone the famous bhūpādau yasya nābhiḥ, the dhyāna–slōka of
of Viṣṇu Sahaśranama comes. And therefore he is called Tōdakacāryaḥ.
The last śiṣya is Vārtikakāraḥ is the name of Surēśvarācārya. So he got this

name because he wrote many Works which are known as Vārtikam. Vārtikam is
a commentary in verse form; and not only an ordinary commentary, a critical
commentary is called Vārtikam; so a Vārtika author has got a right to criticise
the original which he is commenting upon.
उक्तािुक्तदरुक्तािां सचन्द्ता यत्र प्रितनते ।

तं ग्रन्थं वार्तिकं प्राहुवायतयकज्ञा मनीनषर्ः ॥
uktānuktaduruktānāṁ cintā yatra pravartatē |

taṁ granthaṁ vārtikaṁ prāhurvārtakajñā manīṣiṇaḥ ||
So what is said in the original he will clarify; what is said unsaid in the original
he has to supply; and what has to be criticised if it needs, he has to criticise also.
And Surēśvarācārya wrote Vārtikam on the Taittariya Bhāṣyaṃ of Śankarācārya
known as Taittariya Vārtikam.

It is not a commentary on the upanisad but a commentary on the upanisad

Bhāṣyaṃ of Śankarācārya. That is why they call it Taittariya Bhāṣyaṃ Vārtikam.
And then he wrote another Vārtikam which made him very famous, i.e.,
Brihadāraṇyaka Bhāṣya Vārtikam; consisting of more than 10000 or 12000
verses which is a commentary upon Brihadāraṇyaka Bhāṣyam; all slōka form; So
Brihadāraṇyaka Bhāṣya Vārtikam is magnum work of Surēśvarācārya and some
other Vārtikams also he wrote, because of which he got the name Vārtikakāraḥ.
All these four disciples and thereafterwards paraṁpara also continues; it has
continued until now; how do you know that it has continued; because I am able
to learn now. Our family paraṁpara continues; what is the proof; like a betul
nut we are sitting now. That we are solidly present here itself is the proof for
the aviccinna paraṁpara. Similarly the Narāyaṇa paraṁpara is also aviccinnam,
because I am able to learn it now. And therefore many more ācāryas are there;
and if we have to enumerate all these ācāryas in the paraṁpara; we will never
come to Brahma sūtra; and therefore he simplifies it; anyān; means all the other
ācāryas; up to my guru. All the other ācāryas up to my guru; all of them are
asmat gurūn; all of them are my teachers. Some of them directly; some of them
indirectly; ānathōsmi; all of them I worship.
Then the next stōtram;
श्रुनत स्रुनत पुराणािाम् आलयम् करुणालयम् I

िमाधम भगित्पादं शङ् करम् लोकशङ् करम् I I
śruti smṛuti purāṇānām ālayam karuṇālayam I
namāmi bhagavatpādaṁ śaṅkaram lōkaśaṅkaram II
So I offer my worship or salute to Śankaraṁ, the Ādi Śankarācārya who wrote

commentaries on all the prasthāna trayams, all the basic text box of Gīta,
Upaniṣad and Brahma Sūtra; the three basic vedāntic text books; he elucidated
through his commentaries; therefore my special namaskārams to
Śankarācārya. And what is his glory? Śruti smṛiti purāṇānāṁ ālayaṁ, who is the
temple, the abode of all the vēdas; vēda means vēdic wisdom; just learning the
mantras would not help; not only he knew the vēdas byheart but he also knew
the meaning; na kēvalam śabda grahaṇam; parantu ārtha grahaṇam api; the

abode of basic wisdom and smṛiti; he is the abode of the wisdom contained in
the smṛiti; which systematically present contents of the vēdic texts like Manu
smṛiti; Parāśara smṛiti, etc. Śankarācārya profusely quotes from Manu smṛiti,
which indicates that he had that wisdom; therefore all the smṛiti; then all the
purāṇās; he is abode of all the purāṇās; purānic wisdom, 18 purāṇās; in his
Viṣṇu Sahasranāma Bhāṣyam, Śankarācārya profusely quotes from Viṣṇu
Pūrṇaṁ which indicates that he had the knowledge of all the purāṇaṁs also.
The peculiar thing is that he does not quote much from the famous Bhāgavata
Purāṇaṁ. Therefore, some scholars even doubt whether Bhāgavata Purāṇaṁ
existed before Śankarācārya. If it had existed and if it had been that famous,
Śankarācārya would not have left it out; but peculiarly he does not quote from
that. Then we have to add also the Ithihāsās; he is the abode of Ithihāsās; the
Rāmāyaṇaṁ and Mahābhārathaṁ; Śankarācārya quotes from Rāmāyaṇaṁ
once or so, whereas he quotes from Mahābhārathaṁ very profusely. And
quoting from Mahābhārathaṁ is the most difficult thing because it contains 1
lakh verses. In fact, to quote even by looking at the book itself is very very
difficult; because we do not know in which part which topic is there. If he could
quote offhand, it means (not in these times, when you can search thru Google!;
in the books you have the Index, neatly they give and on top of every page
1.2.4; 7.2.5, etc. is given and with that you can locate it easily!). Even with that
we are not able to find where a particular mantra occurs in Brihadāraṇyaka we
are not able to locate } Imagine, what a great computer brain they had; not
only Śankarācārya in fact all those ācāryās were as great as Śankarācārya.
Therefore ālayaṁ; it is a temple of scriptural wisdom. Not only that,
karuṇālayaṁ; he was not only the abode of wisdom; he was the abode of
compassion. Otherwise he would not have shared his wisdom with others,
Because of insecurity problem, if I teach all that I know, they may become
greater than me; not only that; my superiority will go away. So in the name of
trade-secret and in the name of patenting; what all things are going on.
Śankarācārya never felt that; whatever he had he had shared with all; why;
karuṇālayaṁ; he was the embodiment of compassion. And he was
Bhagavatpādaḥ; Bhagavatpādaḥ means the one who leads all the people of
Bhagavān. The one who helps you to merge with Bhagavān. Bhagavantuṁ

prāpayati nayati iti Bhagavatpādaḥ. He takes you to the Bhagavān. Not only
near; he takes the śiṣyas so close that he makes every śiṣya say that Lord is not
away from me; why, Lord is not even different from me; he is making the
aikyaṁ possible and therefore he is Bhagavatpādaḥ. And finally he is lōka-
śaṅkaraḥ; śaṅkaraḥ means maṅgalakaraḥ; śaṁ means maṅgalaṁ karaḥ means
the bestower; the giver; ṣaṁkaraḥ means maṅgalaṁ karōti, pradadāti iti
śaṅkaraḥ. Maṇgalaṁ means ānandaṁ; Brahmānandaṁ; So Brahmānanda rūpa
ātmānanda rūpa maṇgalaṁ karōti iti śaṅkaraḥ; And he gives Brahmānanda to
whom? If he has only verbally thought only a few people would have benefitted;
only his contemporaries would have benefitted; but through his written works,
he is helping all the generations for all the time and not only in India; it goes all
over. Even in the West people who do research on all these things. And
therefore he is jagat guruh; and therefore lōka-śaṅkaraḥ; the one who brings
auspiciousness to the entire world through his teaching. To that Śankarācārya, I
offer my prostrations.
The next slōka is:
शन्द्करं शन्द्काराचायनम् कॆशिं बादरायणम् ।

सूत् भा्र् कृतौ वन्दे भगवन्तौ पुनः पुनः
śaṅkaraṃ śaṅkarācāryaṃ keśavaṃ bādarāyaṇam.

sutra bhāśya kṛtau vande bhagavantau punaḥ punaḥ..
So in this verse, the disciple, the student is offering prostrations to

Śankarācārya and Vyāsācārya; punaḥ punaḥ bhagavantau aham vandē; both of
them are Bhagavān. Both of them are not jīvās; ordinary jivas; both of them are
the avatāra of the Lord. So bhagavantau means bhagavat avatāra bhutau; both
of them are the incarnations of Bhagavān. How? He says Śankarācāryam
Śaṅkaram. So the first Śaṅkara refers to Lord Śiva. And that Lord Śiva alone has
taken the avatāra as Ādi Śaṅkara. So Śivaṁ Śankarācāryam or Śaṅkaram
avatārabhutam Śankarācāryam.
What about Vyāsa; not ordinary, Kēśavaṁ Bādarāyaṇaṃ. Kēśavaṁ means

Kēśava avatārabhutam Bādarāyaṇaṃ; Kēśava is another name of Vyasācārya.
He got this name because he is supposed to have done tapas in Badari vanaṁ

near Badrinath; that area is full of Badari tree or badara tree. Badara I think is
ilanda pazhaṁ in Tamil; and in that Badari forest he did the tapas. Therefore
Badara vanaṁ eva yasya saḥ Bādarāyaṇaḥ. So is who has made Badara Vanaṁ
as his own abode is Bādarāyaṇaḥ; Vyasācāryaḥ. Who is that Vyasācāryaḥ,
Kēśavaḥ; and who is the avatāra bhutam of Kēśavaḥ; Vyasācāryaḥ.
And what did he do? Vyasācārya wrote Brahma Sūtras; that is Viṣṇu wrote
Brahma Sūtras and who wrote the commentary; Śiva, in the form of
Śankarācārya; wrote the commentary. So do we have to talk about the glory? So
Viṣṇu wrote and Śiva commented; they did not have any fight. OK. Only Viṣṇu–
bhaktās ad Śiva-bhaktās are only fighting; not Viṣṇu and Śiva. Śivasya hṛdayaṁ
Viṣṇuḥ; Viṣṇōsca hṛdayaṁ Śivaḥ. They both were anyōnya; but these respective
bhaktās have problem. Sūtra bhāṣya kṛtau; and these two wrote the sūtram
and the commentary. Viṣṇu (Vyasācārya) wrote the sūtram and Śiva
(Śankarācārya) wrote the Brahma Sūtra Bhāsyam. Those two people ahaṁ
vandē; I offer prostrations. Punaḥ-punaḥ; infinite namaskārams are not enough
to worship them. Therefore repeatedly I am worshipping.
And here the word Sūtra-bhāṣya-kṛtau is interpreted in two different ways;

significance of which I would like to deal with a little bit. The word Sūtra-bhāṣya-
kṛtau can be interpreted in two ways.
 Now the popular interpretation I will give first. So Sūtra-bhāṣya-kṛtau, here

kṛtau means who wrote; sūtra-kṛt bhāṣya-kṛt ca; sūtra-karta ca Bhāṣya-karta
ca; both of them I do namaskāra. Sūtra-kartāraṁ ahaṁ vandē; Bhāṣya-
kartāraṁ ahaṁ vandē. Sūtra- kartāraṁ means Vyasācārya who is the author
of Brahma Sūtram. And then Bhāṣya-kartāraṁ means Śankarācārya who is
the author of the Brahma-Sūtra Bhāṣyaṃ. This is the most popular
interpretation.
 But there is a second interpretation also; which is given by famous Kalyana
Sundara Sastrigal; who gives this second interpretation; which is very
beautiful and appealing; and that is he says: here the Bhāṣyaṃ should not
be taken as Sūtra-Bhāṣyaṃ; but Bhāṣyaṃ should be taken as upaniṣad
Bhāṣyaṃ. That means the expansion of the Upaniṣads. So what did

Śankarācārya do; he expanded the Upaniṣads by giving commentaries. Then

what did Vyasācārya do; he also wrote Sūtra; Sūtra is what the saṅgrahaḥ or
saṅkṣēpaḥ or presentation in a nutshell; treatise; that is condensation. And
the condensation of what; Vyasācārya did not condense any idea that he
had; but it was the condensation of the teachings of the teachings involved
in the Upaniṣads. So Vyasācārya condensed the Upaniṣads; Śankarācārya
expanded the Upaniṣads. So Upaniṣad-saṅgrahaḥ-karta Vyāsaḥ; Upaniṣad
vistara-karta Śankarācāryaḥ. One condensed it and gave it as a pocket-
edition; the other wrote cart-loads of books .
Now I consider this interpretation very significant because it removes one big
misconception, which is possible. What is that misconception? In my
introductory talk, I talked about the six āstika darśanaṁs. I said the sāṅkya
darśana is presented in the Sāṅkya Sūtra by Kapila ṛṣi. Therefore Kapila ṛṣi
becomes the founder of Sāṅkya philosophy. Similarly Yōga darśanaṁ is
presented in Yōga Sūtras which is founded by Patañjali Muni. He becomes the
founder-ācārya. Similarly Nyāya darśanaṁ is available in Nyāya Sūtras founded
by Gautama Muni. Vaiśēṣika darśanaṁ is available in Vaiśēṣika Sūtra whose
founder is Kaṅāda Muni. Thus we saw. As the six darśanaṁ we presented
Uttara-Mīmāṃsa-darśanaṁ or Vēdānta-darśanaṁ available in Brahma Sūtra
which is given out by Vyasācārya. This is how we enumerated the six darśanaṁs
and all presented in Sūtra form and all of them given out by one-one ṛṣis and
we said Vēdānta Sūtra is presented in Brahma Sūtra by Vyasācārya.
Then what we will think? Sāṅkya darśanaṁ is founded by Kapila Muni; so the
Sāṅkya-darśanaṁ becomes the invention of Kapila Muni; it is the product of the
intellect of Kapilācārya. Therefore Sāṅkya-darśanaṁ becomes a pauruṣēya
darśanaṁ, a product of human intellect. Similarly, Yōga-darśanaṁ is invented
by Patañjali ṛṣi; and therefore it becomes a product of Patañjali’s intellect. Each
one uses tarka; they are tarka pradhāna darśanaṁ; those who invented those
darśanaṁ. And in this same list; we are giving Vēdānta-darśanaṁ also, which is
presented in Brahma Sūtra by whom, Vyasācārya. Therefore what will we
conclude? That Vēdānta-darśanaṁ is a product of Vyasācārya‘s intellect. So we

will conclude that Vēdānta-darśanaṁ is a product of Vyasācārya‘s intellect. Then

it will become what; a pauruṣēya-darśanaṁ; and the problem is any pauruṣēya-
darśanaṁ, any product of the human intellect will have lot of defects because
human intellect is intrinsically limited. Puruṣa buddhi dōsāt; puruṣa-buddhi is
full of defects.
And therefore we want to say that Vēdānta-darśanaṁ is no doubt available in

Brahma Sūtras and no doubt it is given out by Vyasācārya, but they are not the
invention of Vyasācārya but it is the teaching extracted from the Upaniṣads. So
Vēdānta-darśanaṁ available in Brahma Sūtra is not a product of Vyasācārya′s
intellect but it is the teaching extracted from the Upaniṣads; and the Upaniṣad
is pauruṣēyaṃ or apauruṣēyaṁ? We have seen Upaniṣad is not the product of
human intellect but it is the revelation coming from the Lord. And therefore
since the Upaniṣads are apauruṣēyaṁ, the Vēdānta-darśanaṁ is also
apauruṣēyaṁ. Uttara-Mīmāṃsa-darśanaṁ is apauruṣēyaṁ. So out of the six
darśanaṁs, Sāṅkya is pauruṣēyaṃ, Yōga is pauruṣēyaṃ; Nyāya is pauruṣēyaṃ;
because they are all based on human intellect; whereas Vēdānta or Brahma
Sūtra do not study as a human product; study Brahma Sūtra as the apauruṣēya
-darśanaṁ.
Then, why do you call Vyasācārya as the founder of Vēdānta darśanaṁ? He says
Vyasācārya is not the founder of the darśanaṁ, Vyasācārya extracted the
teaching from the Upaniṣads and presented in Sūtra Form. Therefore the
codification is by Vyasācārya; systematisation is by Vyasācārya; giving the
supporting logic is by Vyasācārya but the teaching itself is not by Vyasācārya.
And therefore Sāṅkya philosophy did not exist before Kapila Muni; because he
is the founder. Yōga Darśanaṁ did not exist before Patañjali, because Patañjali
is its founder; whereas Vēdānta-darśanaṁ did exist before Vyasācārya.
Therefore Vyasācārya only perpetuates the Vēdānta-darśanaṁ; he did not
propound Vēdānta-darśanaṁ. Therefore Vyasācārya is only one of the ācāryas;
Vēdānta-darśanaṁ started from where; Narayanam Padmabhuvam, Vasistam;
Sakti; Parāśara; from the five generations of gurus; Vyasācārya is the sixth
generation; and Vyasācārya′s glory is what; along with the other darśanaṁs,

this darśanaṁ also he wrote it down in sūtra form in a systematic manner.

Therefore, when you talk about the other five darśanaṁs, we talk about
Vyasācārya as the author of Brahma Sūtras. We include Vyasācārya in the list
only because he presented the Sūtras; but the teaching came from the
Upaniṣad and that idea is conveyed by Vyasācārya and Śaṅkara also did not
expound his philosophy; but he also expounded the Vēdānta-darśanaṁ only.
He is therefore only Upaniṣad bhāṣya kartā. So Sūtra bhāṣya Kṛtau Vandē
means Upaniṣad Sūtrasya ca Upaniṣad bhāṣyasya. Therefore Sūtram also does
not contain anything original; Bhāṣyaṃ also does not contain anything original;
both of them are the extracts of the Upaniṣadic teaching. So that emphasis is
on Upaniṣad and not Sūtra and Bhāṣyaṃ; therefore Sūtra bhāṣya Upaniṣad
bhāṣya Kṛtau Vandē ahaṁ Punaḥ-Punaḥ.
Then the next slōka;
ईश्वरो गुरुरामेनत मूरततबेिनिभानगिे ।

व्योमिद् व्यप्त दे हाय दक्षीणामूतय
न े िमाः ।
īśvarō gururāmēti mūrtibēdhavibhāginē |

vyōmavad vyapta dēhāya dakṣīṇāmūrtayē namaḥ ॥
Here the salutation or worship is offered to Lord Dakṣīṇāmūrti; who is the

another form of Lord Śiva; when Lord Śiva is seen as Ādi Guruḥ; that too Ādi
Vēdānta Guruḥ; when the Lord Śiva gets the name Dakṣīṇāmūrti. When Lord
Śiva is seen as Ādi Guruḥ; then he gets the name Dakṣīṇāmūrti or another
name is Sadāṣiva. And that is why another prayer verse Sadāṣiva samārambāṁ,
Śankarācārya madhyamāṁ, Asmat Ācārya paryantām. In the Nārāyaṇaṁ
Padmabhuvam slōka, Viṣṇu is taken as the Ādi Guruḥ; and in this slōka, Śiva,
who is the Dakṣīṇāmūrti is taken as the Ādi Guruḥ. Again you should not fight;
who is the Ādi Guruḥ; Viṣṇu or Śiva? . Remember Śivasya Hṛdayam Viṣṇuḥ,
Viṣṇusya Hṛdayam Śivaḥ. Viṣṇu and Śiva are one and the same; either way it is
OK. You can say Narāyaṇa samārambāṁ or Sadāṣiva Samārambāṁ. So having
worshipped Narāyaṇa; now Śiva is worshipped as Dakṣīṇāmūrti. He is called
Dakṣīṇāmūrti because he is the only Lord or God who is south facing. Dakṣīṇā
mūrtiḥ yasya saḥ; Dakṣīṇāmūrtiḥ; Dakṣīṇā means south-facing. Dakṣīṇā here

does not mean the fees paid to the Priest. Dakṣīṇā as a declinable word,
ākārantha striliṅgaḥ Dakṣīṇā śabdaḥ; it means the sacrificial gift; Dakṣīṇā as an
indeclinable word conveys the idea of South-facing. Therefore mūrtiḥ; the form,
the body, the one whose physical body is facing southwards. And in our ṣāṣtra,
the southern direction represents maraṇam; Yamadharma Rāja. And therefore
Dakṣīṇāmūrti is facing death, south, indicating that he is not at all afraid of
maraṇam, whereas the other jīvās, when you say south, they fear. Do not do
namaskāra facing south; Do not go to the south, etc. they say; they ask me also;
even when drinking or taking medicine the parents will say, when we have
fever; do not sit facing south, turn that side, take the medicine and lie down!.
Therefore for even to take medicine they talk about. Therefore the jīvās are
mortally afraid of mortality and south represents mortality and whereas
Dakṣīṇāmūrti by facing South he seems to tell all the jīvās: “Look at me; I do
not have any maraṇam bhayam at all”.
मृत्युञ्जयं मृत्युभभयाभश्रतािा-
महंमनतमृनत्युमुपैनत पूिनम् ।
अथ स्िभािादमृतेषु तेषु
कथं पुिमृनत्युधियोऽिकाशाः ॥ सद्दशनिम् २ ॥
mrtyuñjayaṁ mrtyubhiyāśritānā-
mahaṁmatirmrtyumupaiti pūrvam |
atha svabhāvādamrtēṣu tēṣu
kathaṁ punarmrtyudhiyō:'vakāśaḥ || saddarśanam 2 ||
Therefore mṛtyunjayaḥ; kālakalaḥ is Dakṣīṇāmūrti; he does not have kāla

bhayam.
And only he does not have any fear of Kāla, whoever approaches him, for them
also, mrtyuṁjayaṁ mrtyubhiyāsritānām,
मृत्युभीतमृकण्डसूिुकृतस्तिं सशिसधन्निौ
यत्र कुत्र च याः पठे न्न नह तस्य मृत्युभयं भिेत् ।
पूणनमायुररोनगतामत्खलाथनसम्पदमादरं
चन्द्द्रशेखर एि तस्य ददानत मुसक्तमयत्िताः ॥ श्रीचन्द्द्रशेखराष्टकम् १० ॥
mrtyubhītamrkaṇḍasūnukrtastavaṁ śivasannidhau
yatra kutra ca yaḥ paṭhēnna hi tasya mrtyubhayaṁ bhavēt |

pūrṇamāyurarōgitāmakhilārthasampadamādaraṁ
candraśēkhara ēva tasya dadāti muktimayatnataḥ ||
|| śrīcandraśēkharāṣṭakam 10 ||
So Candraṣēkaraḥ, candra representing the moon; representing kāla; what is

the meaning of someone who is keeping the moon on his head; the one who
has conquered death; the Kāla represented by moon; moon means thithi;
prathama thithi, dvitiya thithi; the one who has conquered. Therefore
Dakṣīṇāmūrti is mṛtyunjayaḥ; kālakālaḥ; Candraṣēkaraḥ; therefore if you
approach him, he will destroy yama bhayam and give you immortality.
And how will he give immortality? By becoming a guru of Vēdānta; by teaching

Brahma Vidyā; and to that Dakṣīṇāmūrti who is free from the fear of death and
who gives freedom from fear of death for others also, that Dakṣīṇāmūrti I
worship. And this Dakṣīṇāmūrti, Lord Śiva; appears in three forms. What are the
three forms; Īśvaraḥ; Guruḥ; and ātma; ātma means jīvaḥ; Īśvaraḥ; Guruḥ; and
the Jivātma; or Śiṣya. Śiṣyaḥ here represents the pramāta, the knower. In the
class, the Guruḥ represents the pramāṇam, the teaching; and Īśvaraḥ,
represents the pramēyam, the subject-matter. Therefore Śiṣyaḥ pramāta; Guru
is the pramāṇam; and the Īśvaraḥ, is the pramēyam and all these three that one
Lord alone.
िेदैश्च सिैरहमेि िेद्यो

िेदान्द्तकृद्वे दनिदे ि चाहम् ॥ श्रीमद्भगिद्गीता १५-१५ ॥
vēdaiśca sarvairahamēva vēdyō
vēdāntakrdvēdavidēva cāham || Śrīmadbhagavadgītā 15-15 ||
Vēdaisca sarvai ahaṁ eva vēdyaḥ; Vēdānta kṛt vēda vidaivaḥ ca ahaṁ and there
Viṣṇu was there; and our Śiva is also not an ordinary person, he is also all these
three  ! Do not take seriously and fight; I just jokingly said. Therefore Īśvaraḥ
guruh ātma iti mūrti bhēda; in the form of three mūrtis or three forms or three
expressions, Dakṣīṇāmūrti devised himself; vibhāginē means the one who
devised himself in the form of Īśvara Guru and Ātma.
Then does that mean he has got divisions. You teach in Vēdānta, nirvikalpaḥ;
niravayavaḥ; etc. and then you say vibhāginē, etc. He says the division is
seeming division; it is like gatākāṣaḥ, maḍakāṣa division, it is aupādika

vibhāgaḥ; because originally he is what; vyōmavat vyāpta dēhāya; the one

whose real nature is all pervading caitanyaṁ; like the ākāśa. The one whose real
nature is undivided indivisible consciousness like the space; vyōmaḥ means
space; and to that Dakṣīṇāmūrti, both to this saguṇa svarūpaṃ and nirguṇa
svarūpaṃ; sōpādika and nirupādika rūpa; to that Dakṣīṇāmūrti my namaskāraḥ.
Then the next slōka.
अशुभानि निराचष्टे तिोनत शुभसन्द्तनतम् ।

स्मृनतमात्रेण यत् पुंसां ब्रह्म ति् मङ्गलं परम् ॥
aśubhāni nirācaṣṭē tanōti śubhasantatim |
smrtimātrēṇa yat puṁsāṁ brahma tan maṅgalaṁ param ||
Now in this the student says that Brahman is the most auspicious thing in the
world. Brahmaiva paraṁ maṅgalaṁ;
पनित्राणां पनित्रं यो मङ्गलािां च मङ्गलम् । ॥ श्रीनिष्णुसहस्रिामस्तोत्रम् १६ ॥

pavitrāṇāṁ pavitraṁ yō maṅgalānāṁ ca maṅgalam | || śrīviṣṇusahasranāmastōtram 16 ||
So all other auspicious things are only little bit; it is all borrowed auspiciousness;
the original auspiciousness is maṇgalānāṁ maṅgalaṁ Brahma. And it is so
auspicious that by merely remembering that Brahman we will get maṅgalaṁ.
So smṛti mātrēṇa maṅgalaṁ dadāti, by mere remembering, you are not even
required to do namaskāra;
यस्य स्मरणमात्रेण जन्द्मसंसारबन्धिात् ।

निमुच्यते िमस्तस्मै निष्णिे प्रभनिष्णिे ॥ श्रीनिष्णुसहस्रिामस्तोत्रम् ६ ॥
yasya smaraṇamātrēṇa janmasaṁsārabandhanāt |
vimucyatē namastasmai viṣṇavē prabhaviṣṇavē || Śrīviṣṇusahasranāmastōtram 6 ||
So smṛti mātrēṇa, yat puṁsaṁ maṅgalaṁ karōti, and that Brahman (here
Brahman is Īśvaraḥ) is tat Īśvaraḥ is the supreme Maṅgalaṁ. More details we
will see in the next class. Hari Om.


005 Outline Of Brahma sutras
We are seeing prayer verses which are generally chanted before Brahma Sūtra,
most of these verses offering our prostrations to guru paraṁpara; and now we
are seeing
अशुभानि निराचष्टे तिोनत शुभसन्द्तनतम् ।

स्मृनतमात्रेण यत्पुम्सां ब्रह्मतन्द्मन्द्गलं परम् ।।
aśubhāni nirācaṣṭē tanōti śubhasantatim |

smrtimātrēṇa yatpumsāṁ brahmatanmangalaṁ param ||
So Brahman or Īśvara is the most auspicious thing in the world. Every thing else
is auspicious only because of Brahma sambanda. And that is said here.
aśubhāni nirācaṣṭē; Brahman removes all inauspiciousness; all obstacles to the
pursuit of ānanda; tanōti śubhasantatiṁ, and it gives auspiciousness
continuously, santatiṁ means constant flow of auspiciousness it gives rise to
and all by mere remembrance; smrtimātrēṇa, even if a person does not
worship, even if person does not chant stōtram; mere rememberance of
Brahman means Īśvara; will give all these benefits; smrtimātrēṇa yat pumsāṁ,
tat maṅgalaṁ paraṁ; such Brahman is most auspicious one.
अनतकल्याणरूपत्िाि् नित्यकल्याणसंश्रयात् ।
स्मतॄनणां िरदत्िाच् च ब्रह्म ति् मङ्गलं निदाः ॥
atikalyāṇarūpatvān nityakalyāṇasaṁśrayāt |
smartrṇāṁ varadatvāc ca brahma tan maṅgalaṁ viduḥ ||
the same idea is conveyed. Brahman is atikalyāṇa rūpam; kalyāṅaṁ; means

maṅgalaṁ. So Brahman is the most auspicious one and nityakalyāṇa saṁsrayāt
and his auspiciousness is at all times; nityakalyāṇa āsrayam Brahma;
nityakalyāṇa saṁsrayāt means āsrayat; martrṇāṁ varadatvāt ca, and is bestows
upon all the boons; it fulfils all the wishes of the devotees; martrṇāṁ varān
dadāti iti varadhaḥ for whom, again martrṇāṁ, for those people who
remembers that Brahman or Īśvara and therefore brahmatan mangalaṁ
vidhuḥ; therefore Brahman is known as mañgala svarūpaṃ.
Outline Of Brahma sutras www.arshaavinash.in Page 55

And then the last verse
यैररमे गुरुभभाः पूिं पदिाक्प्यप्रमाणताः ।

व्याख्यातााः सिनिेदान्द्तास्ताधन्नत्यं प्रणतोऽस्म्यहम् ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषद्भाष्यम्, उपोद्घात, २ ॥
yairimē gurubhiḥ pūrvaṁ padavākyapramāṇataḥ |
vyākhyātāḥ sarvavēdāntāstānnityaṁ praṇatō:'smyaham || Taittirīyōpaniṣadbhāṣyam,
upōdghāta, 2 ||
So this is a verse written by Śankarācārya in his Taittariya Bhāṣyam; before

starting this he writes this. And here Śankarācārya says if I am writing this
commentary, the credit does not go to me at all; so what I have done is only
presenting the arguments and the commentary which have been there even
before me; many ācāryas have written commentaries and that alone I am
writing or presenting; it is my original contribution; but it is only my
perpetuation. So this indicates Śankarācārya′s humility; he does not want to
claim any credit for himself.
Therefore he says gurubhiḥ pada vākya pramāṇataḥ sarva vēdāntāḥ vyākyādā;

all the upaniṣads have been already commented; so it is not my work; the
commentaries are all existent, written by whom, gurubiḥ, all the previous
ācāryās like Gaudapāda, Govinda bhagavad pāda, etc.; either in written form or
in verbal form it has been there; and how did they write the commentary; pada
vākya pramāṇataḥ, according to the rules of interpretation; it is not according
to their views and fancies, but there are rules for interpretation; the
interpretation rules are contained in three śāśtrams; three sciences deal with
the vēdic interpretation; the first śāśtram is call pāda sastram; which means
grammar; that is vyakara a sastram is called pāda sastram; because according

to the rules of grammar; because in Sanskrit every word is derived from its root;
by the additions of prefixes and suffixes; and the root has got a meaning and
the prefixes and suffixes have their own meanings; according to the rules the
meaning would have to be derived; I cannot take any meaning that I like; and
this grammar is also two-fold; one is vaidika vyakaraṇam, the grammar
exclusive meant for vēdic interpretation; so this śāśtram is called pāda śāśtram;
and using and according to the pāda śāśtram, the purvācāryās have
commented; and the second śāśtram is vākya śāśtram; otherwise called

mimāṁsa-śāśtram, another big science which is exclusive science designed for

the interpretation of the Vēdas, vākya śāśtram deals with sentences; how the
meaning of a sentence will be influenced by the context, the previous

sentences; the later sentences, logic etc.; the meaning of a sentence is modified
depending upon various factors. And how to find out the exact meaning; that is
called vākya śāśtram. Suppose all these things we use in our general
transactions itself, suppose a person is taking his car and the other person is
standing out; so the person standing out asks the question to the driver; the
student, where are you going? Now the person sitting in the car asks: Do you
want to get dropped somewhere So the question asked is: Where are you
going? Now the driver has to answer; whoever is there; I am going to T. Nagar,
Anna Nagar, etc. but the driver understands the intention behind the question
that the questioner wants to go somewhere; if you are also going in the same
direction, I would like to get along. Therefore the question is ‘Where are you
going’ but the intention of the question is ‘Can you drop me. Therefore
kutsiḥ anya; vivakṣa anya; kutsiḥ meaning literal meaning; vivakṣa is intended
meaning. Therefore every statement in Vēda is to be analysed to find out what
is kutsihi and what is vivakṣa; and so many factors are taken into account to
arrive at the intention. At least in personal transactions you can verify with the
other person to ask what is your intention; but in the case of Vēdas the author
is not sitting in front; therefore, we have no method of even cross-checking;
therefore we require a very rigorous tradition to extract the vivakṣa of the vēda.
And that ṣāṣtra is called m māmsa ṣāṣtra or vākya ṣāṣtra.
And the third science which is required for vēdic interpretation is called
pramāṇa śāśtra; the science of reasoning; science of logical thinking; tarka
śāśtra. So these three śāśtrams, vyakaraṇa śāśtra; mimāṁsa śāśtra; and tarka
śāśtra; all these three sciences are the basis for vēdic interpretation.
Śaṅkarācārya says the purvācāryās have already done the interpretations

based on pāda–vākya-pramāṇataḥ. What am I going to do? I am going to re-
present that, and therefore, for doing that job properly, I seek the blessings of
all those purvācāryās. So, what a humility! Nowadays in universities and all that

big complaint that we hear is the professors give the papers in their names
when the research is being done by their students. So, the student struggles
and his paper is submitted in the name of the professor, who has not done any
job at all. Like that Śaṅkarācārya could have presented all of them as his own,
but you see the humility! He says, ‘All the credit goes to those purvācāryās.’ And
therefore, even if by mistake you give namaskāra to me, I will not take it, I will
hand over to tān pūrva ācāryān nityam praṇatō’smi aham.
So, here the glory of two words ōṃ and atha is mentioned. These two
words are considered to be very auspicious. Why are these two words are
considered to be glorious? The author says, because these two words have
been uttered by Brahmāji himself before creation. As we see in the 17th chapter
of the Gītā,
ॐतत्सददनत निदे शो ब्रह्मणस्त्स्त्रनििाः स्मृताः ।

ब्राह्मणास्तेि िेदाश्च यज्ञाश्च निनहतााः पुरा ॥ गीता १७-२३ ॥
ōm̐ tatsaditi nirdēśō brahmaṇastrividhaḥ smr̥ taḥ |
brāhmaṇāstēna vēdāśca yajñāśca vihitāḥ purā || gītā 17-23 ||
There the glory of ōṃtatsat mantra was given. Similarly here also ōṃ atha are
pronounced by Brahmāji. Therefore, he said ōṅkāraścāthaśabdaśca – the word
ōṃ and the word atha. Dvāvētau – both these words, kaṇṭhaṁ bhitvā viniryātau
– they came out of the throat of Brahmāji. When? purā – even before the
creation. He uttered these two words. But there are some people interpret it
slightly differently. Because, here the word used is kaṇṭhaṁ bhitvā viniryātau,
bhitvā means piercing or breaking open. Therefore, some people say, it seems
that these two words did not come through the mouth of the Lord, because if it
falls in the mouth it gets defiled, therefore, that much inauspiciousness he did
not want, therefore the sound came from the throat itself directly breaking
open. The idea is it is uttered by Brahmāji. Why did he utter these two words?
Because he wanted the creation to be a perfect.
तस्माित्सुकृतमुच्यत इनत । ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् २-७-१ ॥

tasmāttatsukrtamucyata iti | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-7-1 ||

He wanted the creation to be a perfect one, an orderly one and therefore, he

uttered these words and because of that Brahmāji became successful. What a
wonderful world we have got! Suppose we make it a wreckage that’s a different
thing but the world by itself is wonderful. Therefore, if our pursuits should be a
defect free then we too should start with ōṃ atha. That’s why when we start
every Gītā chapter, what do we do? ōṃ atha prathamō’dhyāyaḥ etc. Similarly,
Brahma-sūtra also can be successfully completed if there is freedom from
obstacles. Therefore, ōṃ atha is to be repeated. That is why after chanting this
verse, in the tradition, they say ōṃ atha ōṃ atha ōṃ atha. Three times it is
uttered commonly. With this the prayer verses are also over.
The brief outline of the Brahmasūtra.
Now I will come to the brief outline of the entire Brahma-sūtra text, so
that you will know what the text contains, the contents. Brahma-sūtra consists
of four chapters known as adhyāyāḥ. Each chapter is subdivided into 4 sections,
which are known as pādāḥ. That means there are 16 sections in Brahmasūtra.
Each section is further divided into topics known as adhikaraṇam. There are in
total 191 adhikaraṇams in Brahmasūtra. Or 192 according to some other. So,
one particular adhikaraṇam is divided into two by some people, which
particular topic I will tell you when it comes. Each section consists of varying
number of adhikaraṇams, it is not uniform. In certain sections more
adhikaraṇams are there, in certain sections less adhikaraṇams are there, it is
not uniform, but totally 191 adhikaraṇams are there. All these topics are mostly,
mainly collected from, taken from the Vēdānta or the upaniṣats. Most of the
adhikaraṇams are in the form of the analysis of the statements occurring in the
upaniṣats especially the daśa upaniṣats. One great ācārya known as Bhāratī
tīrtha brought a beautiful work in verse form, which is called Adhikaraṇa -
Ratnamālā, which just summarizes the 191 topics. So, each topic is elaborately
discussed in Brahmasūtra. But this author condenses the entire topic in two
verses. For one topic two verses are there. Thus all the 191 topics are given, a
famous work called Adhikaraṇa Ratnamālā or Vaiyāsaka Nyāymālā, because it
deals with the reasoning by Vyāsācārya. Each adhikaraṇam or topic is
subdivided into sūtras of varying numbers. It is not uniform; certain topics have

got just one sūtra and certain other topics have got more number of sūtras.
These 191 topics are presented in 555 sūtras. So thus 4 adhyāyāḥ, 16 pādāḥ,
191 adhikaraṇams, 555 sūtras is the broad outline of Brahmasūtra.
adhyāyāḥ 4 1 samanvaya 2 avirōdha 3 sādhana 4 phala
pādāḥ 16 4 4 4 4
adhikaraṇāni 191 39 47 67 38
sūtrāṇi 555 134 157 186 78
In these four chapters, four topics are discussed broadly.
The first chapter deals with samanvayaḥ. Therefore, it is called

samanvayādhyāyaḥ. Samanvayaḥ is a technical word occurring in mīmāṁsā-
śāstram. Roughly translated into English it means consistency. That is in the
entire first chapter Vyāsācārya is presenting consistency or samanvaya as a
proof, hētu to establish that Brahman is the central theme of the upaniṣats.
How consistency will prove, that we will see later. So, what is consistency, how
do we arrive at consistency, how consistency will help in establishing the theme,
that we will see later. I am just giving you the topic. Consistency is given in the
first chapter as a proof to establish that Brahman is the central theme.
Vyāsācārya has to prove this because there are other darśanas, which do not
accept this. Especially, pūrva-mīmāṁsā-darśanam and sāṅkhya-darśanam they
do not accept this. They say the theme of Vēdānta is karma, it is something
different. So, there is a controversy whether Vēdānta deals with karma or
whether Vēdānta deals with Brahman. And Sāṅkhya philosophers have got their
own contention; therefore, Vyāsācārya refutes Sāṅkhya philosophy, refutes
pūrva-mīmāṁsā approach and establishes that Brahman is the central theme of
Vēdānta. And to logically establish that he uses the criterion called samanvayaḥ.
tat tu samanvayāt. There is an important sūtram, in that fourth sūtram, which is
the main sūtram which deals with this topic. Therefore, first chapter is called
samanvayaḥ dealing with consistency.

The second chapter deals with avirōdhaḥ. Avirōdhaḥ means non-

contradiction. So, in the first chapter Vyāsācārya has established that Brahma
vidyā is topic of the upaniṣat. Now in the second chapter he establishes that
Brahma vidyā does not have any contradiction, it is free from all contradictions
because contradiction is the defect in the teaching therefore, he shows that the
teaching is defect free. Now the question is contraction with what? Three types
of contradiction he refutes.
Internal contradictions within the Vēda itself, paraspara-virōdhaḥ is not

there. The vaidika statements do not contradict one another, they are not
mutually contradictory or nullifying. So, we can call it śruti virōdhaḥ or śrutēḥ
paraspara virōdhaḥ nāsti.
Contradictions with regard to smrti, because there are many smrti like
Manusmrti, gitā Mahābhāratam etc. Therefore śruti-smrti-virōdhaḥ nāsti. There
is no contradiction with smrti-granthas.
Śruti-yukti virōdhaḥ nāsti, there is no contradiction with logic, it is not

logically contradictory, it is not illogical. So, in this second chapter alone
Vyāsācārya takes up all the nāstika-darśanams also like Buddhism, Jainism and
all other systems like Nyāya, Vaiśēṣika, who heavily depend upon logic and
shows that Brahma vidyā is free from logical contradictions and on the other
hand all other darśanams are full of logical contradictions. This chapter is
heavily logic based. In fact, heaviest portion of Brahma-sūtra is the second
chapter.
The third chapter deals with sādhana, the preparatory disciplines

required for gaining Brahma vidyā. Therefore it is called sādhanādhyāyaḥ. And
all types of sādhanas are discussed here; those sādhanas that are directly
connected with the knowledge and also those which are indirectly connected
like karma etc. Rituals may not and do not directly give rise to knowledge. But
rituals are considered to be very important because they indirectly help in
refining the mind. Therefore, the importance of rituals, the importance of
upāsanas, the importance of values, all of them are discussed. In fact,

everything connected with religion is useful, maybe very remotely connected

but it is connected.
The fourth chapter is the smallest chapter called phalādhyāyaḥ, which

deals with the result or the benefit or the fruit of Brahma vidyā, which is mōkṣa
or muktiḥ. And two types of mōkṣa are also discussed in the form of krama -
muktiḥ and sadyō-muktiḥ, gradual liberation and immediate liberation. So,
these are the four main topics of Brahmasūtra. These four alone are subdivided
into 191 topics later. And based on these four topics alone the chapters are
named as samanvayādhyāyaḥ, avirōdhādhyāyaḥ, sādhanādhyāyaḥ and
phalādhyāyaḥ.
Definitions of sūtram, bhāṣyam and adhikaraṇam
Now next I would like to deal with is the definition of three important
words that we will be using often.
Sūtram, bhāṣyam and adhikaraṇam.
Sūtram
Sūtram is defined a beautiful verse,
अल्पाक्षरमसद्धन्द्दग्िं सारिनद्वश्वतोमुखम् ।
अस्तोभमििद्यञ्च सूत्रं सूत्रनिदो निदाः ॥ पराशरोपपुराणम् १८-१३-१४ ॥
alpākṣaramasandigdhaṁ sāravadviśvatōmukham |
astōbhamanavadyañca sūtraṁ sūtravidō viduḥ || parāśarōpapurāṇam 18-13-14 ||
Any sūtram or any aphorism should fulfill these conditions.
 alpākṣaram – it should be concise and not a huge paragraph. Because the

very purpose of sūtram is memorization.
 asandigdham – It should be clear and not vague, unambiguous, at least after
reading the commentary. After studying the commentary the sūtra must be
a striking sūtra giving the main feature of the topic.
 sāravat – It should deal with the essentials alone, it should be pregnant with
meaning, it would not unnecessarily deal with non-essentials.
 viśvatōmukham – having many meanings or many facets if possible. It is not
compulsory for every sūtra but if possible it should be able to deal with more

topics, more ideas also. If a sūtra can convey many ideas by splitting a sūtra
in a different way or by splitting a compound in a different way. Mukham
means facet, viśvatōmukham means having many facets. The author can
save extra words if sūtra is having many meanings.
 astōbham – stōbhaḥ means glorification or praise. And there is another
meaning also with certain particles used in sāma -Vēda like hā u hā u etc., for
sāma chanting. Those particles and glorification is called stōbha. And
astōbha means the sūtra must be free from unnecessary particles and
glorification as there is no logic, no reasoning is involved and no limit is
involved. But here it is a terse, logical science where there is no scope for
extra decoration. It is not meant for music. If it is a poetic work, certain
words will be used for completing the meter. ca vai tu etc., pāda-
pūraṇārthaḥ cakāraḥ. One letter is short for meter, so add ca. In fact,
Vyāsācārya has another name called cakukṣiḥ. ca means the letter ca, kukṣiḥ
means the abdomen. One who got lot of cakāraḥ in his stomach is cakukṣiḥ.
When he writes the purāṇas, Mahābhārata etc., wherever the meter is
incomplete he puts cakāra. Therefore, Vyāsācārya is called cakukṣiḥ. cakāraḥ
kukṣau yasya saḥ cakukṣiḥ. So like that, pāda-pūraṇārtham all these things
you cannot add because if you can save one letter it’s a great saving. They
say in vyākaraṇa sūtra, when a commentator writes he tells the rules for the
sūtrakāra, the writers of aphorism. They will always try to save even one
letter. And after thinking for days together if they can compose a sūtra
saving one letter they consider it as putrōtsavam manyantē. If a son or a
child is born for a person after long time, the joy that is felt by the parents
that much joy the sūtrakāra gets when he saves one letter. From that you
can understand how much importance they give for brevity. So therefore,
astōbham, no unnecessary letters.
 Then anavadyam – faultless, defect free. avadyam means dōṣaḥ, anavadyam
means nirdōṣam. Dōṣaḥ is supposed to be of two types – śabda-dōṣaḥ and
artha-dōṣaḥ. There should not be any grammatical mistake in its
construction and also there should not be any logical mistake in its meaning.
So, the word should be free from grammatical mistake and the meaning
should be free from logical mistake.

For example, suppose a person says that ‘the man are going.’ The idea is all
right that a man is going, but the problem is what? Grammatically it is
wrong. ‘Are’ is plural, it should be man ‘is’. Now suppose he makes another
statement. ‘Fire is cold.’ Now there is no grammatical mistake. ‘Fire’ the
subject is correct, ‘is’ in a singular verb he has used, ‘cold’ is an adjective, a
predicative adjective he has used. Therefore, grammatically there is no
defect. But the problem is the meaning is not all right. The first one is an
example for śabda-dōṣaḥ and the second is an example for artha-dōṣaḥ. The
sūtram must be free from śabda-dōṣaḥ and artha-dōṣaḥ, that condition is
called anavadyam.
And if all the six conditions are fulfilled it is called sūtram. This is the
definition of sūtra, an aphorism. Of course, the word sūtra has got a literal
meaning also, which is a thread. The second meaning is also very much
applicable in the case of Brahma-sūtras, because the Brahma-sūtras serve as a
thread for stringing the upaniṣat ideas, which are like beads. 191 beads are
there, topics are there, each topic is like a bead or flower, the sūtras string all
the topics and present a systematic philosophy or darśanam. So this
Śaṅkarācārya himself says in his introduction, Vēdānta vākya kusuma
grathanārthatvāt sūtrāṇām. So, Vēdānta vākyāni kusumāni. The Vēdāntic
statements are like flowers. But the flowers are not arranged or systematized, it
is a wild growth of flowers, which Vyāsācārya collected them and using a thread
sūtram arranges the flowers and presents the beautiful garland called Vēdānta
-śāstram. Therefore, sūtram means a thread also.
Bhāṣyam
The next one is a definition of bhāṣyam, the commentary. It is defined
again in a beautiful verse
सूत्राथो िण्यनते यत्र िाक्प्यैाः सूत्रािुसाररभभाः । Var पदै ाः

स्िपदानि च िण्यनन्द्ते भाष्यं भाष्यनिदो निदाः ॥
sūtrārthō varṇyatē yatra vākyaiḥ sūtrānusāribhiḥ | Var padaiḥ
svapadāni ca varṇyantē bhāṣyaṁ bhāṣyavidō viduḥ ||

So a commentary should explain every word in the sūtra in the order occurring
in the sūtra itself. The first word of the sūtra must be commented first, the
second word must be commented second, he cannot rearrange the words. It
should be in the sūtra order. Therefore, vākyaiḥ sūtrānusāribhiḥ sūtrārthaḥ
varṇyatē. While writing commentary the commentator may introduce technical
words and if he introduces technical words he has to explain his own words.
Therefore, svapadāni ca varṇyantē. Such a commentary is called bhāṣyam.
Adhikaraṇam
Then finally we have to the definition of adhikaraṇam or a topic, which is

also defined in a beautiful verse
निषयो संशयश्चैि पूिनपक्षस्तथोिरम् ।

सङ्गनतश्चेनत पञ्चाङ्गं शास्त्रेऽधिकरणं स्मृतम् ॥
viṣayō saṁśayaścaiva pūrvapakṣastathōttaram |
saṅgatiścēti pañcāṅgaṁ śāstrē:'dhikaraṇaṁ smrtam ||
So a topic should consist of five factors.
1. Viṣayaḥ – the subject matter. What is the subject matter? Is it

dealing with Brahman, is it dealing sādhanā, is it dealing phalaṁ, is it dealing
avirōdha? So what is the subject matter, it is called viṣayaḥ. And generally, the
subject-matter will be taken from some of the statements of daśa upaniṣats.
2. The second factor is saṁśayaḥ. What is the doubt in that
statement? Because if there is no doubt we need not make an enquiry at all. If
you break coconut it will break into two pieces. For this should you call for an
enquiry and all those things. Not required. Therefore, what is evident need not
be enquired into. Therefore, one of the conditions for enquiry is that it must
have doubts. What are the doubts presented by sāṅkhya-śāstra, mīmāṁsā-
śāstra, Vēdānta? So there are different interpretations and therefore saṁśayaḥ,
possible doubts are presented. The word Brahma has got so many meanings. It
has got the meaning of Brahman, the Truth, it has got the meaning of ōṃkāra,
Vēda, brāhmaṇa. Since four meanings are there you will have a doubt atra
Brahma śabdēna brāhmaṇaḥ ucyatē vā Vēda ucyatē vā, nirguṇa Brahma ucyatē
vā. This will come under saṁśayaḥ.

3. Then the third factor is pūrva-pakṣaḥ – the views of non-vēdāntis,

that means all other dārśanikas. Sāṅkhya, pūrva-mīmāṁsā, yōga, etc., with their
own reasons. They give their views by giving their own logic which is called
pūrva-pakṣaḥ.
4. The fourth factor is called siddhāntaḥ – the Vēdāntic conclusion
which has to be established by refuting logically all other views. If there are five
objections all the five has to be refuted. So therefore, siddhāntaḥ means
Vēdāntic conclusions by logically refuting the other views and also showing that
our conclusion is free from logical defect. That is why it is called Nyāya-śāstra.
Brahma-sūtra is called Nyāya prasthānam because every statement should be
supported by logic.
5. Then the fifth factor is saṅgatiḥ – the connection between the
previous topic and the present topic, connection between two topics.
All these five factors should be there for every topic. This is adhikaraṇam.
Śaṅkarācārya brings out all these five factors for every topic visibly. So these
three terms we will be often using therefore it is better if we know these topics.
And next I would like to go to Śaṅkarācārya’s introduction to

Brahmasūtram, which is the famous introduction known as adhyāsa-bhāṣyam,
which we will take up in the next class.

न ेिािसशष्यते ॥ ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ हरराः ॐ.

006 Outline Of Brahma sūtras
ॐ सदासशि समारम्भाम् शङ् कराचायन मध्यमाम् अस्मदाचायन पयनन्द्ताम् िन्द्दे गुरु परम्पराम् ॥ ॐ ॥
Two types of Inferences
We had seen before that Brahma-sūtra is a Nyāya-prasthānam, which

uses Nyāya or reasoning to establish the teaching of the upaniṣats. The word
Nyāya is sometimes translated as yukti and it is sometimes translated as tarka
and it is technically translated as anumānam or inference. So Brahma-sūtra
uses the method of anumānam to bring out the teaching of upaniṣats. Since we
are going to use anumānam or inference, we should have some idea regarding
what is anumānam. Anumānam of course is translated as inference, which is
based on perception or pratyakṣa. You can never make an inference without
collecting the perceptual data and if we infer without collecting the perceptual-
data then it will be mere speculation or imagination; it cannot be valid. Suppose
a scientist wants to know the age of the moon. He cannot perceptually know
the age of the moon and therefore, he has to use an inferential method and to
use that method he has to collect some data from the Moon. And that is what
he does. He has got the rocks of the moon collected and then he studies those
rocks and collects data based on perception or observation and based on that
he says 450 million years old or something. And that inference can be closely
valid as it is based on perceptual-data. But suppose I don’t collect any data and I
just look at the moon and say that it may be 1 billion years old. That we cannot
call as inference because it doesn’t have any observed data, that is speculation,
imagination, wishful thinking. And therefore, if the inference has to be valid it
should be based on observed data or perceived data. This inference used in our
śāstra has got four factors, which inference has been very deeply studied by the
tarka philosophers, the Naiyyāyikas and we borrow their method with slight
modification. In tarka-śāstra, they talk about five factors we have slightly
modified it and we talk about four factors required for inference. Those factors
are
 pakṣaḥ,

 sādhyam,
 hētuḥ and
 drṣṭāntaḥ
I will explain these four factors by taking one example, which is generally
taken in the śāstra. The example taken is the inference of fire on the mountain
by seeing the smoke. This inference is put in a technical form, anumāna vākyam
and that form is parvataḥ agnimān dhūmavatvāt yathā mahānasē. This is the
typical anumāna-vākyam, which we should remember because throughout the
Brahma-sūtra we will use this pattern. Therefore, I want you to get familiarized
with these four terms - pakṣaḥ, sādhyam, hētuḥ and drṣṭāntaḥ. Parvataḥ
agnimān dhūmavatvāt yathā mahānasē. In this, parvataḥ – the mountain is said
to be pakṣaḥ, agnimān – the fire is called sādhyam, dhūmavatvāt – because it
has got smoke, smoky it is, it is called hētuḥ, and yathā mahānasē – as seen in
the olden-day kitchen, in the fire place. This is the example. So, the mountain is
fiery because it is smoky as in the case of the kitchen. Now with this example we
shall study all the four factors properly.
Let us take the first one, pakṣaḥ. The mountain is said to be the pakṣaḥ,
because it is the locus of discussion. We should not say the fire is the topic of
discussion. The topic of discussion is mountain. Why there is a discussion on
mountain? Because there is a dispute whether the mountain is fiery, i.e., with
fire or without fire. Therefore, the locus of dispute is not fire but the mountain.
What is the topic of dispute? Whether the mountain is fiery or non-fiery.
Therefore, pakṣaḥ is the locus of dispute, the locus of debate, the locus of
discussion about which some conclusion has to be arrived at. This pakṣaḥ is
visible and known otherwise it cannot be a matter of dispute at all. Therefore,
mountain is perceptible, known. Only whether it is fiery or not is disputed,
because the fieriness of the mountain is not perceptible. If the fieriness of the
mountain, i.e., the mountain having fire is visible then there is no debate at all.
Therefore, mountain is visible, its fieriness is non-perceptible.
Since it is not non-perceptible we require the inferential method of

proving because perceptual method is of no use. Therefore, I come to the

conclusion that mountain is fiery. So thus mountain is pakṣaḥ, it is visible, its

conclusion the fieriness is invisible. Therefore, pakṣaḥ will be partially-visible
and partially-invisible. We are not proving the visible-part, the mountain but we
are proving only the fieriness, the invisible-part. The mountain part is visible
and its fieriness part is invisible. So the dharmi is visible, the dharma is invisible.
Therefore, inference.
Now let us come to the second part, the sādhyam. What is the
sādhyam, the conclusion? Is fiery, that fieriness that it has fire is conclusion.
And this conclusion is perceptually available or not? As I said if it is perceptually
available we don’t require inference the fieriness is not perceptually provable.
So, sādhyam is always apratyakṣam. Pakṣaḥ is always pratyakṣam, known. So
this is the second factor.
What is the third factor? Hētuḥ. What is the hētu here? Dhūmavatvāt –
the mountain is smoky. So, we should not say smoke is the reason, because in
tarka we have to make very fine distinction. In fact, the whole logic is studied
only to intellectually see the finer distinction. We should not say smoke is the
hētu, the reason. Because if the smoke is somewhere else you cannot say
mountain has fire. Can you see the fallacy? You cannot say mountain is on fire
because there is smoke in my kitchen. We cannot say because if there is smoke
in the kitchen, there alone fire can exist. Therefore, we should not say merely
smoke is the hētu, but we should say smoke obtaining on the mountain is the
hētu. Therefore, smokiness of the mountain is the hētu. And what is the
sādhyam? Fire is not the sādhyam. Fieriness of the mountain is the sādhyam.
And this hētu, i.e., the smokiness or smoke being in the mountain is pratyakṣam
or not? If smoke is not pratyakṣam, we will be in trouble. Because to prove the
smoke you require another inference. Therefore, thank god! the hētu is
pratyakṣam. So, pakṣaḥ is pratyakṣam, sādhyam is apratyakṣam, hētu is
pratyakṣam. It is visible.
Finally we will go to the last factor, i.e., drṣṭāntaḥ the example. What is
the example? The Kitchen, pākaśālā, yāgaśālā anywhere where there is smoke
and fire together. The example must be a place where I have experienced both

smoke and fire together, not only together but invariably. So, I should have a
few examples to show that the fire invariably coexist along with smoke. And not
the other way round as smoke invariably coexist with fire. I don’t say, smoke
invariably coexists with fire. Because we have got many places where fire
happily is without smoke, example is our modern kitchen. We only say, the fire
invariably coexist along with smoke. To show that I give an example of kitchen,
where there is smoke and therefore, invariably where the smoke is, there the
fire is. So, these are the four factors of anumānam.
If I have to make this inference, I require a basic knowledge gathered

through perception. That basic knowledge is called the invariable coexistence of
the fire along with smoke I should know. That is I should have the knowledge
that whenever smoke exists there fire must there in a visible form or in an
invisible form. If I see the smoke on the road I know there is fire somewhere I
may be seeing the fire or I may not be seeing the fire but I know yatra yatra
dhūmaḥ tatra tatra agniḥ. Wherever there is smoke there is fire. We should not
write the other way round, very careful, yatra yatra agniḥ tatra tatra dhūmaḥ
you cannot say. In fact, in our body itself agniḥ is present. There is ‘at warmth of
life’ we say. If there were no warmth of life then you know people will
immediately dispose off. Therefore, in the body agni is there or not? It is there.
But we don’t produce smoke, it is not that over the head of the people I see
smoke coming. Even though sometimes when we are confused we say smoke is
coming through all holes. Brahma-sūtra may bring that. Lot of smoke coming
after the class. But remember it is only a figurative expression. yatra yatra agniḥ
tatra tatra dhūmaḥ we cannot say but yatra yatra dhūmaḥ tatra tatra agniḥ this
knowledge is required and in the language of logic it is called vyāpti-jñānam.
The knowledge of the invariable-coexistence of the fire along with smoke. This
invariable-coexistence of these two factors is called vyāpti which will always
have two factors yatra yatra dhūmaḥ is one factor tatra tatra agniḥ is the
second factor. Of this the first factor the smoke is called vyāpyam, and the
second factor the fire is called vyāpakam. So, yatra yatra vyāpyam tatra tatra
vyāpakam. Their invariable coexistence is called vyāpti. So, dhūmaḥ is vyāpyam,
agniḥ is vyāpakam. In the anumāna vākyam i.e., the statement of inference -

parvataḥ agnimān dhūmavatvāt yathā mahānasē, what is the pakṣaḥ? Pakṣaḥ is

parvataḥ. Agnimān is the sādhyam, dhūmavatvāt is the hētuḥ and yathā
mahānasē is the drṣṭāntaḥ.
Now if you study the vyāpti vākyam and anumāna vākyam, i.e., yatra
yatra dhūmaḥ tatra tatra agniḥ and parvataḥ agnimān dhūmavatvāt yathā
mahānasē; of this what is vyāpyam? Dhūmaḥ is vyāpyam, agniḥ is vyāpakam.
When you compare these two statements you come to know that the vyāpyam
of the vyāpti vākyam alone becomes the hētuḥ in the anumāna-vākyam. And
vyāpakam of the vyāpti-vākyam alone becomes the sādhyam in the anumāna-
vākyam. So that means we can put the vyāpti-vākyam in two different ways.
Earlier we said yatra yatra vyāpyam tatra tatra vyāpakam, now I can re-present
it as yatra yatra hētuḥ tatra tatra sādhyam. This I have to prove. Only if this is
proved then the anumāna-vākyam is valid. That means if the vyāpti-vākyam is
valid then only the anumāna-vākyam can be valid. How do you validate the
vyāpti-vākyam? The only means of validating the vyāpti-vākyam is by
perception, seeing it with your own eyes. See, study the kitchen, study the
yāgaśālā, study a smoker who is seen everywhere, so smoker is also useful,
yatra yatra dhūmaḥ tatra tatra cigarette agniḥ. So I show a few standard cases
to validate the ‘yatra yatra dhūmaḥ tatra tatra agniḥ’ vyāpti-vākyam, having
validated vyāpti vākyam through perception, I use that vyāpti-vākyam to
validate anumāna-vākyam. And whenever vyāpti-vākyam is disproved then
anumāna-vākyam also will get disproved. This is the logic used not only by
many śāstras but the entire scientific process of investigation is by this method
alone. The scientist may not use the word pakṣaḥ, hētuḥ, sādhyam, drṣṭāntaḥ
but the scientist also is using this method alone. In fact, when he is studying the
rocks of the moon he is collecting hētuḥ or the observed data. Therefore, hētuḥ,
observed-data helps him in arriving at the conclusion. Therefore, we come to
know that inference is based on observed-data.
Now here one important point we should remember. We are collecting

data through observation, regarding anything and thus, arrive at the
conclusion. The conclusion that we arrived at will be only about that object from

where data has been collected. I am just trying to make a subtle point to derive
some other important conclusions and therefore the subtle point you should
know. I will just give you an example. Suppose I collect data from the moon
then my conclusions will deal with the moon only and not Mars, not Earth, not
Sun, not Jupiter. Therefore, they put in a technical form the data and conclusion
will deal with the same object alone. So, hētu and sādhya will belong to the
same pakṣa. This is called hētu-sādhyayōḥ samānādhikaraṇyam, sādhya can
belong to that alone to which hētu belongs. If I collect some data from my
blood, the report indicates the sickness or the healthy condition, dealing with
whom? My blood is clean and therefore, my mother is healthy! No. So,
therefore, what is the rule? Hētu-sādhyayōḥ samānādhikaraṇyam vaktavyam
from wherever we collect data with regard to that alone conclusion can be
made. Once this is understood we are going to derive a very important fact
from this. Now the science is collecting data from the world, from the observed
universe. Now all these data collected are from the ātmā or from the anātmā?
Whatever data we collect right from a cell or atom or a star or a moon all the
data collected through observation, and all our observations deal with ātmā or
anātmā? We know ātmā is
अिब्दमस्पियमरूपमव्यर्ं तथाऽरसं ननत्र्मगन्धवच्च र्त् ॥ कठोपननषत् १-३-१५ ॥
aśabdamasparśamarūpamavyayaṁ tathā’rasaṁ nityamagandhavacca yat | || Kaṭhōpaniṣat

1-3-15 ||
Ātmā being unobservable all the observed data deal anātmā. Therefore, if
scientific reasoning is used all the scientific conclusions will be about anātmā,
because science is collecting data from anātmā and therefore, they can make
conclusion only with regard to anātmā, because hētu-sādhyayōḥ
samānādhikaraṇya niyamāt+. Because sādhyam should deal with only that
pakṣa, about which we have collected hētu or data. Therefore, all the scientific
reasoning process is called laukika-anumānam because it is based on the data
collected from the external world based on the perception, pratyakṣam.
Therefore, all the laukika-anumānam will deal with an ātma-jñānam, aparā-
vidyā alone. Therefore, laukika-anumānam has no access to ātma-vidyā. The
scientific reasoning method has no access to ātma-vidyā, which is proved by

laukika-anumānam itself. Therefore, through laukika-anumānam we prove that

the laukika-anumānam has got only access to aparā -vidyā, anātma -vidyā. It
cannot touch ātma-vidyā, that is why the upaniṣat says
िैषा तकेण मनतरापिेया । ॥ कठोपनिषत् १-२-९ ॥

naiṣā tarkēṇa matirāpanēyā | || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-2-9 ||
Don’t hope to arrive at ātma-jñānam through the scientific process of

reasoning, because it has no access. It is like trying to hear through the eyes,
how foolish it is to try to hear through the eyes, similarly the anumānam has
got access to anātmā, with that anumānam, which can see only the anātmā if I
try to know the ātmā it is abuse of the pramāṇam. It is born out of delusion.
Therefore, in Brahma-sūtra itself there is a particular sūtra to establish this
तकानप्रनतष्ठािादप्यन्द्यथाऽिुमेयधमनत चेदेिमप्यनिमोक्षप्रसङ्गाः ॥१४५ ॥

tarkāpratiṣṭhānādapyanyathā’numēyamiti cēdēvamapyavimōkṣaprasaṅgaḥ ||145 ||
So, tarka can never finally prove anything with regard to ātmā. It may know the
age of the moon, it may know the speed of the light, it can do so many things.
But if tarka is used for ātma-vidyā ‘apratiṣṭhānāt’ you will never come to a
conclusion, it will be going on and on.
Then the question is: what is the Nyāya or logic used by the śāstram?
What is the śāstrīya-anumānam which is used in Brahma-sūtra? Which has to be
different from laukika-anumānam or scientific reasoning? So the śāstrīya-
anumānam has to be different because here we are dealing with a different
field the ātmā or Brahman. Now the difference is this. I said laukika-anumānam
is based on the data collected through perception. Data collection is important
for any anumānam. So, laukika-anumānam also involves data collection and
śāstrīya-anumānam also involves data collection. But the difference is with
regard to the source of data. In laukika-anumānam the data is collected
through perception. That is why it is scientific observation. They have to invent
methods and methods like telescope, microscope, etc., but the crucial thing to
be noted is the data are based on pratyakṣam. Whereas in the śāstrīya-
anumānam, since it is dealing with ātmā or Brahman, we cannot collect data
from or through observation, perception, the data are collected from śāstram.

It is śāstra based data collection. This should be very very clearly understood. All
the śāstrīya-anumānam used in Brahma-sūtra are based on data collected not
from observation but from śāstram. Because we as āstikas accept the śāstra as
another valid means for collecting data. Just as a scientist accepts observation
as a valid means of collecting data. Thus as a scientist questions an observation,
a scientist may question a conclusion but no scientist questions observation,
because scientist has assumed that pratyakṣam or observation is valid. In fact,
that itself is becoming questionable now, now the scientists themselves are
finding that what I see is valid or not, there question is ‘do I see because there is
a thing or is there a thing because I see.’ With regard to the wave-particle
dichotomy, they say when I think of a wave and see it is a wave, when I think of
a particle and see it behaves like a particle. So now, what is fact? Nobody knows.
Because it seems to depend upon the observer. Therefore, whether the
observation is valid or not is becoming doubtful nowadays, that apart the whole
science is based on the basic assumption that observation is valid, therefore no
scientist questions the observation, his aim is only to arrive at conclusions
based on observation. Conclusions are questioned, the data are not questioned,
because data is observation based. Similarly, once we come to śāstram the
basic assumption is all the śāstrīc students have accepted śāstram as a valid
source of collecting data, which cannot be disputed. What can be disputed are
the conclusions based on data. viśiṣṭādvatam is a conclusion based on śāstrīc
statements. Dvaitam is a conclusion based on śāstrīc statements. Advaitam is a
conclusion arrive at based on śāstrīc statements. You can question the
conclusions but we are not going to question the śāstrīc statements itself.
Because śāstram is as much valid as pratyakṣa is valid for a scientist. So, what
validity a scientist will give to pratyakṣam so much validity an āstika gives to
śāstra-vākyam. Therefore, in the Brahma-sūtra we are collecting data from the
śāstram, we don’t question the data itself, but based on data we are trying to
arrive at viśiṣṭādvatam or dvaitam or advaitam or whatever it might be, what is
the essential teaching. So this is called śāstrīya-anumānam. So, in this śāstrīya-
anumānam the hētu will be based on śāstram. In the scientific-anumānam the
reason will be based on the observation, in śāstrīya-anumānam the hētu, the
reason will be based śāstram. Therefore, for śāstrīya-anumānam what is the

basic assumption? The student must be an āstika. If a nāstika comes who does
not accept the validity of the śāstrīc statements then the entire Brahma-sūtra is
of no use to a scientific, a rational, a nāstika person we cannot apply
Brahmasūtra. Don’t be over enthusiastic thinking that after Brahma-sūtra study
I can argue with a nāstika and establish Vēdānta. It is a fond hope, it will not
work because he will ask for data based on perception whereas we are basing
our arguments on data collected from śruti. Therefore, Vēdānta will be useful
only for an āstika and not for a thinking nāstika. There are non-thinking
nāstikas; to them you can present Brahma sūtras as scientific reasoning; and
they may accept it.
The next question is, ‘does it mean that therefore, laukika-anumānam is

not there in Brahma-sūtra? ’ Brahma-sūtra predominantly is śāstrīya-
anumānam based on the upaniṣats. Now do we have a role for laukika-
anumānam, perception based reasoning or scientific reasoning is there in
Brahma-sūtra or not? It is there. But it has got a different application. The
scientific or laukika-anumānam used in the Brahma-sūtra is never for
establishing Vēdānta. Because laukika-anumānam deals with anātmā and
Vēdānta with ātmā. Tamaḥ-prakāśavat viruddha-svabhāvayōḥ. Therefore, the
regular reasoning is never used in the Brahma-sūtra to establish the Vēdānta.
But it is used in another sense for another purpose. What is that? This is also
important.
Now I said that the scientific reasoning or the general logic has got no access to
ātmā because it is based on data collected from anātmā. Now the Vēdānta is
arriving at a conclusion through śāstrīya-anumānam and not by using laukika-
anumānam. Now we say, since laukika-anumānam has no access to ātmā, the
laukika-anumānam cannot prove the Vēdāntic teaching, because it is different
and equally important is laukika-anumānam cannot disprove the Vēdāntic
teaching also. Because for proving or disproving access is necessary. Suppose a
person says, this is such and such color or this short or tall. So an observation
has been made with the help of eyes. And he is asking me ‘As my eyes are not
alright so you please verify whether this number is 8 or 3.’ Now there is one

observation is in the field of numbers or rūpam, i.e., observation seeing the

observation. And I want to verify that. Now by verification I want to prove it as
correct or prove it as wrong. But remember whether I have to prove or disprove
I should use the proper instrument, i.e., the eyes alone are required for proving
the color or for disproving a color. You cannot use the ears either to prove a
color or disprove a color also. Therefore proving also requires an access,
disproving also requires an access. Therefore, laukika-anumānam cannot prove
the Vēdāntic teaching and by the same token of logic the scientific reasoning
cannot disprove the Vēdānta also.
But what happens? Some philosophers, nāstika philosophers use laukika-

anumānam to disprove Vēdānta. They say, ‘Now we have disproved Vēdānta.’
Now if a nāstika uses laukika-anumānam to disprove the Vēdānta it is very clear
that he has used the laukika-anumānam wrongly. Because we know that
laukika-anumānam cannot disprove Vēdānta. Why? Because laukika-anumānam
field is anātmā. Vēdāntic teaching is with regard to ātmā. Therefore, laukika-
anumānam cannot disprove Vēdānta I know. But if he uses laukika-anumānam
to disprove Vēdānta I know that there is some fallacy in his inference.
Therefore, what do I do? I, the Vēdāntin use laukika-anumānam to show the
fallacy of the of the laukika-anumānam used by other philosophers. Scientific
reasoning is used by Vēdānta to show the fallacy of the scientific reasoning in
disproving the Vēdānta. We don’t use scientific reasoning to prove Vēdānta.
When somebody uses scientific reasoning to disprove Vēdānta we disprove his
disprove. We disprove his disproving and establish through laukika-anumānam
that your laukika-anumānam is wrongly used. This is how laukika-anumānam is
used in Vēdānta not to prove Vēdānta is logical but to prove that Vēdānta is not
illogical. This is one use of laukika-anumānam. There is a second use also for
laukika-anumānam, which we will see in the next class.

न ेिािसशष्यते ॥ ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ हरराः ॐ.॥

007 Adhyāsa bhāṣyam
In the last class, we were discussing the differences between the laukika-
anumānam, the inference used normally and śāstrīya-anumānam, the inference
used in śāstra. There are certain common and there are certain uncommon
features also. The common features are that,
 Both in laukika-anumānam, the worldly-inference and śāstrīya-

anumānam, the scriptural-inference they depend upon some external
data collected through some external source. Both are data-based and
data is collected from some other source, some other pramāṇam.
Therefore, both of them are dependent on some other source of data.
 The second common feature is that both of them do not question the
validity of the data. It is a very important point. For example, when the
scientist uses the inference, it is based on perceptual-data and the
scientist never questions the perceptual-data, he takes for granted that
sensory perception is valid. A scientist believes in pratyakṣa-pramāṇam,
he believes in sensory data, he never questions the sensory data. A
scientist can question only the conclusions based on the data, he never
questions the data itself. Therefore, data is accepted as valid, and is never
questioned. Similarly, in scriptural-inference, we collect data from the
scriptures and we never question the validity of scriptural-data. Just as
observation should not be questioned; only the conclusions based on the
data can be questioned, similarly scriptures can be never questioned;
only you can question the conclusions you arrive at based on the
scriptures. Therefore, in laukika-anumānam perceptual-data are not
questioned, in śāstrīya-anumānam scriptural-data cannot be questioned.
These are the two common features. First common feature is both are
dependent on data and the second common feature is both do not
question the validity of data.
Then what is the uncommon feature? The uncommon feature is,
Adhyāsa bhāṣyam www.arshaavinash.in Page 77

 Laukika-anumānam can deal with the anātmā alone, because they are
based on perception, perceptual-data and perceptual-data are of the
anātmā alone. So, laukika-anumānam is based on perceptual-data and
perceptual-data deal with only anātmā. Therefore, laukika-anumānam
can function only within the field of anātmā, whereas śāstrīya-
anumānam, especially in Brahmasūtra, is based on scriptural-data and
the scriptures, especially Vēdānta, deal with ātmā. Therefore, here the
śāstrīya-anumānam can function in the field of ātmā. Therefore, their
fields are totally different. One has got anātmā as its field and the other
has got ātmā as its field. They are like the eyes and ears. Eyes functions in
the field of colors and forms whereas ears function in the field of sounds,
both are pramāṇams all right but they have got different fields.
Therefore, we come to certain conclusions, based on these common and
uncommon features.
 One is laukika-anumānam can never prove or disprove the information’s
about the ātmā gained through śāstrīya-anumānam. Laukika-anumānam
has no judging capacity either prove to or disprove ātma-vidyā. Like
what? The eyes cannot question the information regarding the sound nor
can the eyes disprove the information regarding the sound. Similarly,
ears cannot prove or disprove the color. Extending this we say laukika-
anumānam has no capacity to prove or disprove Vēdāntic knowledge.
Since, in Brahmasūtra, we are discussing Vēdāntic knowledge, ātma-
jñānam, the laukika-anumānam does not have much role to play. So, in
Brahma-sūtra 90% of Nyāya, 90% of tarka, used is śāstrīya-anumānam,
scriptural data based inferences alone. This is called technically, śruti-
sammata-tarkaḥ. Śāstrīya-anumānam is called śruti-sammata-tarkaḥ.
That is what Śaṅkarācārya says in Sādhana Pañcakam
वाक्र्ाथयश्च नवचार्यतां श्रुनतशिरः पिः समाश्रीर्तां दुस्तकायत्सुनवरम्र्तां श्रुनतमतस्तकोऽनुसन्धीर्ताम् ॥साधन पञ्चकम् ३

॥
Vākyārthaśca Vicāryatāṁ Śrutiśiraḥ Pakṣaḥ Samāśrīyatāṁ Dustarkātsuviramyatāṁ

Śrutimatastarkō’nusandhīyatām | ||Sādhana Pañcakam 3 ||

In Vēdānta field if you use laukika-anumānam, Śaṅkarācārya calls it dustarkaḥ,

it is called śuṣka-tarkaḥ, dry logic, wrong logic or misplaced logic. Then what is
proper tarkaḥ? śrutimatastarkō’nusandhīyatām‌. Let all the reasoning be
scriptural data based.
Then the question comes, ‘Is there any utility for laukika-anumānam in
Brahma-sūtra discussion? Do we use scientific-logic at all in Brahma-sūtra? Do
we use laukika-anumānam in Brahma-sūtra if you ask; I was discussing in the
last class. For that we say, laukika-anumānam is used in Brahma-sūtra rarely, in
two contexts. What are the two contexts? Now we said that laukika-anumānam
should not be used for proving or disproving Vēdānta, because their fields are
different. But there are certain philosophers who apply laukika-anumānam to
disprove Vēdānta or to say Vēdānta is illogical. But certainly, we know that, it is
the wrong application of laukika-anumānam. It is like applying the eyes and
disproving the sound. Therefore, all those philosophers have wrongly applied
laukika-anumānam to disprove Vēdānta. Now what we do? We have to point out
their fallacy. It is fallacious application of laukika-anumānam, we have to prove.
But to prove that laukika-anumānam is falsely used what do we do? We use
laukika-anumānam itself to prove the fallacy of their laukika-anumānam. We
use laukika-anumānam to prove their fallacious application, wrong application
of laukika-anumānam and establishing that Vēdānta is illogical. In that context
we say, that your anumānam is wrong and therefore Vēdānta is not illogical. So,
thus laukika-anumānam is not used to say Vēdānta is logical. We don’t say
Vēdānta is logical by laukika-anumānam. Laukika-anumānam is used to point
out that Vēdānta is not illogical. Then if somebody asks it is logical? No, I don’t
say it is logical. Then do you say it is illogical? No, it is not illogical. Then what do
you say? We say, Vēdānta is beyond the field of logic, i.e., laukika-anumānam.
Therefore, you cannot say that Vēdānta is logical or illogical, Vēdānta is
supralogical or ultralogical or infralogical or allogical, whatever words you want
to use. Don’t use logic to prove or disprove the Vēdānta. So thus, logic is used,
laukika-anumānam is used to disprove the illogicality of Vēdānta. This is done
very efficiently later, especially, in the second chapter. In the first chapter,
laukika-anumānam does not come at all. The whole of first chapter is based on

śāstrīya-anumānam; scriptural-data based conclusions are given in the entire

first chapter. In the second chapter alone, we enter the logic field, laukika-
anumānam field to disprove their laukika-anumānam. This is one purpose.
Then there is second purpose also. What is that? Certain other

philosophers or nāstika philosophers, as we saw in the introduction, there are
six systems out of which four are Bauddha system and one each Jaina and
cārvāka system. They do not have śāstrīya-anumānam at all, because they don’t
accept śāstram. They know only laukika-anumānam. What they do is, based on
that laukika-anumānam they try to arrive at the truth of Oneself, the ātma-
svarūpam or the truth of the world. And we want to establish that truth can
never be arrived at by using laukika-anumānam. So, we use laukika to disprove
all their conclusions. Or to dismiss all the Buddhist systems, because I cannot
use śāstrīya-anumānam in front of a Bauddha. Why, because he will say he is no
faith in the scriptures, so how am I going to accept. Therefore, I cannot talk
śāstrīya-anumānam in front of a Jaina, in front of a Bauddha. Therefore, I have
got only laukika-anumānam. And using laukika-anumānam I don’t prove
Vēdānta, but I disprove their philosophies. All the other philosophies are
disproved and we say that laukika-anumānam cannot function in the field of
truth, because logic is never final.
यत्िेिािुधमतोऽप्यथनाः कुशलैरिुमातृभभाः । अभभयुक्ततरैरन्द्यैाः अन्द्यथैिोपपद्यते ॥ िाक्प्यपदीयम् १-३४ ॥

yatnēnānumitō’pyarthaḥ kuśalairanumātrbhiḥ | abhiyuktatarairanyaiḥ anyathaivōpapadyatē
|| vākyapadīyam 1-34 ||
Suppose there is a great logician and he establishes something through logic,

yatnēna anumitaḥ arthaḥ – taking lot of pains he establishes something
logically. Bhartrhari says, after sometime another logician will come who will be
more, brilliant than the previous logician. Abhiyuktatarair anyaiḥ,
abhiyuktataraḥ means more intelligent, anyathaivōpapadyatē – he can easily
disprove the previous conclusions and arrive at a new conclusions. And he will
say that ‘I am the greatest.’ Someone came and told to Muhammad Ali that, ‘I
am is the greatest.’ Then the Muhammad Ali boxer said it seems, ‘you may be
the greatest but I am the latest.’ That is why scientific conclusions are always
modified. Einstein himself is questioned by some other scientist. You will find

that tarka can give only working knowledge of the truth. It can only give
functional information, working information with which we can conduct our
vyavahāra. But the logic or scientific conclusions can never tell me what exactly
is the truth. And therefore, a new scientist will come bring a new conclusion.
That is why the scientists do not have the courage to say ‘this is the fact’; but
they say ‘this is my observation.’ And in future some more data comes the
conclusion may be changed. How long will it continue? Eternally it will continue.
Therefore, yatnēnānumitō’pyarthaḥ. So, what is your advice? Use science for
functional knowledge. We don’t condemn science. Science is glorious, we can
improve our standard of living, we can procure things, you can cure many
diseases. Thus use science for functional knowledge, never try to use science or
logic to know what is the truth because the truth is apauruṣēyam, it is not
accessible to the laukika-anumānam. Therefore, they say,
असचन्द्त्यााः खलु ये भािााः ि तांस्तकेण योजयेत् । अप्रनतधष्ठततकेण कस्तीणनाः संशयाम्बुधिम् ॥

acintyāḥ khalu yē bhāvāḥ na tāṁstarkēṇa yōjayēt | apratiṣṭhitatarkēṇa kastīrṇaḥ
saṁśayāmbudhim ||
Yē bhāvāḥ acintyāḥ – in the creation there are many things, which are beyond
logic and science. To expect everything to fall within science and logic is to show
short-sightedness. So, every scientist must be humble enough to understand
that there are things which are beyond the scope of science. They are called
acintyāḥ bhāvāḥ, apauruṣēyāḥ viṣayāḥ. Be humble enough. And with regard to
those things, na tāṁstarkēṇa yōjayēt – don’t apply your logic with regard to
those things. And if you apply what will happen? Apratiṣṭhita-tarkēṇa kastīrṇaḥ
saṁśayāmbudhim – by using this logic nobody has crossed over the ocean of
saṁśaya. Saṁśaya-sāgāra you can never cross over by using scientific logic. So,
regarding the origination of the world, they brought out a theory first and
somebody wanted to confirm that theory and instead of confirming that theory
one more theory got added. And then more scientists started working in that
field and the results is so many (27) theories have propped up. Bootstrap
theory, shoestring theory, solid-state theory, big bang theory, evolution theory,
thus you will find at last, previously you were only confused now I am
confounded. So, apratiṣṭhita-tarkēṇa – by using perpetual-data based scientific

logic nobody can cross over the ocean of saṁśaya or doubt. Therefore,
properly, with due respect come to śāstra. And if any nāstika claims that ‘I have
arrived at the truth’, Vēdānta will use scientific logic and show that what you
consider truth is not the truth. So thus, Vyāsācārya dismisses all the four types
of Buddhism; it is all purely scientific logic based, he dismisses the Jaina theory
etc. All those theories he dismisses without bringing the śāstram, because there
is no scope to quote from śāstra, by purely using scientific logic he says your
conclusions are wrong. Then the opponent asks what is your conclusion? Then
we say, ‘I have got a conclusion but it is not based on laukika-anumānam, but it
is based on śāstrīya-anumānam.
Therefore, what are the two purposes of laukika-anumānam?
 To establish that Vēdānta is not illogical.

 To establish that all nāstika systems are illogical.
But mainly we use śāstrīya-anumānam to arrive at the Vēdāntic

conclusions. So this point must be remembered throughout.
Now we will go to the introduction given by Śaṅkarācārya to

Brahmasūtra, which is well known as adhyāsa-bhāṣyam.
Adhyāsa-bhāṣyam
Adhyāsa means an error or a mistake. In this bhāṣyam, Śaṅkarācārya

establishes that the whole saṁsāra that a human being suffers is because of an
error or a mistake. What a tragedy, because of a mistake, because of an error!
This is very important. Because once Śaṅkarācārya proves that saṁsāra is
because of an error, then he can easily say saṁsāra-nivrtti is because adhyāsa-
nivrtti, error-nivrtti. Only when the error is gone, the error-caused problem is
also gone. Once you say saṁsāra is because of an error, the question comes
why is there an error? How does an error come? A mistake come? That is very
simple. Any error is because of ignorance, ajñānam. So thus, ajñānam causes
adhyāsa and adhyāsa causes saṁsāra. This is the essence of adhyāsa-bhāṣyam.
And therefore what? If saṁsāra should go, adhyāsa should go and if adhyāsa

should go, ajñānam should go if ajñānam should go, jñānam should come.
Therefore, it is jñānēna ēva mōkṣaḥ. karmaṇā na mōkṣaḥ, bhaktyā na mōkṣaḥ,
upāsanayā na mōkṣaḥ, yōgēna na mōkṣaḥ.
ि योगेि ि साङ् ख्येि कमनणा िो ि निद्यया ।

ब्रह्मात्मैकत्िबोिेि मोक्षाः ससध्यनत िान्द्यथा ॥ नििेकचूडामभण ५६ ॥
na yōgēna na sāṅkhyēna karmaṇā nō na vidyayā |
brahmātmaikatvabōdhēna mōkṣaḥ sidhyati nānyathā || Vivēkacūḍāmaṇi 56 ||
You may do any other thing sāṅkhyam vā yōgam vā upāsana vā bhakti vā. We
don’t say they are useless, they all have got their function of preparing you, but
none of them can give you liberation, because bondage is error based, which is
ignorance based and it can go only if knowledge comes.
िान्द्याः पन्था निद्यतेऽयिाय ॥ श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषत् ३-८ ॥

nānyaḥ panthā vidyatē’yanāya || Śvētāśvatarōpaniṣat 3-8 ||
ज्ञािात् एि तु कैिल्यम् ॥ पञ्चदशी ९-९७ ॥

jñānāt ēva tu kaivalyam || Pañcadaśī 9-97 ||
गतासूिगतासूंश्च िािुशोचनन्द्त पस्थण्डतााः ॥ गीता २-११ ॥

gatāsūnagatāsūṁśca nānuśōcanti paṇḍitāḥ || Gītā 2-11 ||
And therefore, athātō Brahma-jijñāsā. Therefore, we have come to gain jñānam

only. Why have we come to jñāna-kāṇḍam leaving behind karma-kāṇḍam?
Because by jñānam alone we get mōkṣa. This is the essence of adhyāsa-
bhāṣyam. Now we will go to the details.
Now for conveying this topic of adhyāsa, in Vēdānta we take a well-known

example of the rope and snake. This example is coming hereditarily. We find
this example given by Gauḍa Pādācārya in his Māṇḍūkya Kārikā,
अनिभश्चता यथा रज्जुरन्धकारे निकस्थल्पता ।

सपयधाराददक्षभभायवैस्तद्वदात्मा नवकस्थपपतः ॥ माण्डू क्र्कािः रका २-१७ ॥
aniścitā yathā rajjurandhakārē vikalpitā |

sarpadhārādibhirbhāvaistadvadātmā vikalpitaḥ || Māṇḍūkya Kārikā 2-17 ||
So, when there is a rope in front of you, which is not clearly visible, then there is
a mistake of snake. Therefore, snake perception on a rope is called an error.

rajjau sarpa buddhiḥ. Even Kamban has used in his Rāmāyaṇam it seems,
அலங்கலில் த ோன்றும் ப ோய்ம்மை அரவு எனப் பூ ம் ஐந்தும் விலங்கிய விகோரப்
ோட்டின் தவறு ோடுற்ற வக்கம்

ீ (alaṅgalil tōnṟum pōymai aravu ēna bhūtam
aindum vilaṅgiya vikāra pāṭṭiṇ vēṟu pāṭuṭṟa vīkkam – Kamba Rāmāyaṇa Sundara
kāṇḍam). (Do not commit the mistake of thinking that I know the whole of
Kaṁba Rāmāyaṇaṁ. ) அலங்கலில் த ோன்றும் ப ோய்ம்மை அரவு எனப். Alaṅgal
means rope (garland). Aravu means snake. Like that பூ ம் ஐந்தும் விலங்கிய
விகோரப் ோட்டின் தவறு ோடுற்ற வக்கம்
ீ – similarly the pañca-bhūtas are a mistake
on Brahman just as the snake is a mistake on the rope. So, this example is a
hoary old adage, from BC itself Now we are going to analyze how this error
takes place. Rope-snake we have heard. But we are trying to go deeper into
that.
When does the error takes place? If you analyze, if the rope is completely
not seen like in total darkness, no mistake takes place. In pitch-darkness there
is no mistake at all. That is where we say, ignorance is bliss. Because we don’t
see anything. Therefore, in total ignorance, there is no error. Similarly, in total
knowledge also there is no error. Because you see clearly that this is a rope.
Therefore, we can say, Knowledge is also bliss. Ignorance is also bliss,
Knowledge is also bliss. Ignorance is bliss - what is the example? A sleeper. A
sleeping person is in bliss. Knowledge is bliss - what is the example? A wise
person. Now when does the problem come? When there is semi-light, partial
light and partial darkness you know there is something curly, spiral thing. And
you have seen the movie Snake. Or you have visited Snake Park. Therefore, in
his mind all over what is revealing? Snake. Then there is manda andhakāra or
manda prakāśaḥ, that is why Gaudapāda says, andhakārē, so it is twilight time,
dusk time and therefore, he has got partial knowledge. Which part is known?
‘There is something’ that much is known. But what is that thing, he doesn’t
know.
Now, there is something this knowledge is called sāmānya-jñānam,

partial knowledge. And that part of the rope, what is that? There is something
exists, that part of the rope is called sāmānya-aṁśa. What part of rope? Rope is

a thing. That ‘thingness’, it is a thing. It is a general thing. That thingness that

there is something is called sāmānya-aṁśa. And that sāmānya-aṁśa is not
covered at all by darkness, that sāmānya-aṁśa is visible, so we call it anāvrta
aṁśa. That general feature is not covered. And this is real or unreal? There is
something is real. So therefore, it is called satya-aṁśa.
Three words have been introduced.
 sāmānya-aṁśa . Sāmānya-aṁśa means the general existence;

 anāvrta aṁśa. Anāvrta-aṁśa is uncovered part;
 satya aṁśa. Satya-aṁśa is the real part, i.e., very clearly seen.
But because the light is dull, what is covered? That it is a rope, which is
the particular feature is covered. What is the general feature? It is a thing.
‘There is’ is the sāmānya-aṁśa . The ropeness is covered, which is the specific
feature. Therefore, the ropeness is called viṣēśa-aṁśa, the specific feature. Is
this specific feature covered or not? It is covered, because of the partial light,
therefore it is āvrta-aṁśa.
Therefore, what is the fact? There is a rope is a fact. Of this total fact, one
part is covered and another part is not covered. Which part is not covered?
‘There is’ part is not covered. In the sentence, ‘There is a snake’, ‘there is’ part is
not covered. Then what is covered? ‘Rope’ is covered. So, ‘There is’ part is called
sāmānya-aṁśa, anāvrta-aṁśa, satya-aṁśa. And ‘rope’ is āvrta-aṁśa or viśēṣa-
aṁśa. When the viśēṣa-aṁśa is āvrtam, is covered, what do I do? Do I keep
quite? I have got a fertile mind and that too mind with snakes wriggling. In that
place where the viśēṣa-aṁśa is covered, I replace it with another viśēṣa-aṁśa.
One viśēṣa-aṁśa is covered. What is that? ‘Ropeness’ viśēṣa-aṁśa is covered, in
that place I put another viśēṣa-aṁśa, which is called ’snake’. Therefore, the
snakeness is a replaced viśēṣa-aṁśa. We are not replacing sāmānya-aṁśa.
‘There is’ is kept as it is. It is sāmānya-aṁśa, anāvrta-aṁśa, satya-aṁśa only. But
we are adding what? Another viśēṣa-aṁśa, which is snake, and that snake is
satyam or mithyā. That snake is mithyā or anrtam. It is unreal. When you say
there is a snake, there are two parts in that –

 sāmānya-aṁśa, which is anāvrta-aṁśa and satya-aṁśa, which is

expressed as ‘there is’
 and the second part is snake, which is viśēṣa-aṁśa, which is mithyā viśēṣa
-aṁśa.
Therefore, in every error, there is a satya sāmānya-aṁśa, real general

feature and there is a mithyā viśēṣa-aṁśa, unreal particular feature. Why does
unreal particular feature come? Because the real particular feature is covered.
So, an unreal particular is replaced. That is why when the knowledge comes, I
first said there is a snake and then I put on the torchlight and I see that it is an
error and that error is removed and I replace the statement also, previously I
said there is a snake now I say there is a rope. The correction is in sāmānya-
aṁśa or viśēṣa-aṁśa? The correction is not in sāmānya-aṁśa. ‘There is’ remains
in both the statements, therefore, sāmānya-aṁśa doesn’t require any
correction, because it is satya, it is anāvrta. So, correction takes place only in
viśēṣa-aṁśa. Instead of saying snake, I say there is a rope. When the correction
takes place in viśēṣa-aṁśa, the fear caused by snake is gone. One I know what it
is whether it is rope or snake. This is called saṁsāra-nivrtti. Then you should not
say, ‘there is a new fear caused by rope’. Because rope does not frighten you,
because it is an innocent piece of rope, it is only an useful thing, it cannot cause
fear. The fearless rope comes. In the same way, when a person says, aham
saṁsāri, I am a saṁsāri, miserable fellow, then Śaṅkarācārya says, ‘Here also
there is a sāmānya-aṁśa and viśēṣa-aṁśa. What is the sāmānya-aṁśa? ‘I am’,
which refers to a conscious being, conscious means cit, being means sat.
Therefore, ‘I am’ refers to sat cit, the conscious being, that ‘I am’ is sāmānya-
aṁśa, which is anāvrta-aṁśa, which is satya-aṁśa, which is real, ‘I am’ is real,
there is no covering, it is self-evident and ever-evident,
प्रनतबोिनिददतम् मतम् ॥ केिोपनिषत् २-४ ॥

pratibōdhaviditam matam || Kēnōpaniṣat 2-4 ||
and jñāna-svarūpaḥ. Then where is the problem? There is a viśēṣa-aṁśa. What

is that viśēṣa-aṁśa? I am ‘a saṁsāri’. That ’saṁsāri’ is a viśēṣa-aṁśa, which is
unreal like our snake.

Now this unreal viśēṣa-aṁśa has come because of the covering of the
real viśēṣa-aṁśa. The unreal viśēṣa-aṁśa has come because of - not sāmānya-
aṁśa, because sāmānya-aṁśa is not covered, it is available as ‘I am’. Therefore,
there is no covering of sāmānya-aṁśa - the covering of the real viśēṣa-aṁśa,
which is replaced by an unreal viśēṣa-aṁśa. Therefore, the covering belongs to
viśēṣa-aṁśa, the replacement also belongs to the viśēṣa-aṁśa, whereas
sāmānya-aṁśa remains intact. What is that real viśēṣa-aṁśa that is covered?
Asaṁsāri Brahma or ānandaḥ. In the statement ‘I am a saṁsāri’ the first part ‘I
am’ is sat and cit is evident, the second part, which is covered is ānanda-aṁśa
and anantatva-aṁśa or pūrṇatva aṁśa or Brahmatva aṁśa or asaṁsāritvam
aṁśa i.e., the viśēṣa-aṁśa that is covered. That I am pūrṇaḥ, that pūrṇaḥ is
covered, asaṁsāri is covered, limitlessness is covered, ānandaḥ is covered, that
viśēṣa-aṁśa is covered. And in that place what has come? apūrṇa, duḥkhi,
saṁsāri, i.e., the viśēṣa-aṁśa. Therefore, ahaṁ-jīvaḥ, aham-saṁsāri is an error
that is the cause of the all problem. So, what is required? You need not change
the sāmānya-aṁśam, i.e., ‘I am’ but you have to only remove the viśēṣa-aṁśa
called saṁsāri. By what? By putting the torchlight. What is the torchlight?
Vēdānta upadēśa torchlight. guru is having that torchlight. When the guru
presses the ‘tat tvam asi’ button, then the Brahma-aṁśa, pūrṇatva-aṁśa
becomes evident, Aham Brahma asmi jñānam comes and it eliminates the
viśēṣa-aṁśa, i.e., the saṁsāra-aṁśa is removed. Aham asmi is common for both
error and knowledge. The change is taking place in the viśēṣa-aṁśa alone.
Therefore, jñānāt what happens? Aham saṁsāri notion goes away and aham
mukta knowledge comes and that is the aim of all the prasthānatrayam. This is
what is going to be analyzed elaborately.
Now this error can be defined differently by looking at it from different

angle. Even though it is an error, you can define the error differently. Look, this
error has been studied very deeply! This science is called epistemology. It is full-
fledged science. This is the study of knowledge and error. What is knowledge
and what is error? How knowledge comes? How error comes? All these are
analyzed. Books and books are written on error. Śaṅkarācārya writes a bhāṣyam
on error about a page and a half. For that bhāṣyam sub-commentaries goes on

and on and on, pages and pages are written on what is error, because of their
differences of opinion regarding error. So, there are erroneous opinions about
error. It is called khyātivāda. Bauddhas’ description of error, Jainas’
description of error, mīmāṁsakas’ description of error, etc. There are
erroneous description of errors and advaita description of error alone is correct
like that it has been proved - that I am going to give you condensed form of
error theory.
Now when you look at the error - from the standpoint of rope, you can
define error as misapprehension of the rope. Mis-taking the rope is error. In
saṁskrta, it is called anyathā-grahaṇam. What is an error? Taking rope for
something else is error.
The same error can be defined from the standpoint of snake also. And
you say, error is superimposition of snake, which is not there. Superimposing, a
non-existent snake is superimposed. Therefore, what is the second definition of
error? Superimposition of a snake. Here snake is taken as an example, it can be
anything. In saṁskrta, it is called adhyārōpaḥ or adhyāsaḥ. First definition is
mistake, it is anyathā grahaṇam from the standpoint of rope. From the
standpoint of snake, it is superimposition or adhyāsa.
The third definition is a combination or mixing up of a real rope and an

unreal snake. When you say there is a snake, ‘there is’ refers to the rope, which
is a real part, that is sāmānya-aṁsaṁ; and when you say snake, ’snake’ refers to
the viśēṣa-aṁśa, which is unreal. Therefore, when you say, there is a snake, it is
a mixture of real sāmānya-aṁśa m and the unreal viśēṣa-aṁśa. So, what is
error? Mixing up of satyam and asatyam, satyam and anrtam,
satyānrta mithunīkaraṇam is error. Mithunīkaraṇam means mixing up. More in
the next class.


008 Adhyāsa-bhāṣyam
Śaṅkarācārya introduces Brahma-sūtras in his bhāṣyam through the discussion

of adhyāsa or error. The purpose of this discussion is to show that the whole
saṁsāra is based on an error, which is with regard to one’s Self. Self-error, Self-
misjudgment, Self-wrong conclusion is the cause of whole saṁsāra. If the error
is the cause of saṁsāra, the only way out is the removing this error and any
error can be removed by knowledge alone. So therefore, Self-error is corrected
by Self-knowledge. This is the aim of Śaṅkarācārya in writing the adhyāsa-
bhāṣyam. And we were studying the error generally through the example of
rope-snake, wherein rope is partially known and this partial knowledge leads to
the error of ‘this is snake’. This error can be looked from three different angles I
said.
 First we can take the error as a mistaken rope. From the standpoint
of rope, if you study the error it can be said to be a mistaken rope is error. The
very word mistake, in English, is a beautiful word, you miss the fact and take the
wrong thing. So, miss the rope, which is the fact, and take the snake, which is
not a fact. Therefore, mistaking the rope is error.
 Similarly, you can look at error from the standpoint of snake also
and you can define error as the superimposition of the snake, which is not
there, which you superimpose, you project. In saṁskrta, the first one is called
anyathā grahaṇam, mistaking the rope; the second one is called adhyāsaḥ,
superimposition. So, anyathā grahaṇam is from the standpoint of rope,
adhyāsaḥ is from the standpoint of snake. Both mean the same error.
 Third way of looking at is, you take both rope and snake, the rope
is real and the snake is unreal and the error is mixing up of, the combination of
the real rope and the unreal snake. Mixing up these two, you create a third
entity, like a salad, which is a singular entity, but in that singular entity there is a
real-part also and there is an unreal-part also. So thus, error can be defined as
is mixing up of the real and unreal. In saṁskrta, it is called satyānrta-
mithunīkaraṇam. Satyam means real, anrtam means unreal. Or satya-mithyā

mithunīkaraṇam, you can say. Mithunīkaraṇam means mixing up, combining. I

am using the word satyānrta-mithunīkaraṇam because Śaṅkarācārya has used
that expression.
So here, let us see how this mixture is taking place. This person, who
commits a mistake, makes a statement that ‘there is a snake’. He doesn’t know
that there are two entities. Only we are saying that there is a mixing up of real
and unreal. But as far as the mistaker is concerned, he is not aware that there
are two things. He says, there is a snake. Now in his statement and in his
cognition, there is only one entity but on an analysis we find, that in that one
unitary-perception there is satya-aṁśa, the real-part is there, and there is also
anrta-aṁśa, the unreal-part. This he doesn’t know and takes it as one, but it is a
mixture. How? In the statement ‘there is’ that ‘is’ness or existence is real and
unreal? It is satya-aṁśa, which belongs to the rope. So, ‘there is’ part is satya-
aṁśa, the existence part is satyam. Whereas in ‘there is a snake’, the snake part
is anrtam. So, is is satya-aṁśa and ’snake’ is anrta-aṁśa.
Similarly, when he says, the snake is frightening is anrta-aṁśa, which

belongs to snake, which is false. So, it is a frightening snake, frightening is
anrta-aṁśa. It is a long snake. The length is satya-aṁśa or anrta-aṁśa? The
length belongs to the rope and therefore, it is satya aṁśa. Existence is satya-
aṁśa, length is satya-aṁśa; whereas snake is anrta-aṁśa, frightening nature is
anrta-aṁśa. And he says, it is a poisonous snake, poisonous is anrta-aṁśa. And
it is curved-one. What it is? It is satya-aṁśa because it belongs to the rope,
which is curly. So thus, this person makes a peculiar mixture in which some of
them are satya-aṁśas and some of them are anrta-aṁśas, but he does not
know that there is satya-aṁśa and anrta-aṁśa, he mixes them both and takes it
as one unitary.
Similarly, when a person says, ‘I am so and so’. He takes himself as one

unitary entity. But Śaṅkarācārya says, in ‘I am so and so’ there are two aṁśams.
You are mixing up satya-aṁśa and anrta-aṁśa, and creating a jīva, who is
miserable. So, when he says, ‘I am conscious being’, what aṁśa? Consciousness
is satya-aṁśa. When he says, ‘I am an existent one’, the existence is what?

Existence is satya-aṁśa. When he says, ‘I am a fat person’, it is anrta-aṁśa. So

thus, the jīva is neither pure ātmā nor pure anātmā, it is a mixture of ātmā and
anātmā, satya-aṁśa and anrta-aṁśa and this satyānrta- aṁśa is striving for
liberation. This mixture is called error.
So therefore, mistaking the rope is error, called anyathā-grahaṇam.

Superimposing the snake is called error, called adhyāsa; or mixing up of rope
and snake is error, called satyānrta-mithunīkaraṇam. And what is the aim of the
entire Brahma-sūtra? This satyānrta-knot, the sthūla-śarīram-knot, sūkṣma-
śarīram-knot and kāraṇa-śarīram-knot you have tightened and there is the
problem and therefore remove this knot, unknot, get disentangled and that is
called mōkṣa. And for this alone the entire Brahma-sūtra is working. It is a small
job only, just unknotting it. This is adhyāsa discussion in general. Now I will
enter into the adhyāsa-bhāṣyam, Śaṅkarācārya’s discussion of this.
Now this discussion, the adhyāsa-bhāṣyam of Śaṅkarācārya can be

broadly classified into six topics. I will first enumerate, then we will briefly
discuss each one of them.
1. Adhyāsa-śaṅkā. In English, objection to the theory or the idea of error

raised by other systems of philosophy. They raise an objection to the
error idea. They want to say that the idea of an error is an error. There is
no possibility for an error to take place. So thus, this is the first topic.
2. Adhyāsa-śaṅkā samādhānam – answering the objection. Negating the
objection raised by the opponents.
3. Adhyāsa-lakṣaṇam – the definition of error.
4. Adhyāsa-sambhāvanā – showing the possibility of error.
5. Adhyāsa-pramāṇam – the proof for adhyāsa; the pramāṇam and finally,
6. Adhyāsa-upasaṁhāraḥ – the conclusion of the adhyāsa topic.
These are the six topics contained in the adhyāsa-bhāṣyam. Now, for the
sake of convenience, I am going to rearrange the six topics, slightly. And in this
rearrangement, firstly, I will take the adhyāsa-lakṣaṇam, i.e., the third topic. And

thereafterwards, I will discuss the other topics in that order only. The definition
part I will discuss first, because it is easy and briefer.
(A) Now Śaṅkarācārya gives two definitions to adhyāsa directly and the third
definition is indirectly available. Since, it is often quoted I am just giving the
definition. No new idea is contained in it. But because it is the definition given
by Śaṅkarācārya, therefore, it is popular, so I am giving this.
 One definition he gives is paratra pūrvadrṣṭa avabhāsaḥ adhyāsaḥ. If

translated into English it means the perception of an experienced object on a
wrong locus. Of course, one more word he adds smrti-rūpaḥ. smrti-rūpaḥ
paratra pūrva-drṣṭa-avabhāsaḥ. But these two words alone are important -
paratra pūrva-drṣṭa-avabhāsaḥ. This is a very clean definition. Because if you
take rope-snake example, here he is perceiving the snake, which snake is
already experienced before. I cannot superimpose a snake if I have not
experienced the snake at all. A person who has never seen the snake will not
mistake the rope for a snake. And therefore, snake is what? An experienced
object. And I error what am I doing? I am perceiving the experienced object,
what is that? Snake. Upon what? A wrong locus. What is the wrong locus here?
The rope is the wrong locus. Therefore, perceiving an experienced snake upon
a wrong locus, i.e., the rope is called error. This is one definition Śaṅkarācārya
gives.
 The second definition, which is more popular and is more simpler
also he gives and that is atasmin-tadbuddhiḥ – perception of an object is seen
on a wrong locus. Here what is the object perceived? The snake. Where does he
see? On a rope, which is a wrong place. Because, it is not a snake. Or perception
of silver on a shell. Silver is an object and it seen on a shell, which is a wrong
locus.
 The third indirect definition is satya anrta mithunīkaraṇam –
mixing up of satyam and anrtam, the real and unreal. So, coming to our
personal example, when I say, ‘I am the body’. Here what is the mistake? Seeing
the body on a wrong locus. What is the wrong locus? Ātmā, which is not the
body but I seeing as the body. So, I, who am not the body, I am seeing as the

body. Therefore, it is an error. I, the immortal, am seen as mortal, it is an error.

I, who is the ‘All-pervading’, am seen as limited, it is an error. This is adhyāsa
lakṣaṇam.
(B) Now I am entering into the second topic, i.e., adhyāsa-śaṅkā, objection to
adhyāsa. This is raised by all other systems of philosophies. Sāṅkhya-yōga-
Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika-Mīmāṁsā all of them bounce and they say the adhyāsa
introduction is an improper introduction, ātmā-anātmā-adhyāsa is impossible.
Therefore, the objectionist’s claim is that ‘ātmā-anātmā-adhyāsa is impossible.
Rope-snake-adhyāsa is possible, I can accept rope-snake mistake or mixing up
but I can never accept ‘ātmā-anātmā mixing up or adhyāsa.’ Who says? This is
said by the pūrva-pakṣis. To establish that, he gives arguments. He accepts
rope-snake mixing up is possible. But ātmā-anātmā mixing up is impossible.
What are the reasons?
He says, any superimposition like rope-snake requires four conditions. If

those conditions are fulfilled, there will be this adhyāsa, this satyānrta-
mithunīkaraṇam. If these conditions are not fulfilled, adhyāsa will not take
place. And he says, in the case of ātmā-anātmā-adhyāsa all these four
conditions are not there and therefore adhyāsa is a mistake. The idea of
mistake is a mistake, he says. Now what are the four conditions? Let us take the
rope-snake example itself.
 An error takes place there because, firstly, the rope is a pratyakṣa-

viṣaya, is an object perceived in front. There is a rope in front of us and hence,
there is a chance for an error. Therefore, the first condition is pratyakṣa-
viṣayatvam. Snake-adhyāsa won’t come where there is no visible rope. Not only
that, snake-adhyāsa won’t happen on a rope lying somewhere. The rope has to
be here and it also should be within the range of your perception. So,
pratyakṣa-viṣayatvam – being an object in front. Secondly, that the rope should
not be completely known and one should be ignorant of the fact that it is a
rope. ajñātatvam is the second condition; third condition is that sādrśyam.
 No.2. He says, the rope should not be completely known, one
should be ignorant of the fact that it is a rope. If it is known as rope in the broad

daylight then there will be no mistake. So, there should be ignorance of the fact
that it is a rope. Therefore, the second condition is ajñātatvam.
 Then the third condition is sādrśyam. There should be a similarity
between what I superimpose and what is there in front. I mistake the rope only
as a snake, which is similar to the rope. Or a garland, which is similar to the
rope. Or a crack on the rock, which is similar to the rope. But I never mistake a
rope for a cucumber. Why because there is no similarity between snake and
cucumber. Similarly, a shell is mistaken as silver because the shell and silver has
got similarity. Shell also is small and round silver coin is also small and round,
shell is also shining, cākacakyam vartatē and silver also shines. Therefore, there
is a shell-silver confusion, rope-snake confusion. But there is no rope-silver
superimposition, shell-snake superimposition never happens. Therefore, the
third condition is sādrśyam, similarity.
 What is the fourth condition? Now, a false-snake is superimposed,
which snake I have already experienced before and is registered in my mind.
And because of that vāsanā alone I commit the mistake of seeing the rope as
snake. If I have not experienced a real-snake before, there is no question of
mistaking the rope as snake. So, what is the fourth condition? Pūrva
anubhavajanya saṁskāraḥ. A saṁskāra or vāsanā, which is born out of an
experience of a real-snake or real-silver. This is the fourth condition.
So, pratyakṣa-viṣayatvam, ajñātatvam, sādrśyam and saṁskāraḥ; if these

four conditions are there then superimposition takes place. If you apply this in
the case of ātma-anātma viṣaya, no condition is fulfilled, whom are you fooling?
Do you think that we are ordinary people? You cannot fool and get away with
this adhyāsa thing. We cannot accept it. How do we say the four conditions are
not fulfilled? He says, look at each condition you will find that it cannot be
fulfilled in the case of ātma-anātma-adhyāsa.
(i) What is the first condition? Pratyakṣa-viṣayatvam. Rope is clearly

perceived as an object in front for mistake to take place. But in the case of ātmā,
is it an object perceived in front to commit a mistake? Ātmā-apratyakṣaḥ, ātmā
aviṣayaḥ. It is not an object in front for anyone to commit a mistake. And

therefore, pratyakṣa viṣayatvam condition is not fulfilled. Ātmanaḥ

apratyakṣatvāt. Ātmā is apratyakṣam. Therefore, pratyakṣa viṣayatvam
condition is not there. So, first condition is ruled out.
(ii) Then what is the second condition? Ajñātatvam, ignorance with
regard to the rope is there. And therefore, a mistake is possible. But in the case
of ātmā, you yourself accept ātmā is svayaṁ-prakāśaḥ, nitya caitanya svarūpaḥ.
It is prakāśa-rūpaḥ, It is self-evident, It is self-effulgent, It is ever-evident. How
can there be ignorance with regard to the self-evident ātmā? Self-evident
means it is known, all the time known.
स नित्योपलस्िस्िरुपोऽहमात्मा ॥ हस्तामलकम् ॥
sa nityōpalabdhisvarupō’hamātmā || hastāmalakam ||
अत्रायं परु
ु षः स्वयं ज्योतिर्भवति ॥ बह
ृ दारण्यकोपतिषि ् ४-३-९ ॥
atrāyaṁ puruṣaḥ svayaṁ jyōtirbhavati || brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 4-3-9 ||
You yourself are saying svayaṁ jyōti, self-evident, how can there be ignorance
in that caitanya svarūpa svayam prakāśaḥ ātmā. Therefore, the second
condition of ajñātatvam is not fulfilled and therefore, there is no
superimposition possible.
(iii) Then what is the third condition? Sādrśyam, similarity. Rope is not
seen as a cucumber. Rope is never mistaken as silver. Shell is never mistaken as
snake. Now, between ātmā and anātmā, my dear, tell me what similarity is
there? In fact, they are diagonally opposite in all features. Even you can say
there is a similarity between rope and cucumber, in the sense that both are
jaḍam. Or I can say both are objects. But here totally opposite. Ātmā is the
subject and anātmā is the object, ātmā is cētanam and anātmā is jaḍam, ātmā is
sarvagatam and anātmā is alpagatam; ātmā is niravayavam or nirguṇam and
anātmā is saguṇam. Whatever features you like you take, they are diagonally
opposite. So, Śaṅkarācārya says in his bhāṣyam, tamaḥ-prakāśavat viruddha-
svabhāvayōḥ, viṣaya-viṣayiṇōḥ, yuṣmat asmat pratyaya-gōcarayōḥ. Yuṣmat
asmat pratyaya-gōcarayōḥ means one is object and another is subject. And they
are opposed like what? Tamaḥ-prakāśavat viruddha-svabhāvayōḥ – they are

diagonally opposite like light and darkness. Therefore, sādrśyam is not at all
there. Therefore, the third condition is not fulfilled.
(iv) Then what is the fourth condition? Saṁskāraḥ. You say that
anātmā is unreal. ātmā is real. That is how we say, satya-anrta mithunīkaraṇam.
Satya-ātmā and anrta-anātmā are mixed up. Now he says, in the case of snake,
unreal-snake is possible, because we have experienced a real- snake before.
Now, if there should be an experience of unreal-anātmā, it should be based on
what? The previous experience of a real-anātmā, which experience creates a
vāsanā, and from that vāsanā an unreal-anātmā is projected you can say. Are
you getting the question? In the case of silver, I can understand unreal-silver is
possible, because I have experienced real silver. An unreal-snake is possible,
because I have experienced real-snake. An unreal- dream is possible, because I
have experience the real-waking. Similarly, an unreal anātmā you can talk about
if we had experienced the real anātmā. But you yourself say that there is no
real-anātmā, because ātmā alone is real. There is no real-anātmā at all. If there
is no real-anātmā, there is no vāsanā created by that experience. If vāsanā is
not created, there is no question of unreal anātmā. And therefore, saṁskāra,
the fourth condition is also not there.
Since all the four conditions are not there ātmā-anātmā-adhyāsa is

impossible. And you are building up your entire teaching on this adhyāsa, which
itself is a shaky teaching of yours. When you are not able to prove adhyāsa itself
how can you build up a whole teaching based on this adhyāsa? And once this
ground floor is shaken, the whole flat will fall apart. This is the first topic and it
is called adhyāsa-śaṅkā.
C & D) Now, we will go to the third topic. So, now I have dealt with two topics.
First one is adhyāsa-lakṣaṇam and the second topic is adhyāsa-śaṅkā. Now I am
entering into the third topic, adhyāsa-śaṅkā-samādhānam. And the fourth topic
is adhyāsa-sambhāvanā. Because the third topic is already dealt with. Now,
these two topics are very similar. What are the two topics? Adhyāsa-śaṅkā
samādhānam – answering the objection and also adhyāsa-sambhāvanā –
showing the possibility, both are very close topics. Therefore, I am not going to

separately discuss. I will discuss both these topics joining together. Therefore,
now I am discussing the third and fourth topic together, viz., adhyāsa-śaṅkā-
samādhānam and adhyāsa-sambhāvanā. Now, in this Śaṅkarācārya has to
answer the objection with regard to each condition. Now let us see.
What is the first condition? The first condition is the thing, which is
mistaken, should be pratyakṣa-viṣaya; it should be an object perceived in front.
For that, our answer is this condition is not exactly the same condition, we have
to modify the first condition slightly differently. You have presented the first
condition wrongly. What is that?
For a mistake to take place, the object must be evident; it should be a

known object because the unknown-object cannot be mistaken. Therefore, it
should be a known-object, an evident-object, it need not be necessarily an
object-in-front. Why shouldn’t it be an object in front? The condition is it should
be a known-object. And as far as ātmā is concerned, It is not an object-in-front
but still as the subject, ātmā is evident enough to commit the mistake. No
doubt, ātmā is not pratyakṣam, ātmā is not an object, both conditions are not
required; but ātmā is evident as the subject and It is evident enough to commit
the mistake. Therefore the first condition is It should be evident. We are
modifying the first condition. It need not be pratyakṣa-viṣaya, It has to be
evident-enough to commit the mistake. It should be evident either as an object
or evident as the subject. What does it matter if it is evident as object or
subject? Once a thing is evident, known we are powerful enough, capable
enough to commit the mistake. Therefore, the first condition is what? Prakāśa-
mānatvam is the first condition and not pratyakṣa-viṣayatvam. Prakāśa-
mānatvam means it should be evident. The first condition, i.e., the modified
condition is fulfilled in the case of rope also and also in the case of ātmā.
Therefore, error is possible.
What is the second condition? Ajñātatvam. Ajñātatvam means it should

be not known, that rope is not known as rope. That means it is partially-
unknown. Rope is evident but it is not fully-known. It is partially-known and it is
partially-unknown. This partial-ignorance is the second condition. āṁśika-

ajñātatvam, partial-ignorance. By partial-ignorance it means it is partially-

known. In the case of rope, it is partially-known as something is lying there,
which is long, curly, bent. I know that much, but I do not know exactly. Now, we
say, in the case of ātmā also it is partially-known and it is partially-unknown.
That condition is happily fulfilled. ātmā is partially known as what? aham asmi.
Whenever a person says ‘I am’ that ‘I’ indicate consciousness, ‘am’ indicate
existence, ‘I’ indicate the cit aṁśa and ‘am’ indicate the sat aṁśa, the sat cit
ātmā is evident as ‘I am’, but it is not fully known as aham Brahma asmi aham
ānandaḥ asmi. Therefore, which part is known? sat is known, cit is known, but
anantatva is not known, ānandaḥ is not known. How do you prove it? You see
the vyavahāra of people, everybody says ‘I am’, which is very much true but
later they give the bio data, which is not real.
निश्वं पश्यनत कायनकारणतया स्िस्िाधमसंबन्धताः

सशष्याचायनतया तथैि नपतृपुत्राद्यात्मिा भेदताः ।
स्वप्ने जाग्रनत वा एष पुरुषो मार्ापिः रभ्राममतः ॥ श्री दक्षिर्ामूर्ति स्तोत्म् ८ ॥
viśvaṁ paśyati kāryakāraṇatayā svasvāmisaṁbandhataḥ

śiṣyācāryatayā tathaiva pitrputrādyātmanā bhēdataḥ |
svapnē jāgrati vā ēṣa puruṣō māyāparibhrāmitaḥ || śrī dakṣiṇāmūrti stōtram 8 ||
Every jīva says aham jīvaḥ asmi, anityaḥ asmi, paricchinnaḥ asmi. From that it is
very clear that there is ignorance. And if the Self-ignorance was not there, the
upaniṣat need not teach Self-knowledge. In Cāndōgyōpaniṣat, there is a
statement
तरनतशोकमात्मनित् ॥ छान्द्दोग्योपनिषत् ७-१-३ ॥

taratiśōkamātmavit || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 7-1-3 ||
ātmavit śōkam tarati means the knower of the Self crosses over sorrow. From
that, it is very clear that all the saṁsāris do not have the Self-knowledge. If Self-
knowledge is not there, what else is there? Self-ignorance is there. Therefore,
what proof you want other than our personal experience. And therefore, the
second condition of partial-ignorance and partial-knowledge is fulfilled. So,
which part is correct? ‘I am’-part is correct, then ahaṁ-saṁsāri part is wrong,
because of ignorance.

What is the third condition? Sādrśyam. So, similarity should be there

between the adhiṣṭhānam, i.e., the rope and the adhyasta, superimposed-
object, i.e., the snake. adhiṣṭhāna-ārōpyayōḥ, adhiṣṭhāna-adhyastayōḥ
sādrśyam. For that our answer is, that sādrśyam, similarity is a general
condition but there are exceptions to the general conditions. So, just as they
say, it’s just an example, that Īśvara, the Lord is both the intelligence-cause and
material-cause for the world. But generally, in the creation what we see is
intelligence cause and material-cause are different. If you take the desk, who is
the intelligence cause? Carpenter. What is the material-cause? The wood. The
general rule is the intelligence cause and material-cause are different. But there
are exceptions as in the case of spider. Similarly, we say, sādrśyam is also a
general condition but there are exceptions where adhyāsa is possible without
similarity. And ātmā-anātmā-adhyāsa comes under this exceptional-condition.
Therefore, the third rule is not required for error. What is that exceptional-
condition, we will see in the next class.


We are seeing the introductory bhāṣyam of Brahmasūtram, which is

known as adhyāsa-bhāṣyam. And we saw that the topics of adhyāsa-bhāṣyam
can be broadly classified as the following –
a) adhyāsa lakṣaṇam – the definition of adhyāsa;

b) adhyāsa śaṅkā – doubt regarding adhyāsa;
c) adhyāsa śaṅkā samādhānam – answer for the doubt raised;
d) adhyāsa sambhāvanā – the possibility of adhyāsa;
e) adhyāsa pramāṇam – the proof for the existence of adhyāsa; then finally,
f) adhyāsa upasaṁhāra – the conclusion of the topic of adhyāsa.
Of these six topics, we have already seen two topics – adhyāsa-lakṣaṇam,

the definition of adhyāsa and adhyāsa-śaṅkā, the doubt regarding adhyāsa. And
while raising the doubt the pūrva-pakṣi said four conditions are to be fulfilled
for adhyāsa and since those four conditions are not there, adhyāsa is not
possible. And then we have taken up the third and fourth topic together i.e.,
adhyāsa-śaṅkā-samādhānam and adhyāsa-sambhāvanā. And in this section,
Śaṅkarācārya answers the doubt raised by pūrva-pakṣi. In that answer we said
all the four conditions required for adhyāsa are there. Each condition is fulfilled
and therefore, adhyāsa does take place. What are those four conditions? I am
taking many things for granted.
The first condition he said was pratyakṣa-viṣayatvam. Ātmā must be

available for objectification for adhyāsam to take place. And we answered that
question by saying that ātmā that need not be pratyakṣa-viṣaya, ātmā must be
evident for adhyāsa to take place because anything evident can be mistaken.
Evident means knowable. Either it is evident through sense organs or it is self-
evident, either way it is prakāśamānam. Therefore, the first condition is
prakāśa-mānatvam and not pratyakṣa viṣayatvam. Prakāśa-mānatvam means it
is knowable, and since ātmā is ever evident as aham, it is an ideal locus for
committing mistake.

The second condition is ajñātatvam. We say that condition is also fulfilled,

because even though ātmā is self-evident it is only partially evident. I am
existent is known, I am conscious is evident, but aham pūrṇaḥ asmi, aham
Brahma asmi, that Brahmatva-aṁśam is not evident. The sat-aṁśa is evident
and cit-aṁśa is evident but the ānanda-aṁśa, the pūrṇatva-aṁśa is not evident.
It is veiled by ignorance. Therefore, from that angle ajñātatvam is there, partial
covering is there, therefore, the second condition is fulfilled.
Then the third condition is sādrśyam, the pūrva-pakṣi said. There should
be a similarity between the rope and snake for getting mixed up. There should
be a similarity between the shell and silver to get mixed up. What similarity is
there between ātmā and anātmā getting into adhyāsa? For that we were seeing
the answer, up to this we saw in the last class. I said sādrśyam or similarity is a
general condition but it is not an invariable necessity, it is not a compulsory
condition. Because we do have cases where error takes place without any
similarity. Śaṅkarācārya gives the example – apratyakṣē’pi hyākāśēbālāḥ
talamalinatādi adhyasyanti. So, the example is of the blue sky, nīla ākaśaḥ. Sky
is nothing but ākāśa. Now, this blue sky is an error or knowledge? We certainly
know that the sky is nirūpam. The ākāśa is rūpa-rahitaḥ. When we use the
expression blue sky, we are certainly superimposing the blueness upon the sky.
Not only blueness, Śaṅkarācārya says, the sky seems to be a vessel turned
upward down, i.e., the revered-vessel. The concavity of space. So, this concavity
called talatvam and nīlatvam, the blueness and also malinatvam, the space
pollution we talk about. Therefore, pollution of space, the concavity of space
and blueness of space they are all falsely superimposed and when such an error
takes place what kind similarity we can talk about between ākāśa and the
blueness etc. In fact, ākāśa is never similar to anything. That is why they have
an expression
गगिं गगिाकारं सागराः सागरोपमाः ॥ रामरािणयोयुि

न ं रामरािणयोररि । ॥ िाल्मीनक रामायण ६-१०७-५२/५३ ॥
gaganaṁ gaganākāraṁ sāgaraḥ sāgarōpamaḥ || Rāma rāvaṇayōryuddhaṁ Rāma
rāvaṇayōriva | || vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa 6-107-52/53 ||
Somebody asked Āñjanēya it seems ‘You talk about Rāma rāvaṇa yuddham
which is far superior to or worse than even Mahābhārata yuddham. Then it is

like what?’ Then he said, gaganaṁ gaganākāraṁ. For space what comparison is
there? There is no comparison. So, space is like what? Like space. sāgaraḥ
sāgarōpamaḥ. Ocean is like what? Like ocean. No comparison. Rāma
rāvaṇayōryuddham is like what? Like Rāma rāvaṇa yuddham. Any way what I
am trying to arrive at is ākāśa is not similar to anything and therefore with
regard to ākāśa no sādrśyam is possible with anything. And therefore, no ākāśa
adhyāsa should happen. Sādrśya-abhāvāt ākāśa-viṣayē adhyāsa should not be
possible. But still what happens? Adhyāsa takes place. Therefore, what do we
say? The third condition, i.e., sādrśyam is not compulsory. Therefore, first
condition is fulfilled, second condition is fulfilled, third condition is not
compulsory.
Then what is the fourth condition he said? Saṁskāraḥ. You said, the
pūrva-pakṣi argues, ātmā anātmā adhyāsa is a mixing up of satyam and
anrtam, satya-anrta mithunīkaraṇam, mixing up of real-ātmā and the unreal-
anātmā. pūrva-pakṣi says, in the case of rope-snake example, a real-rope and
an unreal-snake are possible, because I have already experienced a real-snake
and from that I have got sarpa-saṁskāraḥ and because of that sarpa-
saṁskāraḥ, i.e., vāsanā I superimposing a false-snake. So, false-snake is
possible because of experience of real-snake. The pūrva-pakṣi asks, the false-
anātmā also will be possible only if there is an experience of real-anātmā. Are
you following? Without the experience of real-anātmā, how can I have the
saṁskāra? And if that saṁskāra is not there, how can there be false-anātmā?
So, false-snake is possible, but false-anātmā is not possible. This is the
argument presented by the pūrva-pakṣi. This is the fourth condition called
saṁskāraḥ. And we answer, saṁskāra is required. Accepted. And the saṁskāra
or vāsanā, the impression comes from the previous experience. Accepted. It is
the previous experience of snake. Accepted. But you are saying there should be
previous experience of a real-snake, you say. But I disagree. The previous
experience of a snake is required but it need not be a real-snake. I can have a
previous experience of a false-snake and that false-snake experience can create
an impression and that impression can produce another false-snake. Suppose, I
experienced a snake in a snake-movie. Movie-snake is real-snake or false-

snake? If it is real-snake, nobody will go to a movie. So, I experienced a false-

snake in a movie and it was full of snakes. How does sarpa-adhyāsa come? It is
because of pūrva-anubhava. And I saw which snake? All are movie-snakes. And
therefore we say, one adhyāsa is possible because of the experience of previous
unreal-snake. And if that is possible in the case of snake, in the case of anātmā
also I will say that one anātmā-adhyāsa is possible because of previous anātmā-
adhyāsa, which is unreal. And how did anātmā-adhyāsa come? It is because of
previous-anātmā-adhyāsa. Then how did anātmā-adhyāsa come? Śaṅkarācārya
says, naisargikō’yaṁlōkavyavahāraḥ, it is anādi adhyāsa. We never talk about
the beginning of adhyāsa. It is naisargikaḥ, anādiḥ, anantaḥ-adhyāsaḥ, pūrva
pūrva-adhyāsaḥ uttara uttara–adhyāsasya-kāraṇam. So, this adhyāsa is because
of the saṁskāra born out of previous adhyāsa, which is born out of previous
adhyāsa, which is born out of previous adhyāsa. When?
अिादद अनिद्या िासिया ॥ उपाकमन महा सङ् कल्पाः ॥

anādi avidyā vāsanayā || upākarma mahā saṅkalpaḥ ||
And therefore, the fourth condition is what? Saṁskāraḥ. And that saṁskāra is
gained by us. From what? The previous anātmā anubhava, which is also unreal.
Therefore, real-anātmā is not there and unreal-anātmā alone has been there
from beginningless time. And therefore, all the four conditions are fulfilled. First
condition is fulfilled in a modified form, prakāśa-mānatvam. Second condition is
fulfilled, ajñātatvam. The third condition is not compulsory. And the fourth
condition is also fulfilled, i.e., saṁskāraḥ. And since all the conditions are
fulfilled, ātmā-anātmā-adhyāsa is possible.
This is the first answer to the pūrva-pakṣi. In fact, this answer is only a
provisional, temporary answer. Which answer? All the four conditions are
fulfilled, therefore, adhyāsa is possible is the first answer; provisional answer
we give.
Then we have got the second-answer, which is the real-answer. This we

should know thoroughly. First answer if we know it is alright, otherwise doesn’t
matter. Second answer is the most important answer. So, this has to be
understood, I will go step by step. Let us see the first thing.

We say, adhyāsa that we talk about is based on Vēda-pramāṇam.

Adhyāsa between ātmā-anātmā is primarily based on the Vēda-pramāṇam. The
rope-snake example is not given for proving adhyāsa. Adhyāsa is not derived
from rope-snake example derived, but adhyāsa is derived from Vēda-
pramāṇam. Rope-snake example is given only to show some corollaries, some
secondary ideas of adhyāsa. And therefore, one should not focus too much on
rope-snake example because it is not meant to prove adhyāsa. The proof for
adhyāsa is in the Vēda. Not understanding this many pūrva-pakṣis and many
philosophers focus their attention on rope-snake and cross-examine us, like CBI
cross-examining, hours together they cross-examine us, based on rope-snake
example. We say, don’t focus too much on that because even if rope-snake
example is disproved, adhyāsa will not be disturbed because adhyāsa is not
based on rope-snake example. It is based on what? Śruti-pramāṇam. If you are
not with rope-snake example, you give some other example. You cannot
question the adhyāsa because it is based on the śruti-pramāṇam. So, this is the
first point you should know.
Now the second point that is important is this adhyāsa should not be
questioned by these pūrvapakṣis because the pūrva-pakṣis themselves have
already accepted adhyāsa in their system, which they themselves are not aware
of. By pūrva-pakṣi it means all the āstika pūrva-pakṣi; Sāṅkhya-Yōga-Nyāya-
Vaiśēṣika-Pūrva-mīmāṁsā in all their system adhyāsa is already there. Ātmā
anātmā adhyāsa is there. They are searching while all the way it is in their own
pockets. Where is there adhyāsa? This we have to understand.
Now, they all talk about ātmā. All those systems talk about an ātmā and
they all accept based on the Vēda pramāṇam that ātmā is nityaḥ. In all the
darśanams ātmā is eternal. They accept Vēda-pramāṇam, they accept karma-
kāṇḍa, they accept puṇyam and pāpam; they accept the ātmā surviving the
death and also puṇarapi-jananam puṇarapi-maraṇam. All these are what?
Continuity of ātmā. And ātmā means what? Aham. They all know that and they
all accept that ātmā refers to I, the Self. And therefore, all those philosophers
say that I, the ātmā is immortal, nityaḥ, based on Vēda-pramāṇam. Now, even

though this is a fact, based on Vēda pramāṇam, and it is accepted as a fact by

all these pūrvapakṣis, the question comes, even if this is a fact we all say that I
am a human being, I am a male I am a female, I am a husband, I am a wife, I
am a father. When a person says I am a human being what is the meaning of
the word I? Ātmā or the body? Certainly it is referring to the body alone,
because ātmā is neither human nor male nor female nor father nor mother.
Therefore, I am a human being is knowledge or error? According to their
systems, we have not yet come to advaita. According Sāṅkhya, according yōga,
according Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika, I am a human being is knowledge or error? They
have to accept and they do accept that it is an error. Similarly, I am mortal is
knowledge or error? All those people say it is an error. What type of error it is? It
is dēha-ātmā-buddhi error, martyatva-buddhi error, manuṣyatva-buddhi error,
pitrtva-buddhi error. All these are errors according to whom? Not advaitin. It is
an error accepted by all āstika systems. It is called sthūla-śarīra-adhyāsaḥ.
Sthūla-śarīra-adhyāsaḥ is accepted by all the āstika-systems. I don’t want to talk
about the nāstika-systems now. We will deal with them in the second chapter of
Brahmasūtra. We are primarily concerned with āstika people and therefore we
are asking them do you accept sthūla-śarīra-adhyāsaḥ. And they have to
humbly say, ‘Yes, we accept sūkṣma-śarīram-adhyāsa.’ And if they don’t accept it
as an error, then what will happen? They will become cārvāka system of
philosophy. Because dēhātmā buddhi will become a fact, if it is not an error.
They will become cārvākas and all of them are allergic to cārvāka. They are all
petrified of cārvākas. Because in India that Vēdic-śraddhā was so strong that by
the name of cārvāka they were so much scared as much one gets scared by a
criminal. Therefore, to escape from cārvāka-philosophy they have to say that
dēhātmā buddhi is not a fact, but dēhātmā-buddhi is an adhyāsa. Therefore,
what is the second point to be noted? Adhyāsa is already accepted by the
pūrvapakṣis. First point is we are not establishing adhyāsa based on rope-snake
example. Therefore, don’t dwell on that example and grill me. If you don’t like it
then drop it. Still my adhyāsa is intact because it is hanging on śruti and not
rope-snake. And the second point is no pūrva-pakṣi has got a right to question
adhyāsa because all of them have accepted dēhātmā-buddhi as adhyāsa.

Now, the third point, natural corollary, is therefore, that pūrva-pakṣi

should not question ātmā-anātmā-adhyāsa because pūrva-pakṣi already has
got ātmā-sthūla-śarīra-adhyāsa. Not only he should not question that, he
should not ask for even an explanation - four conditions are fulfilled, three
conditions are fulfilled, you should not ask. Because if you ask me question, I
will ask a counter question. What is that? For sthūla-śarīra-adhyāsa what
conditions are fulfilled? You are asking me ‘whether pratyakṣa-viṣayatvam is
fulfilled or ajñātatvam is fulfilled or sādrśyam is fulfilled?’ I am asking you a
question, ‘When you talk about sthūla-śarīra-adhyāsa what conditions are
fulfilled? There also what adhyāsa you are talking about? Sthūla-śarīram is
superimposed on ātmā even though ātmā is not a pratyakṣa-viṣaya. So,
ātmanaḥ apratyakṣatvē api sthūla-śarīra-adhyāsaḥ katham yuṣmābhiḥ
aṅgikriyatē? How do you accept sthūla-śarīra-adhyāsa when ātmā is
apratyakṣam?’ And when you can accept why can’t I talk about adhyāsa?
And secondly, when you talk about sthūla-śarīra-adhyāsa upon ātmā,

what similarity is there between ātmā and sthūla-śarīram? Because, all the
systems of philosophy say that ātmā is all-pervading and It is formless, It is
niravayavam, part-less, Sāṅkhya says, Yōga says. And what is sthūla-śarīram? It
is limited, it is with form, it has got avayavas. Even though there is no sādrśyam
between ātmā and sthūla-śarīram, don’t you accept adhyāsa? You do accept
adhyāsa. Based on what? Based on śruti-pramāṇam. And what is the śrut-
pramāṇam ? Ātmā is not the body. And how did you know that ātmā is not the
body? Because śruti says, ātmā is nityam, we know that body is anityam. From
śruti we know that ātmā is nityam, from anubhava we know that the śarīram is
anityam. And therefore, ātmā is different from the body. But still adhyāsa is
taking place based on the śruti-pramāṇam. Therefore, if you can accept sthūla-
śarīra-adhyāsa based on śruti-pramāṇam and not based on sādrśyam, I can
also talk about adhyāsa without sādrśyam condition. Therefore, ātmā-anātmā-
adhyāsa based on śruti-pramāṇam is acceptable to all of us. And don’t bring in
laukika condition while dealing with ātmā-anātmā-adhyāsa. Laukika condition
means worldly-condition like rope-snake and shell-silver etc.; do not bring those

laukika condition while we talk about ātmā anātmā adhyāsa, because it is based
on śruti accepted by both of us.
Then the next point is ātmā anātmā adhyāsa is acceptable to you based
on śruti-pramāṇam; and in the same way rope-snake adhyāsa also cannot be
questioned by you because that adhyāsa is experienced by all of us. It is not
based on logic, but it is based on experience. And therefore, anubhava-based
rajju-sarpa adhyāsa also you cannot question. How this adhyāsa takes place
different philosophers give different explanations. How does rope-snake error
takes place? A very big discussion. It is called khyāti-vādaḥ. Each philosopher
gives one-one explanation.
आत्मख्यानतरसत्ख्यानतरख्यानताः ख्यानतरन्द्यथा ।
तथाऽनििनचिीयख्यानतररत्येतत् ख्यानतपञ्चकम् ॥
ātmakhyātirasatkhyātirakhyātiḥ khyātiranyathā |
tathā’nirvacanīyakhyātirityētat khyātipañcakam ||
So, the Yōgācāra Buddhist says it is ātma-khyātiḥ, one type of explanation,

Mādhyamika Buddhist says it is asat-khyatiḥ, Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika philosophers say
it is anyathā-khyātiḥ, Mīmāṁsaka says it is akhyātiḥ, advaitin says it is
anirvacanīya-khyātiḥ. Explanations vary. Explanations on what? How rope
appears to be snake. Explanation is called khyāti-vādaḥ. Books and books are
written only on this khyāti. Śaṅkarācārya doesn’t bother about these khyātis, he
says whatever be your explanation, you all accept that there is an error. How
the error takes place they may differ. But you cannot question the existence of
rajju-sarpa-adhyāsa because it is based anubhava. You cannot question ātmā-
anātmā-adhyāsa also because it is based on śruti. So, both adhyāsas you accept,
then why do you question me. It only shows your prejudices against me. I will
question you because you say so. Therefore, adhyāsa is very much possible.
Then where is our problem? That seems that we are all on same side.
Ātmā-anātmā-adhyāsa is also possible, accepted by pūrva-pakṣis, rajju-sarpa-
adhyāsa based on anubhava, then where is the problem? The problem is only in
the extent of adhyāsa. To what extent adhyāsa, error has taken place. There
ends the problem. There is no problem with regard to the existence. But there

is only problem with regard to the extent. There different philosophers

disagree. For example, if you ask a tārkika with regard to three things –
anityatvam, katrtvam, bhōktrtvam. Let us take. Because we have got these
three notions. I am anityaḥ, mortal; I am kartā and I am bhōktā. Keeping these
three notions, suppose, we ask different philosophers. A Nyāya-philosopher
says that mortality is superimposed is not a fact. So, I am anityaḥ is an error.
Then what is the correct? Aham nityaḥ is correct. And he says, I am kartā and I
am bhōktā; both of them are not error, that is fact only. This is the view of
Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika. Though he accepts adhyāsa, but says of these three one is
adhyāsa and remaining two are fact only. Ahaṁ-anityaḥ is adhyāsaḥ but aham
kartā and bhōktā is a fact. Suppose you go to Sāṅkhya-yōga philosopher, he
says: No No No; ahaṁ-anityaḥ is an error. Ahaṁ-kartā is also an error. Ātmā is
not a kartā. All works are done by prakrti and not by puruṣa. Therefore, they say
anityatvam is adhyastam, kartrtvam is adhyastam, but ātmā is a bhōktā, it is a
fact. So therefore, of these three they say two are errors and the third one is
jñānam. If you ask advaitin, what does he do? He says that anityatvam is also
adhyastam, kartrtvam is also adhyastam and bhōktrtvam is also adhyastam.
िादिे कस्यसचत्पापं ि चैि सुकृतं निभुाः ।

अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्य्न्त जन्तवः ॥ गीता ५-१५ ॥
nādattē kasyacitpāpaṁ na caiva sukrtaṁ vibhuḥ |

ajñānēnāvrtaṁ jñānaṁ tēna muhyanti jantavaḥ || Gītā 5-15 ||
हन्द्ता चेन्द्मन्द्यते हन्द्तुं हतश्चेन्द्मन्द्यते हतम् ।

उभौ तौ ि निजािीतो िायं हनन्द्त ि हन्द्यते ॥ कठोपनिषत् १-२-१९ ॥
hantā cēnmanyatē hantuṁ hataścēnmanyatē hatam |

ubhau tau na vijānītō nāyaṁ hanti na hanyatē || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-2-19 ||
Therefore, advaitin will say anityatvam kartrtvam bhōktrtvam sarvam

adhyastam. Therefore, our quarrel is in what? Our quarrel is not with regard to
the presence of adhyāsa but it is with regard to the extent of adhyāsa.
Therefore, adhyāsa is very much possible and is there.
With this the third and fourth topics, viz., adhyāsa-śaṅkā-samādhānam and
adhyāsa-sambhāvanā are over. So, four topics are over now. Adhyāsa lakṣaṇam,

adhyāsa śaṅkā, adhyāsa śaṅkā samādhānam, Adhyāsa sambhāvanā all these

four topics are over.
E) Now we have to go to the fifth topic. What is that? Adhyāsa-pramāṇam.

What is the proof for adhyāsa? I have already indicated this that adhyāsa is
based on the śruti-pramāṇa, which the pūrva-pakṣi should not question
because pūrva-pakṣi himself has accepted sthūla-śarīra-adhyāsa based on the
śruti pramāṇa. Therefore, when you accept the adhyāsa based on the śruti
pramāṇa, why shouldn’t I? So, it is śruti based. It is derived from the śruti. We
say there are two śruti based pramāṇams for adhyāsa. One is called arthāpatti-
pramāṇam and the other is called anumāna-pramāṇam. In English, they are
called postulate and inference respectively. What type of anumānam? Not
laukika-anumānam, as told in the introduction itself, it is called śāstrīya-
anumānam. Because laukika-anumānam will work only in the case of anātma-
prapañca. Whereas once we come to ātmā it has to be śāstrīya-anumānam. I
hope you remember what is śāstrīya-anumānam and what is laukika-
anumānam.
What do you mean by arthāpatti? Arthāpatti means an idea which is

postulated to explain a proven fact. For example, suppose I get up early in the
morning after sound sleep and I see lot of water flooded all over and once I see
plenty of water all over the street, I postulate something. What is that? That last
night it must have heavily rained. Therefore, night rain is a postulate. Why I
have to postulate this? Because I slept off. If I see directly through my eyes then
there is no need for postulate. If I have been awake in the night and if I have
directly experienced the downpour, then I don’t require arthāpatti for I have got
pratyakṣa-pramāṇam. But night I slept off very well and therefore I have to
know about the rain not through pratyakṣam but through some other pramāṇa
called arthāpatti. Moreover, what is that arthāpatti? Morning flooding of the
roads is a fact. Why it is a fact? Because I am seeing it through my eyes. There is
no controversy regarding the flooded road. Now, my question is last night
whether it rained or not? Because pratyakṣam is not available. Now, I say I
cannot explain this fact, without presuming (postulate) the night rain I cannot

explain the flooded roads. So, night rain is a postulate to explain a proven fact,
proven through pratyakṣam. In the same way, we are going to use arthāpatti to
show that kartrtvam, bhōktrtvam, anityatvam they are all errors. I am a kartā is
error, I am bhōktā is error. I am a kartā bhōktā is adhyāsa, how do I prove? I
have to go to śruti-pramāṇam, which tells me a particular fact. What is that
particular fact?

उभौ तौ न नवजानीतो नार्ं र्न्त न रन्र्ते ॥ कठोपननषत् १-२-१९ ॥
hantā cēnmanyatē hantuṁ hataścēnmanyatē hatam |

In Gītā a similar idea comes,
य एिं िेभि हन्द्तारं यश्चैिं मन्द्यते हतम्

उभौ तौ न नवजानीतो नार्ं र्न्त न रन्र्ते ॥ गीता २-१९ ॥
ya ēnaṁ vētti hantāraṁ yaścainaṁ manyatē hatam

ubhau tau na vijānītō nāyaṁ hanti na hanyatē || Gītā 2-19 ||
I have quoted Vēda itself, because it is a superior-pramāṇam. In this, it is very

clearly said ātmā is akartā and abhōktā, which is śruti-pramāṇam. Pūrva-pakṣi
should not raise his eyebrow when I quote śruti because pūrva-pakṣi is an
āstika. If pūrva-pakṣi says I am nāstika, we will say in second chapter I will deal
with you. Nāstika is not assumed in this particular session. Therefore, it clearly
says ayaṁ na hanti – ātmā does not kill, killing representing all the actions. na
hanyatē – ātmā is not killed, indicating It is not an object, a bhōktā. Ayaṁ na
hanti is akartā and ayaṁ na hanyatē is abhōktā. Again in the fifth chapter of the
Gītā,
िादिे कस्यसचत्पापं ि चैि सुकृतं निभुाः । ॥ गीता ५-१५ ॥

nādattē kasyacitpāpaṁ na caiva sukrtaṁ vibhuḥ | || Gītā 5-15 ||
Ātmā does not take either the puṇyam or pāpam of anyone. And there is
another statement in the śruti, which says, ātmā is nirvikāraḥ, It is changeless. If
ātmā is kartā and bhōktā it will have to undergo change, because action

requires change, experience requires change. Therefore, ātmā being nirvikāraḥ,

ātmā cannot be a kartā or a bhōktā. That is fact no.1.
And once that fact is known, I postulate what? If ātmā is akartā then I am kartā
must be an error. Just like Krṣṇa said in the Gītā, ‘Intelligent people, Arjuna do
not grieve.’ And from that you derive, which is called arthāpatti, another idea.
‘Intelligent people do not grieve, Arjuna. And you are shedding tears, aśru-
pūrṇa-ākula-īkṣaṇam, viṣīdantam.’ So, arthāpatti pramāṇēna kim siddhyati?
Arjuna is ajñāni. In the same way, ātmā akartā-abhōktā is śruti-pramāṇam and I
am claiming I am kartā bhōktā. So, śruti-arthāpatti-pramāṇēna I conclude aham
kartā bhōktā is an error. More in the next class.


In the adhyāsa-bhāṣyam we have seen adhyāsa lakṣaṇam– the definition

of adhyāsa, adhyāsa śaṅkā – doubt regarding adhyāsa, adhyāsa śaṅkā
samādhānam – answering this doubt regarding adhyāsa, adhyāsa sambhāvanā
– the possibility adhyāsa. Having covered these four topics we have come to the
adhyāsa pramāṇam – what is the proof for the existence of adhyāsa. And the
proof that we are going to give is based on śruti. And this pramāṇa is of
twofold. One is arthāpatti pramāṇam and the other is anumānam-pramāṇam.
Of these two, we are seeing the first pramāṇam, viz., arthāpattiḥ.
Arthāpatti means postulation of an idea to explain a particular fact.

Without postulating that idea the fact cannot be explained. The fact can be
explained only by postulating that idea and therefore that idea becomes a valid
knowledge. Even though it is a postulated idea it is considered a valid
knowledge. I gave you the example that in the morning if I see the road
flooded. It is a fact, which does not require a proof because it is pratyakṣa-
based fact. Therefore, we do not have any doubt regarding the validity of
flooded road. The flooded road is a fact. But seeing this flooded road, I
postulate an idea that in the night there must have been rain. I am postulating
this idea because I have not experienced the rain in the night because of deep
sleep. If I have experienced the night rain, we don’t require postulation. What is
experienced need not be postulated. Now to explain the flooded road
phenomenon, postulating in the night there was rain. Even though it is
postulate, not directly experienced by me it is a fact or not? It is a fact, it is not
an imagination. It is a valid fact and not an imagination or mental projection,
because this postulation is based on another valid fact. And this process of
postulation is called arthāpatti-pramāṇam. And the knowledge gained by that is
called arthāpatti pramā. That process is called pramāṇam and the derived
knowledge is called pramā. Therefore, night-rain is known through arthāpatti-
pramāṇam. But here we find that the night rain is postulated based on what? A
pratyakṣa-anubhava. Therefore, this is a pratyakṣa based arthāpatti-pramāṇam.

Whereas, when you postulate some idea to explain the scriptures then it is a
postulate based on what? Not pratyakṣa, but it is based on śruti and that is
called śrutyarthāpatti-pramāṇam. Śrutyarthāpatti-pramāṇam is a postulate
based on śruti-pramāṇam. Śaṅkarācārya points out that adhyāsa is an idea
postulated to explain the śruti vākyam. Adhyāsa is not directly said in the śruti.
But at the same time, it is not Śaṅkarācārya’s projection or imagination, but
adhyāsa is a valid knowledge because it is postulated based on śruti-
pramāṇam. How do we do that? This alone I was explaining in the last class.
Remember this śrutyarthāpatti-pramāṇam is not used by us alone, it is used by
the other āstika-darśanams also, like Sāṅkhya, Naiyāyika etc. I will give you one
example, which I have given before, to show that it is accepted by other
darśanams.
Now, all the other people say that ‘I am mortal’. This notion is an error.
The Sāṅkhya accepts, Naiyāyika accepts, all these people accept that ‘I am
mortal’ is an error. How do they come to this conclusion? They say that the śruti
clearly says that ‘I am immortal’. I, the ātmā, am immortal, I go from body to
body, body alone dies, I shed one body, I take up another body, which indicates
that ‘I am immortal’. Hence, śruti gives the knowledge ‘I am immortal’, then this
‘I am mortal’ notion must be what? An error. So therefore, that ‘I am mortal’ is
an error is a postulate based on the fact given by the śruti that ‘I am immortal’.
Therefore, ātma-anityatva-adhyāsa is based on ātma nityatva-śruti-vākyam and
therefore, it is śruti arthāpatti pramāṇam alone.
If the other people accept that mortality is an error based on śruti,

Śaṅkarācārya says we are arriving at some more conclusions based on
postulates. What are those conclusions? The other people say ātmā is kartā. The
Nyāya philosopher says, ātmā is a kartā. And Śaṅkarācārya says, I am kartā,
ātmā is kartā is an error, adhyāsa. Ātmanaḥ-kartrtvam-adhyastam. On what
basis? Śaṅkarācārya says because the śruti clearly points out that ātmā is
akartā. If ātmā is akartā is a fact then ātmā is kartā must be an adhyāsa based
on śruti-arthāpatti-pramāṇam. When you go to the Sāṅkhya, yōga philosophies
they are a little bit advanced and they say ātmā is kartā is an adhyāsa.

Kartrtvam is adhyastam they accept. But what is their problem? They say ātmā
is a bhōktā is a fact. Now advaitin says that ātmanaḥ bhōktrtvam api
adhyastam. How do you know? It is postulated by me. On what basis do you
postulate? The basis is that śruti says that ātmā is abhōktā. So, if ātmā is
abhōktā based on śruti, then ātmā is bhōktā must be an error and therefore it is
adhyāsa. Therefore, anityatvam-adhyastam, kartrtvam-adhyastam, bhōktrtvam-
adhyastam all based on śruti-pramāṇam.
Now the next question is where do you find the śruti-vākyam that ātmā is
akartā and abhōktā. We have got innumerable statements, which I said in the
last class.

उभौ तौ न नवजानीतो नार्ं र्न्त न रन्र्ते ॥ कठोपननषत् १-२-१९ ॥
hantā cēnmanyatē hantuṁ hataścēnmanyatē hatam|

Ātmā does not kill, killing indicating all action. Therefore, ātmā is not a killer, is
not an actor. Similarly, ātmā is not killed means it is not an object of killing
action which means it is not an object of any action, therefore abhōktā. In the
Gītā also,
ि कतृनत्िं ि कमानभण लोकस्य सृजनत प्रभुाः ।

न कमयफलसंर्ोगं स्वभावस्तु प्रवतयते ॥ ५-१४ ॥
na kartrtvaṁ na karmāṇi lōkasya srjati prabhuḥ |

na karmaphalasaṁyōgaṁ svabhāvastu pravartatē || 5-14 ||
Or better Gītā ślōka is there,
सिनकमानभण मिसा संन्द्यस्यास्ते सुखं िशी ।

नवद्वारे पुरे दे री नैव कुवयन् न कारर्न् ॥ ५-१३ ॥
sarvakarmāṇi manasā saṁnyasyāstē sukhaṁ vaśī |

navadvārē purē dēhī naiva kurvan na kārayan || 5-13 ||
Na ēva kurvan – ātmā does not do anything. na kārayan – ātmā does not
instigate anyone to do. Ātmā means I. Therefore, ‘I am never a doer’ that is a

fact and that means ‘I am a doer’ is an error. Therefore, anityatvam kartrtvam

bhōktrtvam all the three are superimposed.
Similarly, the next superimposition is pramātrtvam. ‘I am a knower’ is also

superimposed. ‘I am consciousness’ is not superimposed. But ‘I am a knower’ is
superimposed. How do you prove that? Again, it is postulated based on the
śruti-vākyam, which clearly says ātmā is not a knower. Ātmā is jñānam and not
jñātā, not pramātā. Where is it said?
िान्द्ताःप्रज्ञं ि बनहष्प्रज्ञं िोभयताःप्रज्ञं ि प्रज्ञािघिं

ि प्रज्ञं िाप्रज्ञम् । ॥ माण्डू क्प्योपनिषत् ७ ॥
nāntaḥprajñaṁ na bahiṣprajñaṁ nōbhayataḥprajñaṁ na prajñānaghanaṁ
na prajñaṁ nāprajñam | || Māṇḍūkyōpaniṣat 7 ||
The Māṇḍūkya very clearly says, ātmā is not a waking knower, ātmā is not a
dream knower, ātmā is not a sleep knower. Waking knower is called viśva,
dream knower is called taijasa and sleep knower is called prājña. Now you know
why I said Upaniṣadic background will be useful for Brahmasūtra. So, ātmā is
not viśva jñātā, ātmā is not taijasa jñātā, ātmā is not even prājña jñātā, but ātmā
is ajñātā; not a knower at all. Non-knowing consciousness it is. Therefore,
Śaṅkarācārya says ‘I am a knower’ is also an adhyāsa based on śrutārthapatti
pramāṇam.
All these ideas can be derived from another śruti statement also.
Anityatvam is superimposed, kartrtvam is superimposed, bhōktrtvam is
superimposed, pramātrtvam is superimposed. All are adhyāsa, we can show
through another śruti vākyam also. What is that? Ātmā nirvikāraḥ.
acchēdyō’yam adāhyō’yam avikāryō’yam ucyatē. Avikāryaḥ. In English it means,
ātmā is free from changes. Now, if ātmā is kartā, bhōktā or pramātā then ātmā
becomes savikāram, subject to change. Because to be a kartā is to undergo
modification. Action is involved. You cannot be a kartā without undergoing
change. Similarly, to be a bhōktā also you have to undergo a change, it is an
anubhava – sukha-anubhava, duḥkha-anubhava. Similarly, to be a knower also
you have to undergo a change. Because kartrtvam is a process, bhōktrtvam is a
process and knowing is a process, all these involve change because they are

process. In fact, in saṁskrta if ‘tā’ comes then it indicates process. kar-tā, bhōk-
tā, pramā-tā, jñā-tā. Any tā indicates modification. In English also, any suffix ‘er’
indicates modification. Know-er, enjoy-er, do-er; any ‘er’ suffix indicates an
action, action indicates a process and the process indicates a modification.
Therefore, śruti says ātmā is nirvikāraḥ that means ātmā is not a kartā because
it is nirvikāratvāt. It is not a bhōktā, nirvikāratvāt. Ātmā is not a pramātā,
nirvikāratvāt. Therefore, from nirvikāra statements I come to know that ātmā is
akartā abhōktā, apramātā etc. If I have known these do not belong to me then
naturally kartrtvam, bhōktrtvam, etc., must be adhyāsaḥ. So, this is another
method of deriving and proving adhyāsa.
Then there is a third method also. Infinite methods are there. This also
Śaṅkarācārya indicates in his adhyāsa-bhāṣyam. Therefore, I will give that also
being important. Suppose ātmā is kartā-bhōktā-pramātā, so naturally you
should know that any kartā has to be associated with a karaṇam, an instrument.
A doer cannot be a doer without associating with an instrument. For example,
mind is an antaḥkaraṇam, sense organs are bāhya-karaṇam. This spectacles
and pen etc., are upakaraṇam. So, three karaṇam – antaḥkaraṇam (mind),
bāhya-karaṇam (sense organs) and upakaraṇam (pen etc). Therefore, kartā will
be associated with karaṇam. Similarly, bhōktā also has to be associated with
bhōjana-karaṇam; otherwise bhōga is not possible. If you want to enjoy
pāyasam then karaṇams are required. Similarly, to become a pramātā what is
required? Pramāṇam is the instrument. Therefore, association with pramāṇam
is required. Therefore, kartā, bhōktā and pramātā all have got saṅgaḥ with the
instrument. Therefore, if I am a kartā, I am sasaṅgaḥ or asaṅgaḥ? I am
sasaṅgaḥ. If I am bhōktā, then I am sasaṅgaḥ. If I am pramātā, I am sasaṅgaḥ.
All these things require saṅgaḥ. Whereas what śruti says?
असङ्गो ह्ययं पुरुषाः ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिष ४-३-१५ ॥

asaṅgō hyayaṁ puruṣaḥ || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 4-3-15 ||
The śruti very clearly says ātmā is asaṅgaḥ. Asaṅgaḥ means unrelated, not
associated with anything. So, if ātmā is asaṅgaḥ can it be a pramātā? It cannot
be a pramātā. Why? Because if it is a pramātā, It will have to be associated with

pramāṇam. If ātmā is asaṅgaḥ, It cannot be a kartā, because to be a kartā is to

get associated. Similarly, if ātmā is asaṅgaḥ It cannot be a bhōktā, because to
be a bhōktā is to get associated. Therefore, ātmanaḥ asaṅgatvāt ātmā akartā
abhōktā apramātā. Earlier we said ātmanaḥ nirvikāratvāt ātmā akartā abhōktā
apramātā. If ātmā is akartā, then kartrtvam must be an error. If ātmā is
abhōktā, then bhōktrtvam must be an error. If ātmā is apramātā, then
pramātārtvam must be an error. Anityatvam kartrtvam bhōktrtvam
pramātrtvam four things are superimposed on ātmā. Ātmā means I, you should
remember it always. I mistake myself as mortal, I mistake myself as doer,
enjoyer knower. Then let us take two more adhyāsa, very important ones.
Because I have to prepare the ground for all those things.
Next one is paricchinnatvam, I am limited, finite, I am here in this hall, it

is adhyāsa. Because, when you say I am here, automatically you are saying I am
not elsewhere. That ‘here’ness is paricchēdaḥ, limitation. And that
paricchinnatvam is also adhyāsaḥ. How do we postulate this? Because śruti
clearly says ātmā is aparicchinnaḥ.
अशब्दमस्पशनमरूपमव्ययं
तथाऽरसं नित्यमगन्धिच्च यत् ।
अिाद्यिन्द्तं महताः परं ध्रुिं
निचाय्य तन्द्मृत्युमुखात् प्रमुच्यते ॥ कठोपनिषत् १-३-१५ ॥
aśabdamasparśamarūpamavyayaṁ
tathā’rasaṁ nityamagandhavacca yat |
anādyanantaṁ mahataḥ paraṁ dhruvaṁ
nicāyya tanmrtyumukhāt pramucyatē || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-3-15 ||
Anādi anantam, anantam means limitless. So, if limitlessness is a fact, limitation

must be an error based on śruti-arthāpatti-pramāṇa. That limitlessness alone is
called Brahmatvam and limitation is jīvatvam. Brahmatvam is a fact, jīvatvam is
an error. aham brahmāsmi is a fact, aham jīvō’smi is an error. So what is the
next error I said? Either you say paricchinnatvam is an error, or you say jīvatvam
is an error. Paricchinnatvam and jīvatvam are synonymous.

The last one, which is most important is anēkatvam is also error. That
there are many ātmās sitting in the hall, ātma bahutvam, ātma anēkatvam is
accepted by many philosophers. Sāṅkhya-yōga-Nyāya -Vaiśēṣika -pūrva-
mīmāṁsā all these people say many ātmās are there. Even some other
philosophers who come to Brahmasūtra, Vēdānta, even after coming to
Vēdānta some philosophers have taken that ātmās are many like viśiṣṭādvaitins,
dvaitins etc. Śaṅkarācārya says anēkatvam is an error, is a superimposition. On
what basis do you say that? Again śrutyarthāpatti-pramāṇam, because there
are śruti statements, which says ātmā ēkaḥ.
एको दे िाः सिनभूतेषु गूढाः सिनव्यापी सिनभूतान्द्तरात्मा ।

य श्च ॥ श्वेताश्वतरोपननषत् ६-११ ॥
कमायध्र् सवयभूतामधवासः सािी चेता केवलो ननगुर्
ēkō dēvaḥ sarvabhūtēṣu gūḍhaḥ sarvavyāpī sarvabhūtāntarātmā |

karmādhya sarvabhūtādhivāsaḥ sākṣī cētā kēvalō nirguṇaśca || śvētāśvatarōpaniṣat 6-11 ||
Śaṅkarācārya quotes this mantra very often. ēkō dēvaḥ sākṣī cētā kēvalaḥ,
kēvalaḥ means ātmā is one only.
यस्स्मन्द्सिानभण भूतानि आत्मैिाभूनद्वजािताः ।

तत्र को मोहाः काः शोक एकत्िमिुपश्यताः ॥ ईशािास्योपनिषत् ७ ॥
yasminsarvāṇi bhūtāni ātmaivābhūdvijānataḥ |
tatra kō mōhaḥ kaḥ śōka ēkatvamanupaśyataḥ || īśāvāsyōpaniṣat 7 ||
yasmin sarvāṇi bhūtāni ātmā ēva abhūd –when the wise man sees that
everything is nothing but ātmā alone, ēkaḥ. Not ātmānaḥ bahuvacanam, ātmā
ēkaḥ ēva abhūd. Therefore, what is the fact? Ātma ēkatvam is the fact and ātmā
anēkatvam must be an error. Therefore, that is also another adhyāsa. Thus
through śrutyarthapatti pramāṇa Śaṅkarācārya shows that anityatvam,
kartrtvam, bhōktrtvam, pramātrtvam, paricchinnatvam and anēkatvam, sarvam
adhyastam. This is the first pramāṇam, i.e., śrutyarthapatti-pramāṇam.
Then the second pramāṇam is anumānam-pramāṇam, inference.

anumānam pramāṇa is based on vyāptiḥ, the coexistence of two things. Do you
remember the example? Yatra yatra dhūmaḥ tatra tatra agniḥ, wherever there
is smoke there is fire. Once we have got vyāpti-jñānam, then it is used for
inference, the inference being parvataḥ agnimān dhūmavatvāt yathā

mahānasē. Mahānasā means kitchen. So the mountain is fiery, not through

perception, if it is perceptually proved then inference is not required. I don’t see
the fire, but I conclude the mountain is fiery because it is smoky as in the case
of kitchen. Similarly, we are proving the adhyāsa through inference, through
anumānam and for that we require a vyāpti. Vyāpti-jñānam is required. What is
that vyāpti jñānam? Śaṅkarācārya says yatra yatra vyavahāravatvam tatra tatra
adhyāsavatvam – wherever there is transaction there is adhyāsaḥ. Any
transaction proves adhyāsaḥ. The example is paśvādivat, paśvādi vyavahāravat.
The bhāṣya-vākyam is paśvādibhiścāviśēṣāt | That is the inference. How do you
say this? Śaṅkarācārya gives the reason, because ātmā cannot do any
transaction. Because ātmā is different from the body, which is accepted by all
the āstika darśanams. So, the cow is different from cow’s body. pūrva-pakṣi
accepts this. Similarly, every animal. Whereas when we are chasing a cow or
showing grass to a cow haritatrṇapūrṇapāṇiḥ yathā abhimukhī karōti, so, he
shows some fresh green grass to a cow. Cow comes towards the grass. Why
does the cow comes towards the grass? Because the cow has the notion that I
am the body, therefore, I am hungry and grass is suitable to me. So, it knows
that it requires grass. So, if the cow has to face grass it is only because it has the
error that I am this body, I am hungry and grass will remove the hunger. So,
dēha adhyāsāt ēva paśuḥ trṇam abhimukhī karōti. This vyavahāra is called
pravrtti-vyavahāra. Pravrtti means going after. This cannot happen without
dēha-adhyāsa. If the cow knows that I am different from body, ‘let the hunger
be to the body, what is there to me?’ ‘naiva kurvan na kārayan’. But the cow has
got aham gauḥ asmi notion. The paśōḥ pravrtti-vyavahāraḥ kasmāt bhavati?
Dēha adhyāsa bhavati.
Then Śaṅkarācārya gives another example. Suppose the very same

person drops the grass and takes a stick and goes towards the cow, and what
does the cow do? Then it knows that there is some danger and it will kill me or
that person will beat me and I will suffer and therefore I have to go away from
that person. This is what? Nivrtti-vyavahāraḥ. And this is because of what? Dēha
adhyāsa. Because that person is never going to beat the sūkṣma-śarīram, but
he is going to beat sthūla-śarīram only. So, sthūla-śarīra adhyāsāt nivartantē. I

will be beaten and I will have to suffer. Therefore, both pravrtti-vyavahāraḥ and
nivrtti-vyavahāraḥ takes place only because of adhyāsa. This we learn from cow.
And having got the vyāpti jñānam from animals, we apply that to the human
beings also. He is not much different from cow. Because he also goes to the
hotel when that beautiful masala dosa smell comes and he also gets away from
kūvam (river) when that smell comes. And therefore, what is the anumānam?
manuṣyaḥ adhyāsavān; vyavahāravatvāt paśuvat. Like what? Parvataḥ
vahnimān dhūmavatvāt yathā mahānasē. What is pakṣa? What is the sādhyam?
adhyāsavān. What is the hētu? Vyavahāratvāt. What is the drṣṭānta? paśuvat.
Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya says, all human activities are based on adhyāsa. All
human activities either in the form of going after or in the form of going away;
either in the form of getting or in the form of getting rid. These two alone we
are doing. What is life? Getting and getting rid. Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya says all
human beings have got adhyāsa. So, this is the second pramāṇam for adhyāsa.
The first one is śrutyarthapatti pramāṇam and the second one is anumāna-
pramāṇam. For the anumānam what is the vyāpti? yatra yatra vyavahāraḥ tatra
tatra adhyāsaḥ.
So, with this the adhyāsa-pramāṇam topic is also over. From this it is clear, the
corollary has to be clearly understood that we all have got adhyāsa and
therefore, in all our transactions two things are involved ātma-anātmā-
mithunīkaraṇam. Satyānrta-mithunīkaraṇam is involved throughout. Even
though this mixing up is taking place we are not aware that two things are
there. If we know there are two things we won’t mix up. Therefore, remember
exactly like this is snake-superimposition that person who commits the mistake,
he does not know that there are two things - that there is a real-rope is there,
that there is an unreal-snake is there and real-rope and unreal-snake are mixed
up – he doesn’t know. He has mixed up and in his vision there is only a new
single entity, like salad, it is a new single entity, which consists of ātmā and
anātmā. So therefore, when I say I know ahaṁ-jānāmi, it looks as though there
is one single entity, knower but remember there are two entities are there
knower consists of two features, one is the cētanā-tattvam, consciousness,
which belongs to ātmā and second one is knower, the suffix ‘er’ indicates a vrtti,

modification is involved, which belongs to anātmā. So, in that knower ‘know’

part is cētanam, cētanā -ātmā and ‘er’ part is acētana-vrtti. So, cētanā -ātmā and
acētana-vrtti combine together we have knower mixture. The cētanā -ātmā
does not have modification, the acētana-vrtti does not have consciousness;
cētana ātmā is nirvikāraḥ, acētana vrtti is savikāraḥ but jaḍam. Now these two
mixed together a single entity is born. What is that single entity? ‘Knower’. So,
Śaṅkarācārya says,
आत्मिाः सस्थच्चदं शश्च बुिेिभृन िररनत द्वयम् ।

संयोज्य चानििेकेि जािामीनत प्रितनते ॥ आत्मबोिाः २५ ॥
ātmanaḥ saccidaṁśaśca buddhērvrttiriti dvayam |

saṁyōjya cāvivēkēna jānāmīti pravartatē || ātmabōdhaḥ 25 ||
So, while saying jānāmi there involves ātmanaḥ cit aṁśa and anātmanaḥ vrtti is
involved, these two we club together and we make one entity – ‘I, the knower’.
Similarly, in every transaction, the cit-aṁśa belongs to ātmā and changing-aṁśa
belongs to anātmā. The sat-aṁśa belongs to ātmā and the changing-aṁśa
belongs to anātmā. So, thus we have got all transactions based on adhyāsa.
आत्मिो निनक्रया िास्स्त बुिेबोिो ि जानत्िनत ।

जीिाः सिनमलं ज्ञात्िा ज्ञाता द्रष्टेनत मुह्यनत ॥ आत्मबोिाः २६ ॥
ātmanō vikriyā nāsti buddhērbōdhō na jātviti |

jīvaḥ sarvamalaṁ jñātvā jñātā draṣṭēti muhyati || Ātmabōdhaḥ 26 ||
Ātmā cannot be a knower because it cannot go through the knowing process.

anātmā cannot be a knower because it is jaḍam, therefore we create a new
entity, by combining what? Ātmā and anātmā; and a new knower is born. So
thus, adhyāsa-pramāṇam proves the satyānrta-mithunīkaraṇam.
Then we have to come to the final topic called adhyāsa-upasaṁhāra, the

conclusion of the adhyāsa-bhāṣyam. The sixth and final topic. In this
Śaṅkarācārya says that this adhyāsa is dangerous, it is harmful to entire
humanity. It is because adhyāsa alone brings in anityatvam or mortality.
Therefore, constantly there is a fear of death. And every time I read a death
news, I become mortally afraid. Therefore, the first feature is constant

insecurity and constant fear of mortality. And money becomes very important in
life because I am seeking security through money. Money becomes important,
corruption becomes rampant, not a few lakhs but to the tune of crores. Why do
people go after crores? Because any amount they have that insecurity doesn’t
go away. And why is insecurity? Mortality. Why mortality? adhyāsa. Therefore,
adhyāsaḥ ēva saṁsārasya kāraṇam. And not only it is a problem for the present
but it is a problem for the future also. How come? Because adhyāsa alone leads
to pravrtti and nivrtti-vyavahāra, which means all types of karmas are because
of adhyāsa alone. And all types of karmas produce puṇya pāpa phalaṁ and
puṇya pāpa phalaṁ produce punarjanma. Therefore, puṇarapi jananam
puṇarapi maraṇam cycle continuation is also because of what? Puṇya pāpa,
which is because of what? Karma, which is because of what? Adhyāsa.
Therefore, adhyāsa is a problem for the present and therefore adhyāsa is a
problem for the future also. In short, adhyāsaḥ ēva saṁsārasya kāraṇam.
Therefore, if you want to get rid of saṁsāra, what should you do? Simple
anvaya- vyatirēka. Adhyāsa-sattvē saṁsāra-sattvam. kāraṇam. Adhyāsa-nivrttau
sarva-saṁsāra nivrttiḥ.
िैि तस्य कृतेिाथो िाकृतेिेह कश्चि ।

ि चास्य सिनभूतेषु कभश्चदथनव्यपाश्रयाः ॥ गीता ३-१८ ॥
naiva tasya krtēnārthō nākrtēnēha kaścana |
na cāsya sarvabhūtēṣu kaścidarthavyapāśrayaḥ || Gītā 3-18 ||
आत्मन्द्येिात्मिा तुष्टाः स्थस्थतप्रज्ञस्तदोच्यते ॥ गीता २-५५ ॥

ātmanyēvātmanā tuṣṭaḥ sthitaprajñastadōcyatē || Gītā 2-55 ||
So, the only remedy for saṁsāra is adhyāsa goes saṁsāra nivrttiḥ. And how
does adhyāsa go away? Saṁsāra-nivrttiḥ will takes place only when adhyāsa
kāraṇam goes away. Adhyāsa goes away when the cause of adhyāsa goes away.
And what is the cause of adhyāsa? Ajñānam. And when will ajñānam go? You
know the answer, athātō Brahma-jijñāsā. Details in the next class.


011 Adhyāsa bhāṣyam, Samanvaya adhyāyaḥ
Adhikaraṇa 001: Jijñāsādhikaraṇam
Sūtra 1-1-1
We are seeing the adhyāsa-upasaṁhāra, the concluding part of adhyāsa-

bhāṣyam. Śaṅkarācārya has given the pramāṇam to establish that there is the
problem of adhyāsa or an error. Śruti clearly points out that ātmā is free from
pramātrtvam, ātmā is free from kartrtvam, is free from bhōktrtvam etc. This
being the fact revealed by the śruti, the notion that I am pramātā must be an
error. Similarly, the notion that I am a kartā, I am a bhōktā etc., must be errors
alone. In the conclusion, Śaṅkarācārya points out that the entire saṁsāra is due
to this basic error alone. Because due to this basic error only we enter into
different types of activity. Because of the notion that I am kartā and I am bhōktā
only that I am entering into all types of activities, not only laukika-karmāṇi even
vaidika-karmas are based on this error alone. Because laukika-karmas also
require kartrtva-buddhi and vaidika-karmas also require kartrtva-buddhi.
Therefore, all karmas are based on error. To put it the other way round,
because of the error alone all the karmas originate. And consequently, because
of these laukika-karmas and vaidika-karmas alone one reaps different types of
karma-phalaṁ . The laukika karmas will produce drṣṭa-phalaṁ and the vaidika-
karmas will produce adrṣṭa phalaṁ . Drṣṭa-adrṣṭa phalāni. Because of this drṣṭa-
adrṣṭa phalaṁ alone there is the puṇarapi-jananam and puṇarapi-maraṇam
cycle and because of this cycle alone there is a constant janma, jarā, vyādhi,
duḥkham etc.
Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya points out that the root-cause of all these

problems is adhyāsaḥ. He also points out that this adhyāsa or error exists at
various levels.
 The first adhyāsa is that I am a pramātā caused by the mixing up of ātmā

and antaḥkaraṇam, the basic adhyāsa or the primary error takes place, which is
Sspaṣṭhabrahmaliṅgaśrutisamanvayaḥ www.arshaavinash.in Page 123

aham pramātā, the knower. Through the mind the error flows down to the
sense-organs also and therefore there is a mixing up of I and sense organs and
therefore originates secondary-errors like I am blind, which is a problem of
sense-organs but I superimpose that problem upon ātmā and I say I am blind, I
am deaf, I am dumb etc. It is the secondary adhyāsa. Through the sense organs
the error further goes down to the level of the body also. So antaḥkaraṇa-
adhyāsa leads indriya-adhyāsa, which leads to śarīra-adhyāsa and then I say
ahaṁ-puruṣaḥ, ahaṁ-strī, ahaṁ-sthūlaḥ, ahaṁ-krśaḥ, ahaṁ-taruṇaḥ, aham
vrddhaḥ - all these are the properties of the body and ātmā is
नासन्न सन्न सदसन्न मरसन्नचार्ु न स्त्ी पुमान्न च नपुंसकमेकबीजम् ॥धन्र्ाष्टकम् ६ ॥
nāsanna sanna sadasanna mahasannacāṇu na strī pumānna ca napuṁsakamēkabījam |

||dhanyāṣṭakam 6 ||
Ātmā is na strī, na pumān, na napuṁsakam, i.e., neuter. I am not any one of

them and not knowing that there is an error at the śarīram level and not only
that through this physical body again the adhyāsa goes further to the
surroundings also like the root of a tree which gradually spreads its tentacles all
over, similarly the adhyāsa flows down through the mind to the sense organs to
the body. ‘Svāmiji, I would like to introduce my family members.’ A big regiment
will be standing! Uncle’s grandchild, son-in-law, etc. What are all of them?
Through the body, I get sambandha, relationship with all types of people, all
types of things - this is my house, this is my pet dog, this is my watchdog. Now
really speaking ātmā being asaṅgaḥ, ātmā being asambandhaḥ, ātmā does not
have any relation. There is husband or wife or children or grandchildren and
therefore comes further adhyāsa, thus it spreads very much.
अिश्चोध्िं प्रसृतास्तस्य शाखा

गुणप्रिृिा निषयप्रिालााः ।
अिश्च मूलान्द्यिुसन्द्ततानि … ॥ गीता १५-२ ॥
adhaścōrdhvaṁ prasrtāstasya śākhā

guṇapravrddhā viṣayapravālāḥ |
adhaśca mūlānyanusantatāni … || Gītā 15-2 ||

Not only it spreads throughout India but also to America. One relative is
there in Minnesota, another in LA (Los Angeles), another in PA (Pennsylvania)
and somebody is in Russia, somebody is in Japan; the root of saṁsāra spreads
all over. And how do we know where all it spreads all over? If there is
earthquake in Los Angeles, there is a quake in the family here, because my
roots are spreading. Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya says, because of the cycle of
saṁsāra and spreading of saṁsāra a person constantly experiences janma,
mrtyu, jarā, vyādhi, duḥkham etc., due to primary and secondary adhyāsas
called ahaṅkāra-adhyāsaḥ or māmakāra-adhyāsaḥ. Me and mine, I belong to
them and they belong to me. Then Śaṅkarācārya points out that since the
adhyāsa is cause of saṁsāra, i.e., the cause of anarthaḥ, one has to remove
adhyāsa if the saṁsāra has to go away. Anartha-hētōḥ prahāṇāya. He is giving a
name anartha-hētuḥ to adhyāsa. Anartha-hētuḥ means the cause of all the
problems of life. And anartha-hētōḥ prahāṇāya one has to work for the removal
of this adhyāsa.
Now the question is how does one remove adhyāsa? Adhyāsōdectomy. In

medical field, dectomy means surgical removal of something.
How do you remove? Can you do an operation and remove?

Śaṅkarācārya points out that adhyāsa itself is a product of some other cause.
Even though adhyāsa is the cause of all problems, adhyāsa itself is a product of
some other cause, error itself is caused by something. And you know the
answer. Any error is born out of ignorance. What type of ignorance in this
context? Since the error is with regard to the Self, (here adhyāsa is not with
regard to tea or coffee, some places you do not know the difference!) the
adhyāsa, an error is centered on the Self, I and therefore, Self-error is born out
of Self-ignorance. It is not physics-ignorance or chemistry-ignorance, it is not
biology-ignorance or economics-ignorance, it is not because of dance-
ignorance or music-ignorance. How do you know that? That is why any other
knowledge we gain, we are not able to remove Self-ignorance. That is why a
person has got a long degree, like M.Sc., PhD, CAIA, FRCS etc., all the alphabetic
letters are there in his title, but in spite of all that knowledge, saṁsāra does not

go and he is an educated-saṁsāri, an erudite-saṁsāri because he has gained

the an ātma-jñānam, which cannot remove saṁsāra. Saṁsāra can be removed
by ātma-jñānam alone, because we have an error with regard to the ātmā. That
is why in Cāndōgyōpaniṣat, the seventh chapter known as Bhūma-vidyā we find
Nārada approaching Sanatkumāra to learn Brahma vidyā. And Nārada gives a
list of degrees he has got. Bhūta-vidyāṁ kṣatra-vidyāṁ nakṣatra-vidyā ||
Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 7-1-2 || etc., a big list of sciences he gives. And at the end
Nārada says, sō’haṁ bhagavaḥ śōcāmi || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 7-1-3 || I am very
learned, in fact very successful in life, I have climbed the corporate ladder, and I
am at the top of the world, but what? sō’haṁ bhagavaḥ śōcāmi. I am not able
overcome the grief. aśru-pūrṇa-ākula-īkṣaṇaḥ aham. And then Sanatkumāra
says that grief can go by only one method
तरनतिोकमात्मनवत् ॥ छान्दोग्र्ोपननषत् ७-१-३ ॥
taratiśōkamātmavit || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 7-1-3 ||
Self-knowledge alone will correct Self-error and correction of Self-error alone

will remove saṁsāra, because saṁsāra is born of Self-error. Therefore, what is
the solution? Ātmaikatva-vidyā-pratipattayē sarvē vēdāntā ārabhyantē.
Śaṅkarācārya says, all the upaniṣats begin with an intention of giving ātma-
jñānam. Sarvē vēdāntā ātmaikatva-vidyā-pratipattayē ārabhyantē. For what
purpose? Asyānartha-hētōḥ prahāṇāya. When I say ātma-jñānam has to be
gained to remove ātma-ajñānam, one point has to be noted. Of course, the
problem is Self-ignorance, adhyāsa is because of ignorance. But what type of
ignorance it is? We saw, it is partial-ignorance of the adhiṣṭhānam and it is not
total-ignorance. If you remember, in one of the earlier classes I had pointed out
earlier that if the rope is totally not seen there will not be an error. Because
nothing is seen, it is pitch darkness. If the rope is clearly seen in daylight then
also there is no error. When does error come? I see that there is something,
which means there is the partial-knowledge of rope, which we called as
sāmānya-jñānam but I do not know the specific nature of the snake, the viṣēśa-
aṁśa is not known. Similarly, here also, Self-error is because of not total-
ignorance of Self, not because total-knowledge of Self but it is because of

partial- knowledge or partial ignorance. So, we have to remove what? Partial-

ignorance of the Self, that is our aim. So, the question comes, which part I am
not aware of? I know aham asmi. So, the sat-part is known, the cit-part is
known, satyam-part is known, jñānaṁ-part is known, that is why I say aham
asmi. So, which part is not known? In aham Brahma-asmi, that Brahmatva-
aṁśaḥ na jñātaḥ. So, the Brahman feature of mine is not known. Brahman -
hood of mine is not known, Brahman status of mine is not known. In saṁskrta,
ātmanaḥ-Brahmatvam-ajñātam.
Whenever we say Brahma-jñānam, we should be very careful, don’t think we are

going to know a new thing called Brahman. There is no new thing called
Brahman. Brahma-jñānam means knowing the Brahman status of mine.
Brahma-jñānam means not knowing a new substance. What is the substance? I
am the substance. So, knowing Brahman is equal to knowing the Brahman
status of mine. So, we are not knowing a new thing but we are knowing a new
status of the old ‘I’, good-old ‘I’, the familiar-‘I’. What is unfamiliar is that status
of mine, i.e., Brahman. Therefore, whenever we say Brahma -jñānam, we should
remember ātmanaḥ-Brahmatva-jñānam. And because that Brahman status is
not known I commit a mistake with regard to my status, and when the real
status is not known, a false status is taken up and what is the false status?
jīvatvam is the false status, which is the familiar status. So, now what do we
require? A Self-correction, which involves knowing my Brahman status and then
displacing my jīvātmā-status. Aham na jīvaḥ, parantu aham brahmāsmi. And
therefore, ‘athātō Brahma-jijñāsā’. ‘Athātō Brahma-jijñāsā’ means athātaḥ
ātmanaḥ-Brahmatva-jijñāsā. I should learn my own superior status and for this
purpose alone all the upaniṣats begin.
This is the difference between Vēdānta-śāstram and all other śāstrams. All other
śāstrams take our inferior-status, i.e., jīvatvam as a fact. And having taken it as a
fact, they prescribe methods of improving status. You have to understand this
difference very thoroughly. They assume the inferior status as fact and they are
prescribing methods of improving status. And one of the methods is to
acquiring money, get industrialist status, or rich man’s status, or MLA status.

Therefore, the whole life, look at the tragedy, we have been working to improve
the our status, status symbol, until now keeping Maruti car was a status symbol
but now Cielo car come, it has to be purchased, the latest model must be in my
portico. Then, Lions Club member, Rotary Club member, etc., all these things
should be there, fully cluttered, in the letter pad. Therefore, all the time I am
struggling to jack up to improve my status and different sciences are
prescribing including karma-kāṇḍa. Even karma-kāṇḍa is promoting this
mistake assuming that inferior status is a fact, karma-kāṇḍa says, got to
heavens and become Indraḥ.
ते ये शतं दे िािाा॑माि॒न्द्दााः । स एक इन्द्द्रा॑स्याऽऽि॒न्द्दाः ॥ तैिरीयोपनिषत् २-८-३ ॥

tē yē śataṁ dēvānāmānandāḥ | sa ēka indrasyā’’nandaḥ || Taittarīyōpaniṣat 2-8-3 ||
If you go there, indra is inferior because brhaspati is sitting in front. So,
ते ये शतधमन्द्द्रा॑स्याऽऽि॒न्द्दााः । स एको बृहस्पतेराि॒

ा॑ न्द्दाः । ॥ तैिरीयोपनिषत् २-८-४ ॥
tē yē śatamindrasyā’’nandāḥ | sa ēkō brhaspatērānandaḥ | || Taittarīyōpaniṣat 2-8-4 ||
Therefore, even karma-kāṇḍa is promoting various activities to improve our

status that means all sciences are taking for granted that our inferior status is a
fact. Vēdānta is the first and the last science, which questions how do you have
to improve your status? Should you struggle to improve your status? Is it a fact
that I have got a low self-image? And the upaniṣat begins to make an enquiry
and it says, you need not work for improving your status. You, as you are, are
nitya-śuddha-buddha-mukta-svabhāvaḥ. In fact, there is no competitor for you,
because you are ēkaḥ. And therefore, all the upaniṣats starts for Self-correction.
Not image building but removal of the imposed low image, Vēdānta is not for
image building but for the negation of superimposed low image. So, with this
the adhyāsa-bhāṣyam is over. Now we will enter into the Brahma-sūtra text
proper.

Adhikaraṇa 001 jijñāsādhikaraṇam
Spaṣṭhabrahma liṅgaśruti-samanvayaḥ
1 samanvaya adhyāyaḥ adhikaraṇa 39 sūtrāṇi 134
pāda-1 spaṣṭhabrahma liṅgaśrutisamanvayaḥ 1-11 1-31
pāda-2 upāsyabrahma vācakāspaṣṭha-śruti-samanvayaḥ 12-18 32-63
jñēyabrahma pratipādakā-spaṣṭha śruti

pāda-3 19-31 64-106
samanvayaḥ
pāda-4 avyaktādipadasaṁdigdhapadamātrasamanvayaḥ 32-39 107-134
We will just read the first sūtra.
उपोद्घात सूत्म्
Upōdghāta sūtram
००१ अथातो ब्रह्मद्धजज्ञासा ॥

001 athātō Brahma-jijñāsā
I pointed out in the introduction that Brahma-sūtra has got four chapters
known as adhyāyāḥ and each chapter has got four sections called pādāḥ and
each section has got varying number of topics known as adhikaraṇāni and each
adhikaraṇam has got varying number of sūtrāṇi. So, minimum one sūtra to
many sūtras. Now, this one is athātō Brahma-jijñāsā is the first sūtra of first the
adhikaraṇam of the first pāda of first adhyāyaḥ. Now, the first chapter is called
samanvaya adhyāyaḥ. Samanvaya means consistency. The significance of this
title I will discuss later. You just note it is samanvayaḥ meaning consistency. The
first pāda is called by a big name, long name: spaṣṭha-brahma- liṅga-śruti-
samanvaya-pādaḥ. Here also the significance of the title I will tell later. And
each adhikaraṇam, topic is also given a name. The name of the topic is based
on the first sūtram of the topic. Here, the first sūtra is athātō Brahma-jijñāsā.
And therefore, the first topic is called jijñāsādhikaraṇam. So thus, every topic is

named after the first sūtra. Here, the first topic has got only one sūtra.
Sometimes there are many for sūtras one topic. But here the first topic
jijñāsādhikaraṇam has got only one sūtra. Therefore, we are seeing
jijñāsādhikaraṇam now.
Now I would like to say how I propose to proceed the study, my method
of teaching I will tell you first so that you can be prepared. First, I will analyze
the sūtra generally. General-analysis I will do. Then I will do word-analysis. Each
word of the sūtra I will take up and analyze and then conclusion of the sūtra in
which any general remarks, any technical points, any corollaries all those I will
be deal with. So thus, sūtra I will teach in three levels – General-analysis, word-
analysis and conclusion. Sāmānya-vicāraḥ, śabda-vicāraḥ and upasaṁhāraḥ will
be the method I am going to take. Now we will take up the general analysis of
the first sūtra.
General Analysis
The first sūtra happens to be the introduction sūtra, it is introduction to

Vēdānta śāstram or Brahma vidyā. In any book when you open you will find
there is a preface to the book. The contents of the book come later, but in the
first page we get a preface or sometimes it is called forward. So, a preface or
forward or an introduction all these three mean the same. In Saṁskrta, it is
called upōdghātaḥ or anubandhaḥ. This introduction is required for every
śāstram. The peculiarity of this introduction is you cannot treat the introduction
as outside the main śāstram nor can you take it as inside the śāstram. The
introduction serves as the connecting link between outside and inside. It is like
door of the house. The door of a house is inside or outside? You cannot say the
door is inside nor outside, it is a line connecting the inside and outside. In the
same way, the introduction is a door to enter the śāstram; it is neither outside
the śāstram nor is it inside the śāstram. It is a door, which is an entry. That is
why it is called anubandhaḥ. anubandhaḥ means an appendix, a pre-appendix.
What is appendix? That which is attached to the śāstra as an integral part but it
is not within the śāstra. It is like the first chapter of the Gītā. Is the first chapter

of the Gītā inside or outside? You cannot say either. Because Gītā-śāstram
begins where?
अशोच्यािन्द्िशोचस्त्िं प्रज्ञािादांश्च भाषसे । ॥ २-११ ॥

aśōcyānanvaśōcastvaṁ prajñāvādāṁśca bhāṣasē | || 2-11 ||
Now, if Gītā śāstram begins only in the second chapter, then why should you
include the first chapter in the Gītā? The first chapter is also included in the Gītā
and we say Gītā has got eighteen chapters. So, the first chapter of the Gītā is
like the door of a house, because it is before the śāstram, it is not within the
śāstram but it is required as part of the śāstram. And therefore, it is called
anubandhaḥ. Anubadhyatē śāstrēṇa iti anubandhaḥ.
Then the question is where does the śāstram begins? We say the śāstram
begins from the second sūtra only, just as Gītā begins from second chapter
only. The first sūtra is a door-sūtra, introductory sūtra, upōdghāta-sūtram.
What is the content of this introduction? In the tradition, we say that an

introduction to any śāstram should present four factors known as anubandha-
catuṣṭayam. We say the first sūtra is presenting the anubandha-catuṣṭayam. So,
we can say this sūtra as anubandha-catuṣṭaya-sūtram also, upōdghāta-sūtram
also. Now the question is, what are the four factors to be necessarily
introduced? In fact, I should not spend too much time in this, you are all
supposed to be experts in this, I have discussed this before, but still I will briefly
mention to remind you.
1. The first one is adhikārī. Adhikārī means the competent student, eligible
student. That is who is eligible, who is competent to study the Brahma vidyā is
called adhikārī.
2. The second is called viṣayaḥ, the subject-matter.
3. The third one is prayōjanam, the benefit of the studying this śāstram.
Śāstra-jñānasya phalaṁ kim? Prayōjanam or phalaṁ both are same.
4. The last factor is called sambandhaḥ, the relationship.
With regard to Brahma vidyā or Brahmasūtram, who is the adhikārī, what

is the viṣayaḥ, etc., we must know. For Brahma vidyā the adhikārī is sādhana-

catuṣṭaya-sampannaḥ, the one who enjoys the four qualifications. What are the
four qualifications? We have seen in Tattva-bōdha, which begins with sādhana-
catuṣṭaya-sampanna-adhikāriṇām. So, from this it is very clear that even Tattva-
bōdha is based on Brahmasūtra. Because if you study the upaniṣats directly
nowhere in the ten upaniṣats you will find the word sādhana-catuṣṭayam. Īśa,
Kēna, Kaṭha, Praśna, whole of Brhadāraṇyaka if you search you won’t find the
word sādhana catuṣṭayam. Then how did the Tattva-bōdha author know about
sādhana catuṣṭayam. It is based on Brahmasūtra. All prakaraṇa granthas are
based on Brahmasūtra. Therefore, he says sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampanna-
adhikāriṇām. What are the fourfold qualifications? This also I am not going to
elaborate; you know it.
1. First one is vivēkaḥ, discrimination. What discrimination? That Self-

knowledge correction of Self-error alone is my primary goal. That alone is
worthwhile attempting in life. All other methods improving my image, isn’t it
that all our majority of our activities are improving my individual image, family
status also is there, we belong to a big family; so family status, individual status,
national status - which is now dipping, national status is terribly going down. So
therefore, our pursuits are two-fold. One is improving the image through
dharma-artha-kāma pursuits. The second is removing the superimposed low
image through mōkṣa pursuit. Therefore, I should know that this is primary and
the other methods won’t work. This is called vivēkaḥ. Śrēyaḥ prēyaḥ vivēkaḥ,
discrimination between what is śrēyas and what is prēyas, what is dharma-
artha-kāma and what is mōkṣa. So, this is vivēkaḥ.
2. The second one is vairāgyam or dispassion. Dispassion means
what? Considering all other pursuits to be secondary, subservient to this main
pursuit. So, earning money is subservient going through family life is incidental,
the aparā vidyā education is incidental. So, all the things I do in life they are all
incidental, they are only means and not the end. Therefore, dispassion can be
defined as seeing the means as the means. Passion can be defined as seeing
the means as the end. Seeing the means as not the means is foolishness. So, if a
person says money is not all required in life then he is a foolish person because
money is required as a means. Therefore, seeing money as end is passion.

Seeing money as useless is foolishness. Seeing money as means is dispassion,

maturity. Similarly, family. If you see family as end it is passion, problem
because you will get into trouble, because one by one will die. If you see family
as useless it is foolishness and if you see family as means it is wisdom,
dispassion. This is the second one.
3. The third one is called ṣaṭka-sampattiḥ, six-fold inner discipline.
What are those six?
 Śamaḥ – mind control,
 damaḥ – sense control,
 uparamaḥ – reduction of extrovertedness or withdrawal,
 titikṣā – forbearance or capacity to ignore or overlook discomforts in life as
life is full of discomforts. So, we can choose certain discomforts, which are
too much, they can all be handled, but to correct each and every pinprick
means the whole life will be spent in adjusting. This is titikṣā.
 Then śraddhā is the fifth one, faith in guru, scriptures and God. guru,
Vēdānta and Bhagavān (Bhagavān is not included because Bhagavān comes
within guru, being ādiguru).
 And finally, samādhānam, concentration or commitment to the goal, not
losing the site of goal. So, śamaḥ, damaḥ, uparamaḥ, titikṣā, śraddhā and
samādhānam these six-fold inner discipline, generally called discipline is the
third qualification.
4. Then the fourth is the desire for mōkṣa, mumukṣutvam.


012 Sūtra 1.1.1 – Jijñāsādhikaraṇam
We are seeing the first adhikaraṇam that is the first topic of Brahma-
sūtra known as jijñāsādhikaraṇam. And this first adhikaraṇam has got only one
sūtra in it and that sūtra is athātō Brahma-jijñāsā, which is the first sūtra also.
And I said that we will make a general analysis of the sūtra and thereafter we
will go to word analysis. Now, we are doing general analysis, in which I pointed
out that the first sūtra is known as upōdghāta-sūtra or an introductory sūtra.
Upōdghātaḥ means introduction. In our tradition, there is a rule that an
introduction to any śāstra should provide four factors, which are necessary for
the study of the śāstra. Those four factors are called anubandha-catuṣṭayam.
Therefore, we can say that the first sūtra provides anubandha-catuṣṭayam.
Therefore, it can be called anubandha-catuṣṭaya-sūtram or upōdghāta-sūtram.
अधिकारी च निषयाः सम्बन्धश्च प्रयोजिम् ।

शास्त्रारम्भफलं प्राहुरिुबन्धचतुष्टयम् ॥ सिनिेदान्द्तससिान्द्तसारसङ् ग्रहाः ६ ॥
adhikārī ca viṣayaḥ sambandhaśca prayōjanam |
śāstrārambhaphalaṁ prāhuranubandhacatuṣṭayam || Sarva Vēdānta
Siddhāntasārasaṅgrahaḥ 6 ||
So, this ślōka beautifully defines consist anubandha catuṣṭayam. anubandha

catuṣṭayam consists of four factors – adhikārī ca viṣayaḥ sambandhaśca
prayōjanam. And what is the role of that? Śāstrārambha-phalaṁ prāhuḥ. So, the
benefit of giving these four factors is the study of śāstram. So, śāstrārambha-
phalaṁ prāhuḥ. And what it is called? Anubandha-catuṣṭayam. Why it is called
anubandha etc., I have discussed in the last class, I hope you remember or at
least it is there safely in the notes. I don’t want to spend too much time on
summarizing the previous class, then I will not get much time for taking
portion, therefore, I expect you to go through the previous portions before you
come to the class. I want to reduce my introduction. And those four factors we
were seeing in the last class.
 The first one is adhikārī – the competent person, who is addressed by

Vyāsācārya or Vēdānta śāstram. Whenever an author writes a book the author

must have a particular set of people in the mind, who will benefit by reading the
book. If a physicist is writing a book, he has got in mind a group of physics
students who are interested in and who are competent in understanding that.
So, we can call it as a target group. When a factory introduces a new product,
the factory people have in mind a segment in society who will buy the product.
And when they are introducing new type of dress for Dīpāvali, they have got a
target group who will benefit. Therefore, whether it is introducing a product or
whether it is introducing a text, the author must have a target group in mind
and that group is called adhikārī, the audience in mind. And we saw in the last
class that this adhikārī should have four qualifications, viz., sādhana-catuṣṭaya-
sampattiḥ. And we have seen what are those four sādhanas are – vivēka,
vairāgyam, samādhi-ṣaṭka-sampattiḥ, mumukṣutvam ca. Up to this we saw in
our last class. So, with this the first factor is over viz., adhikārī.
 Then what is the second factor that should be provided in the
introduction? It is called viṣayaḥ, the subject matter. What is the subject-matter
of Vēdānta śāstram or Brahma-sūtra? The subject-matter is as the very name
shows Brahman is the subject-matter of Vēdānta. That is why it is called Brahma
-vidyā. But you should remember, when we use the word Brahman, we are not
using the word Brahman as a new substance which is revealed by Vēdānta.
Brahman is not a new substance, new entity, new thing revealed by Vēdānta.
Then what is it? Brahman is a new status of the listener, the student, the ātmā.
Brahman is not a new thing but it is talking about my own higher status, parā-
prakrti. Therefore, whenever I say Brahman, you should understand it as
ātmanaḥ Brahmatvam is the subject matter; the Brahman status of me, the
student, the listener, the śrōtā. This is the subject-matter: ātmanaḥ
Brahmatvam. And this alone they presented as ātmā-Brahma-aikyam also. This
is the viṣayaḥ, the subject matter.
 The third one is prayōjanam or benefit. What benefit do I get by studying
Vēdānta śāstra through Brahma vidyā? When I know the Brahman- status of
mine, the benefit is I will negate the abrahman-status of mine, which is my
misconception. When I know my Brahman-status, the benefit I get is I negate
my abrahman-status, abrahman means non-Brahman status. Exactly like when I
know this is a rope, what is the benefit of knowing the rope? The benefit of

knowing the rope is the displacement of snakeness. So ropeness knowledge

displaces snakeness misconception. Similarly, Brahmatvam knowledge will
displace jīvatvam misconception. The knowledge of Brahmatvam status of mine
will displace the jīvātmā status of mine. Brahmatvam jñānēna abrahmatva
nivrttiḥ prayōjanam. And abrahmatvam is equal to what? Jīvatvam. Therefore,
Brahmatva jñānēna jīvatva nivrttiḥ phalaṁ . And what is jīvatvam? Saṁsāraḥ.
Therefore, Brahmatva jñānēna saṁsāra nivrttiḥ phalaṁ . So, Brahmatvam
jñānēna abrahmatva nivrttiḥ jīvatva nivrttiḥ = saṁsāra nivrttiḥ. Nivrtti means
negation, elimination, displacement, sublation etc. saṁsāra-nivrtti alone is
otherwise called mōkṣaḥ or freedom. So, what is the prayōjanam? Mōkṣaḥ. And
if you have to put it in the language of the common man, mōkṣa is freedom
from the sense of limitation, sense of smallness, sense of inadequacy, want etc.
this is the prayōjanam.
 The fourth factor is sambandhaḥ. Sambandhaḥ means relationship. The
moment you say relationship the question will come between what and what.
Suppose I ask what is your relationship? What will you answer? You should not
answer. But you should ask a counter question with whom. So, with a particular
person I have a relationship as father-son or husband-wife or brother-sister or
brother-brother. Therefore, relationship is always dviniṣṭhaḥ, resting on two
things. Therefore, here sambandhaḥ, the fourth factor is between what and
what? In fact, we can take any pair. But in this context we will take the
relationship between the textbook and the subject matter; the textbook, i.e., the
Brahmasūtram and the content. So, Brahma viṣayōḥ śāstra-viṣayōḥ
sambandhaḥ kaḥ? What is the relationship between the śāstram and its
content? We call it pratipādya-pratipādaka-sambandhaḥ. It is a technical
expression pratipādya-pratipādaka-sambandhaḥ. So, Brahman and Brahma-
sūtra have got pratipādya-pratipādaka-sambandhaḥ. Or we can also say
Brahman and the upaniṣats have got pratipādya-pratipādaka-sambandhaḥ. So,
this is a technical factor, we cannot easily understand the significance of this
fourth factor. The idea is this. I will just briefly mention the significance of this.
Now there is a rule that a topic can be considered as a subject-matter of a book
only if the topic is discussed as the central theme of the book. If a topic is
discussed casually in a book, it cannot be taken as the subject matter. For

example, in the Bhagavadgītā there is a discussion on diet-discipline, regarding

the rules of eating we find some verses in the Gītā.
युक्ताहारनिहारस्य युक्तचेष्टस्य कमनसु । ॥ गीता ६-१७ ॥

yuktāhāravihārasya yuktacēṣṭasya karmasu | || Gītā 6-17 ||
आहारस्त्िनप सिनस्य नत्रनििो भिनत नप्रयाः । ॥ गीता १७-७ ॥

āhārastvapi sarvasya trividhō bhavati priyaḥ | || Gītā 17-7 ||
आयुाःसत्त्िबलारोग्यसुखप्रीनतनिििनिााः । ॥ गीता १७-८ ॥

āyuḥsattvabalārōgyasukhaprītivivardhanāḥ | || Gītā 17-8 ||
Gītā does talk about the dietary discipline. And suppose somebody asks the
question, ‘what is the subject-matter of Gītā?’ You should not say diet is the
subject-matter of Gītā. What is the reason? The reason is even though diet is
discussed in the Gītā, it is not discussed as the central theme. Similarly, so many
other things are discussed and therefore, Gītā and diet do not have pratipādya-
pratipādaka-sambandhaḥ. Similarly, so many other topics are discussed, but
what is the central theme? Ātma-vidyā is the central theme. And therefore, Gītā
and ātmā have got pratipādya-pratipādaka-sambandhaḥ. The significance of
this we will understand when you find later a lot of quarrel to find out what is
the central theme. Only then you will understand the significance of what is
pratipādyam in the Gītā, what is pratipādyam in Brahma-sūtra etc. and
therefore the fourth factor is sambandhaḥ. And that sambandhaḥ is what?
Pratipādya-pratipādaka-sambandhaḥ. If you translate it into English, it is
revealer-revealed-relationship. Pratipādya means revealed, pratipādaka means
revealer. So, Brahma-sūtra and Brahman have got revealer-revealed-
relationship. This is the anubandha-catuṣṭayam of Vēdānta-śāstram.
Now we will go to the next topic. I said that the anubandha-catuṣṭayam,

the four-fold factors as the introduction, is the content of first the sūtram. But
this anubandha-catuṣṭayam is not directly revealed by the sūtram. In the first
sūtra is athātō Brahma-jijñāsā, you don’t find the word adhikārī, viṣaya,
sambandham, prayōjanam. Therefore, we say anubandha-catuṣṭayam is not the
direct-meaning of the first sūtra but it is implied-meaning of the first sūtram. In
saṁskrta, it is called ārthika-arthaḥ. Ārthika-arthaḥ means indirect-meaning or

implied-meaning. If somebody asks what is the implied-meaning of the first

sūtra, we should say Vēdānta-śāstram has anubandha-catuṣṭayam. Now the
question is if anubandha-catuṣṭayam is the implied-meaning then what is the
direct-meaning of the sūtram? In saṁskrta, it is called śrautaḥ-arthaḥ. Śrauta-
arthaḥ means direct-meaning. So, now we have seen the ārthika-arthaḥ of the
first sūtra, now we have to see the śrauta-arthaḥ of the first sūtra.
The direct-meaning of the sūtra is this. Thereafter, therefore, Brahman

enquiry should be done. This is the direct-meaning of the sūtra. This is the
meaning of athātō Brahma-jijñāsā. Incidentally, we should remember a point
here. Vyāsācārya is not discussing or propounding a new philosophy unlike
Sāṅkhya, Yōga, Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika; in all those systems the authors are
propounding a new system of philosophy, whereas Vyāsācārya does not
propound a new system but his aim is to extract the philosophy, the darśanam,
the teaching, which is contained in the upaniṣats. Therefore, he churns the curd
called upaniṣats as it were and extracts the butter called ātma-jñānam. And
therefore, you should remember that whenever Vyāsācārya writes a sūtra, he
has got some Upaniṣadic portion in his mind. Whenever he writes a sūtra,
whatever sūtra, he writes he keeps in mind a particular portion of an upaniṣat.
Therefore, to understand the right meaning of the sūtra, we should always
know what is the Upaniṣadic portion kept in mind by him. Only then we know
the import of the sūtra. And this is very much required here because the sūtra
happens to be a cryptic statement about the Brahman. Anything cryptic can
present vagueness also. Therefore, whenever we study the sūtra the first job
that we do is what Upaniṣadic statement is in Vyāsācārya’s mind. And that
Upaniṣadic statement is called viṣaya-vākyam. So, thus every sūtram must have
a viṣaya-vākyam, a corresponding Upaniṣadic portion. And unfortunately
Vyāsācārya does not say what is the viṣaya-vākyam. Therefore, we are left in the
lurch when we read a sūtra, often we are not able to find the head or tail, what
he wants to discuss, we are not able to find. That is why it becomes very
important to take the help of the commentators. Without bhāṣyam, you cannot
know the viṣaya-vākyam of many sūtras. But thank God, in Śaṅkarācārya’s
bhāṣyam, the spacious royal path is available. So, here he clearly presents this is

the Upaniṣadic portion kept in mind. Then if you ask, ‘Śaṅkarācārya, how do you
know?’ Then, Śaṅkarācārya says, ‘I don’t know, it is taught by my guru.’ So, thus
through Vyāsācārya himself the paramparā has been coming down. And
therefore, we come to know about the viṣaya-vākyam. What is the viṣaya-
vākyam for the first sūtra? There are three viṣaya-vākyams for the first sūtra.
First one is Taittirīyōpaniṣat mantra 3-1-1.
भृगुिै िारुभणाः । िरुणं नपतरमुपससार । अिीनह भगिो ब्रह्मेनत । तस्मा एतत्प्रोिाच । अन्नं प्राणं चक्षुाः श्रोत्रं मिो िाचधमनत ।
तँ होिाच । यतो िा इमानि भूतानि जायन्द्ते । येि जातानि जीिनन्द्त । यत्प्रयन्द्त्यभभसंनिशनन्द्त । तनद्वद्धजज्ञासस्ि । तद्ब्रह्मेनत
। स तपोऽतप्यत । स तपस्तप्त्िा ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् ३-१-१ ॥
bhrgurvai vāruṇiḥ | varuṇaṁ pitaramupasasāra | adhīhi bhagavō brahmēti | tasmā

ētatprōvāca | annaṁ prāṇaṁ cakṣuḥ śrōtraṁ manō vācamiti | ta̐ hōvāca | yatō vā imāni
bhūtāni jāyantē | yēna jātāni jīvanti | yatprayantyabhisaṁviśanti | tadvijijñāsasva |
tadbrahmēti | sa tapō’tapyata | sa tapastaptvā || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 3-1-1 ||
This is the first mantra of third section of Taittirīya. Of course, the whole
mantra is not relevant here. There is only one sentence which has to be noted,
which is tad-vijijñāsasva. And what is the first sūtra? Athātō Brahma-jijñāsā. See
it is coming correctly. There it is vijijñāsasva and here it is jijñāsā. What is the
meaning of the statement there? Tat vijijñāsasva. Bhrgu is being told by his
guru varuṇa that hē bhrgōḥ! You have to know Brahman, you have to conduct
Brahman enquiry, if you want peace of mind, if you want fulfillment in life, if you
want to discover security etc. These are all the basic problems of life – lack of
peace of mind, sense of insecurity, a thought of like being a waste ~ ‘what did I
achieve in all these years’ ~ this question seems to come often), so, a sense of
boredom in life, these are all the fundamental problems, if they have to go then
tat vijijñāsasva, know Brahman. It is a statement of commandment it is not an
ordinary statement. It is a statement in imperative-mood. Vijijñāsasva – you
should know, there is no alternative. Because people say in kaliyuga, jñānam
cannot be gained therefore, there is an easy method just taking the name of
the Lord is enough,
कलौ कल्मष सचिािाम् पापद्रव्योपजीििाम् । निधि नक्रया निहीिािाम् गनतर् गोनिन्द्द कीतनिम् ॥
kalau kalmaṣa cittānām pāpadravyōpajīvanām | vidhi kriyā vihīnānām gatir gōvinda
kīrtanam ||

Thus people say. This first Brahma-sūtra makes it very clear nāmasaṅkīrtanam
and all are wonderful but it cannot give mōkṣa. Nāmasaṅkīrtanam cannot give
mōkṣa. Whenever śāstra says nāmasaṅkīrtanam gives mōkṣa, it is only a
glorified, exaggeration but it is not a fact. Why do we say so? Because upaniṣat
makes it very clear that if you want mōkṣa then tat vijijñāsasva. And it is not said
in the upaniṣats that you have to know Brahman in Krta-yuga only, in Trētā-
yuga only, in Kali-yuga you need not go to jñāna-yōga, you can practice
kuṇḍalinī rising and get instant liberation. The upaniṣat does not specify any
yuga, from that it is very clear that in any yuga, jñānāt ēva kaivalyam. Therefore,
the upaniṣat commands ‘Know Brahman.’ This is one viṣaya-vākyam, which is
the main one.
The second-one occurs in Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 8-7-1, which runs like this –
य आत्मापहतपाप्मा निजरो निमृत्युरितशोको निद्धजघत्सोऽनपपासाः सत्यकामाः सत्यसंकल्पाः सोऽन्द्िष्ट

े व्याः स निद्धजज्ञाससतव्याः
स सिााँश्च लोकािाप्नोनत सिााँश्च कामान्द्यस्तमात्मािमिुनिद्य निजािातीनत ह प्रजापनतरुिाच ॥ छान्द्दोग्योपनिषत् ८-७-१ ॥
ya ātmāpahatapāpmā vijarō vimrtyurviśōkō vijighatsō’pipāsaḥ satyakāmaḥ satyasaṁkalpaḥ
sō’nvēṣṭavyaḥ sa vijijñāsitavyaḥ sa sarvā̐śca lōkānāpnōti sarvā̐śca
kāmānyastamātmānamanuvidya vijānātīti ha prajāpatiruvāca || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 8-7-1 ||
In this mantra also, the whole mantra is not relevant, a particular portion
is relevant and that portion is sa vijijñāsitavyaḥ. Here also tavyaḥ means
command ‘you have to know’, there is no short cut, there is no ducking. This is
the second śruti vākyam. The only difference is in the previous mantra ‘tat’ is
neuter gender and here ’saḥ’ is in masculine-gender; there ‘tat’ refers to
Brahman, here ’saḥ’ refers to paramātmā, both are one and the same.
The third śruti vākyam is Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 2-4-5. This occurs in the

famous Maitrēyī Brāhmaṇam where Yājñavalkya gives a long mantra.
स होिाच ि िा अरे पत्युाः कामाय पनताः नप्रयो भित्यात्मिस्तु कामाय पनताः नप्रयो भिनत । ि िा अरे जायायै कामाय जाया
नप्रया भित्यात्मिस्तु कामाय जाया नप्रया भिनत । ि िा अरे पुत्राणां कामाय पुत्रााः नप्रया भिन्द्त्यात्मिस्तु कामाय पुत्रााः नप्रया
भिनन्द्त । ि िा अरे नििस्य कामाय नििं नप्रयं भित्यात्मिस्तु कामाय नििं नप्रयं भिनत । ि िा अरे ब्रह्मणाः कामाय ब्रह्म
नप्रयं भित्यात्मिस्तु कामाय ब्रह्म नप्रयं भिनत । ि िा अरे क्षत्रस्य कामाय क्षत्रं नप्रयं भित्यात्मिस्तु कामाय क्षत्रं नप्रयं भिनत
। ि िा अरे लोकािां कामाय लोकााः नप्रया भिन्द्त्यात्मिस्तु कामाय लोकााः नप्रया भिनन्द्त । ि िा अरे दे िािां कामाय दे िााः
नप्रया भिन्द्त्यात्मिस्तु कामाय दे िााः नप्रया भिनन्द्त । ि िा अरे भूतािां कामाय भूतानि नप्रयाभण भिन्द्त्यात्मिस्तु कामाय
भूतानि नप्रयाभण भिनन्द्त । ि िा अरे सिनस्य कामाय सिं नप्रयं भित्यात्मिस्तु कामाय सिं नप्रयं भिनत । आत्मा िा अरे

द्रष्टव्याः श्रोतव्यो मन्द्तव्यो निददध्याससतव्यो मैत्रेय्यात्मिो िा अरे दशनिेि श्रिणेि मत्या निज्ञािेिेदं सिं निददतम् ॥
बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् २-४-५ ॥
sa hōvāca na vā arē patyuḥ kāmāya patiḥ priyō bhavatyātmanastu kāmāya patiḥ priyō
bhavati | na vā arē jāyāyai kāmāya jāyā priyā bhavatyātmanastu kāmāya jāyā priyā bhavati
| na vā arē putrāṇāṁ kāmāya putrāḥ priyā bhavantyātmanastu kāmāya putrāḥ priyā
bhavanti | na vā arē vittasya kāmāya vittaṁ priyaṁ bhavatyātmanastu kāmāya vittaṁ
priyaṁ bhavati | na vā arē Brahma ṇaḥ kāmāya Brahma priyaṁ bhavatyātmanastu kāmāya
Brahma priyaṁ bhavati | na vā arē kṣatrasya kāmāya kṣatraṁ priyaṁ bhavatyātmanastu
kāmāya kṣatraṁ priyaṁ bhavati | na vā arē lōkānāṁ kāmāya lōkāḥ priyā
bhavantyātmanastu kāmāya lōkāḥ priyā bhavanti | na vā arē dēvānāṁ kāmāya dēvāḥ priyā
bhavantyātmanastu kāmāya dēvāḥ priyā bhavanti | na vā arē bhūtānāṁ kāmāya bhūtāni
priyāṇi bhavantyātmanastu kāmāya bhūtāni priyāṇi bhavanti | na vā arē sarvasya kāmāya
sarvaṁ priyaṁ bhavatyātmanastu kāmāya sarvaṁ priyaṁ bhavati | ātmā vā arē draṣṭavyaḥ
śrōtavyō mantavyō nididhyāsitavyō maitrēyyātmanō vā arē darśanēna śravaṇēna matyā
vijñānēnēdaṁ sarvaṁ viditam || brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 2-4-5 ||
He goes on giving a big list, ‘nobody loves anybody but everybody loves
oneself alone’. So, Self alone is the object of love and therefore, Self alone is
ānanda-svarūpaḥ. Whatever is the object of love is of the nature of ānanda. The
upaniṣat says ātmā alone is loved by everyone. How do we know? When crucial
things come we ready to drop one by one like a sinking ship we start throwing
everything and what is left out is myself. A person gives up even children. Loved
child disobeys the parent they say you are no more my son. And there are
parents who tell also that you should not do even karma (antēṣṭi) for me. They
go to religious level. They disown the son to such an extent that they even tell
not to do karma. And husband disowns wife and wife husbands, everyday news.
That is what somebody said it seems, ‘Marriage is like tennis game. Why do you
say it is like tennis game? It is the only game which starts with love and they
fight like hell later.’ Therefore, initially it is liked for my sake but the moment I
don’t find satisfaction in any person I just drop like hot potato. Therefore, what
is the conclusion? Self alone is loved by all. Therefore, Self is ānanda-svarūpaḥ
therefore, discovering ānanda requires Self-discovery. And having presented
this elaborately, Yājñavalkya tells Maitrēyī, therefore, arē Maitrēyī –
आत्मा िा अरे द्रष्टव्याः श्रोतव्याः मन्द्तव्याः निददध्याससतव्याः ॥

ātmā vā arē draṣṭavyaḥ śrōtavyaḥ mantavyaḥ nididhyāsitavyaḥ ||
and therefore, ātman enquiry should be done.

So, thus in all these three Upaniṣadic portions - Taittirīya, Cāndōgya and
Brhadāraṇyaka - Brahman enquiry is emphasized. So, in keeping with those
Upaniṣadic portion Vyāsācārya condenses all of them and says athātō Brahma-
jijñāsā. To show that it is compulsory we supply the verb to the sūtra. The sūtra
is grammatically incomplete and therefore, to complete the sūtra
grammatically, we add a saṁskrta word kartavya. Therefore, what is the full
sūtram? athātō Brahma-jijñāsā kartavya. Thereafter, therefore, Brahman
enquiry should be done. Kartavya means should be done, no choice; if you want
mōkṣa. So, this is the direct meaning of the sūtra.
Now this direct meaning we revise a little bit. If you have to do Brahman
enquiry, we say that you cannot do it independently because Brahman is not
available as an object in front for you to study, like atomic enquiry or cell
enquiry or moon enquiry. So therefore, independent enquiry of Brahman
cannot be done, you have to necessarily take the help of the upaniṣat
microscope, just as cell is studied through microscope, stars are studied
through telescope; in the same way Brahman has to be studied through
Upanishad scope. Because in one of the mantras it is said sarvaṁ
brahmōpaniṣadaṁ, Brahman is given the title aupaniṣadam to indicate that
Brahman can be enquired through Vēdānta alone. And therefore, we revise the
word Brahman-enquiry and replace it with Vēdāntic-enquiry. So, Brahma-jijñāsā
is equal to Vēdānta-śāstra-vicāraḥ. Athātō Vēdānta-śāstra vicāraḥ kartavyaḥ. For
what purpose? For Brahma-jñānam. What is the revised meaning of the first
sūtra now? Thereafter, therefore, Vēdāntic enquiry should be done for Brahma -
jñānam. This is the revised direct meaning of the first sūtra.
Now we have to make some more addition, more revision. Because you
should remember that Brahma-sūtra is Nyāya prasthānam, a logical work. It is
meant to analyze everything logically. And therefore, every sūtra should
present a logical statement; it should be a Nyāya-vākyam. So, therefore, athātō
Brahma-jijñāsā also must be presented technically as a Nyāya-vākyam, as an
anumāna-vākya. Now the question is, what is anumānam-vākyam
corresponding the first sūtra.

I hope you remember anumānam-vākyam. Do you remember the four

factors of anumāna-vākyam? Pakṣaḥ, sādhyam, hētuḥ and drṣṭāntaḥ. What was
the example given for this? Parvataḥ vahnimān dhūmavatvāt yathā mahānasaḥ.
Now, the first sūtra must be logically presented. What is that? Vēdānta śāstram
– pakṣaḥ; ārambhaṇīyam, should be studied, should be enquired into –
sādhyam; anubandha catuṣṭayavatvāt, because it has got the anubandha
catuṣṭayam, the fourfold factors - that there is a subject-matter to enquire into,
that there is a benefit, etc., – hētuḥ; dharma-śāstra vat – drṣṭānta. So, Vēdānta-
śāstram ārambhaṇīyam anubandha-catuṣṭayavatvāt dharma-śāstravat.
For this anumānam-vākyam, there should be a vyāpti, a generalization. In

the example that we saw ‘wherever there is smoke there is fire’. A statement of
coexistence is called vyāpti. For this anumānam what is the vyāpti? Yatra yatra
anubandha-catuṣṭayavatvam, whichever śāstram has got anubandha
catuṣṭayam, tatra tatra ārambhaṇīyatvam, all the śāstras are worth studying
because we get prayōjanam out of it. Here what is the prayōjanam? Mōkṣa
itself. Therefore, this is the revised-presentation of the direct meaning of the
first sūtra.
With this I am concluding the general analysis of the first sūtra. In this we
saw the implied-meaning and direct-meaning. Implied-meaning is Vēdānta-
śāstram has anubandha-catuṣṭayam. Direct meaning is Vēdānta-śāstra should
be studied.
Now hereafter, I would like to go to the word analysis of the first sūtra.
There are three words are atha, ataḥ and Brahma-jijñāsā. Brahma-jijñāsā is a
single, compound word consisting of Brahman and jijñāsā. Thus, totally three
words are there, each word we will analyze and see the significance and
corollaries in the next class.
ॐ पूर्यमदः पूर्मय मदम् पूर्ायत्पूर्म

य ुदच्र्ते पूर्यस्र् पूर्म
य ादार् पूर्यमेवावशि्र्ते ॥ ॐ िा्न्तः िा्न्तः िा्न्तः ॥ रिः रः ॐ.॥

013 Sūtra 1.1.1 - Jijñāsādhikaraṇam
Word Analysis
Until now we made a general analysis of the first sūtra, athātō Brahma-
jijñāsā. Now we will do a word analysis of this sūtra. This sūtra consists of atha,
ataḥ and Brahma-jijñāsā. Śaṅkarācārya analysis each word in the order itself.
सत्र
ू ार्थो वण्यभिे यत्र वाकययः सत्र
ू ािस
ु ाररभर्ः ।
स्वपदाति च वण्यभन्िे र्ाष्यं र्ाष्यववदो ववदःु ॥
sūtrārthō varṇyatē yatra vākyaiḥ sūtrānusāribhiḥ |

svapadāni ca varṇyantē bhāṣyaṁ bhāṣyavidō viduḥ ||
While talking about the sūtra-bhāṣyam, we made a condition that the

commentator of the sūtra should comment upon every word in the very order
in which it is occurring in the sūtra. Therefore, the first word should be
commented first, i.e., atha-vicāraḥ, and thereafterwards the second-word
should be commented and thereafterwards the third word. Śaṅkarācārya
should not and does not alter the order of the word. He cannot say I will
comment upon Brahma-jijñāsā first then I will come to atha and then I will
come to ataḥ. No, the word should be taken in the very order in which it is
occurring in the sūtra. So when we go like that the first word is atha, and
therefore, now we will enter into atha śabda vicāraḥ, analysis of the word atha.
Śaṅkarācārya points out that the expression atha has twofold function. One is
atha as a sound, śabda-rūpēṇa. The second is atha as a word, pāda-rūpēṇa. So,
atha as a function as śabda and also as a padam. This is an interesting thing
which we have to notice. Suppose we are listening to the news from the radio or
television. When we are hearing the news, the first thing that happens is we
hear the sound. So, firstly the news is in the form of a series of sounds, which
are known by pratyakṣa-pramāṇam. So, through the pratyakṣa-pramāṇam, i.e.,
śrōtra indriya pramāṇam the sound comes into our mind. This sound which is
heard is through the ears is a pramēyam, which is known through śrōtra indriya
pramāṇam. This is the first status of the news, which is functioning as

pramēyam, which is heard through pramāṇam called śrōtrēndriyam. This śabda

is functioning as pramēyam, i.e., an object of any pramāṇam, for everyone who
has got healthy ears. Whoever has got healthy ears will certainly hear the sound
from the radio or the television. And when they hear the sound, the sound is
what? A pramēyam. Suppose this person is a literate person who knows the
language. The news is in English and this person is trained in English language,
then what happens? The very sound, which has entered into his mind as
pramēyam begins to function as śabda-pramāṇam. So, every word, every
sentence which entered the mind as pramēyam will become what; śabda-
pramāṇam. For whom? Not for all hearing people, it will function as śabda-
pramāṇam only for the literate ones who have trained themselves in the
language. Imagine you are listening to the Chinese news. When you are hearing
it, there the news is functioning as a pramēyam because you have got healthy
ears, therefore, the news enters as pramēyam but the sound is not able to
function as pramāṇam for you. So thus, every word has got two statuses. What
are those two? As a pramēyam, when it is listened and as a pramāṇam, as a
particular language. So, pramēya-rūpa śabdaḥ and pramāṇa-rūpa padam.
Now, Śaṅkarācārya says when the teacher utters the word atha, this word
atha also has got twofold status. First, whoever is not deaf is able to hear the
sound atha, therefore atha functions as śabda-rūpēṇa, pramēya-rūpēṇa for all
the people. And thereafter if a person is trained in language then the very same
word atha functions as a śabda-pramāṇam. So it is called padam. And
Śaṅkarācārya says atha has got one function as śabda and atha has got second
function as padam. What are those two functions? Śaṅkarācārya says, śabda-
rūpēṇa maṅgala janakam. The sound atha as a very sound (not as a word), as a
mere vibration, as a mere sound, śabda-rūpēṇa athakāraḥ maṅgala-janakam
bhavati, it produces auspiciousness.
And when the word atha functions as a padam, a language, a word then
it is ārtha-bōdhakam ca bhavati. Ārtha-bōdhakam means it produces, it gives a
particular meaning. So, śabda-rūpēṇa maṅgala-janakam, pāda-rūpēṇa

arthabōdhakam; pramēya-rūpēṇa maṅgala-janakam, pramāṇa-rūpēṇa

arthabōdhakam. These are the two functions of atha.
Why does Vyāsācārya use the word atha in these twofold functions?
Because Vyāsācārya feels that this is the first sūtra and therefore, we have to
begin the text with maṅgalam. Any text begun without maṅgalam is considered
to be amaṅgalam text, inauspicious text, and we are not supposed to read that
textbook. And therefore, there is a tradition of writing a maṅgala ślōka, whether
it is upaniṣat, whether it is purāṇa, whether it is any textbook, including Tattva-
bōdha –
िासुदेिेन्द्द्रयोगीन्द्द्रं ित्िा ज्ञािप्रदं गुरुम् ।

vāsudēvēndrayōgīndraṁ natvā jñānapradaṁ gurum |
In keeping with that tradition, Vyāsācārya also has to do benediction, for what?
Vighna-nivāraṇārtham, Īśvara-prasāda-sidhyartham, avighnēna-granthasya
parisamāpyartham, śiṣyēṣu madhyē pracaya-sidhyartham for all these purposes
maṅgala is required. And Vyāsācārya is writing a work in sūtra form and
therefore, he has no opportunity to write a maṅgala ślōka. So therefore, the
purpose is what? He should reduce the size of the text as much as possible,
because this is a sūtra-grantha. If one letter can be saved, it is a great
achievement. Putrōtsavam manyantē sūtra-kārāḥ they say. If the author of a
sūtra is able to save a word or even a letter, the author considers it as a great
joy as getting a child. Putrōtsavam manyantē, by saving what? One letter. So,
how can Vyāsācārya spend one full sūtra for maṅgalam? Therefore, Vyāsācārya
ingeniously does the benediction, and what is that method? Use the word atha.
How do you know that the sound atha is auspicious? Because we have
got the pramāṇam.
ओङ् कारश्चाथशब्दश्च द्वािेतौ ब्रह्मणाः पुरा ।

कण्ठं भभत्िा निनियानतौ तस्मान्द्माङ्गसलकािुभौ ॥
ōṅkāraścāthaśabdaśca dvāvētau Brahma ṇaḥ purā |
kaṇṭhaṁ bhitvā viniryātau tasmānmāṅgalikāvubhau ||

These two words ‘ōṃ’ and ‘atha’ are maṅgala śabda. We have seen this before.
In the dhyāna-ślōka I explained. In fact, the last dhyāna-ślōka is that alone. And
we conclude the dhyāna-ślōka by saying ōṃ atha ōṃ atha ōṃ atha | Why?
Because the very sound atha is maṅgalam. And why it is maṅgalam? Because
Brahmāji started this wonderful creation after uttering these two words.
kaṇṭhaṁ bhitvā viniryātau tasmān māṅgalikāvubhau. That is why in the Gītā
chapters also atha prathamō’dhyāyaḥ atha dvitīyō’’dhyāyaḥ etc., is said. So, this
is the first function maṅgalam.
Pāṇini is the great author of Vyākaraṇa-sūtra, he also does the similar

thing. His first vyākaraṇa-sūtram is
िृद्धिरादै च् ॥ अष्टाध्यायी १-१-१ ॥

vrddhirādaic || Aṣṭādhyāyī 1-1-1 ||
In the first sūtra, the first word is vrddhiḥ. Vrddhiḥ means prosperity, growth,
etc. And therefore, it is an auspicious word, because it represents growth and
prosperity. Therefore, Pāṇini uses the word vrddhi in twofold function. vrddhi as
a sound produces maṅgalam and vrddhi as a word conveys a technical
vyākaraṇa meaning. Similarly, here also atha śabda-rūpēṇa maṅgala-janakam
bhavati. Now, what is the second function of the word atha? atha as a word, as
a padam conveys a meaning. Now, according to saṁskrta language the word
atha has many meanings. maṅgala, ārambha, adhikāra, prayōjana
मङ्गलािन्द्तरारम्भप्रश्नकात्स्न्द्येष्िथो अथ ॥ अमरकोशाः ३-३-८७१ ॥

maṅgalānantarārambhapraśnakārtsnyēṣvathō atha || Amarakōśaḥ 3-3-871 ||
According to Amarakōśa various meanings are given for the word atha.
Śaṅkarācārya analyzes various possible meanings and ultimately arrives at one
particular meaning. And that meaning of the word atha is anantaram. Among
various meanings Śaṅkarācārya chooses, after analysis (I am skipping the
analysis portion, I am just telling you the final meaning he has arrived at),
anantaram. To put it in abstract noun ānantaryārthaḥ atha śabdaḥ. That means
the word atha means anantaram.

Now the question is what do you mean by anantaram? Anantaram means

‘thereafter’ or ‘immediately after’. That ‘thereafter’ also indicates ‘immediately
after’. Why does Śaṅkarācārya takes this particular meaning? Śaṅkarācārya
says, if you take the meaning thereafter, naturally a question will come in the
mind of the student, what will be the question? ‘Whereafter’. ‘Thereafter’ means
‘Whereafter’. And naturally, Vyāsācārya by implication can convey the
prerequisite of the qualification. Once you take the meaning thereafter by
implication it will convey the meaning of qualification. Because any study
should be after what? What is the general rule? After yōgyatā siddhi anantaram
Brahma-jijñāsā. Even if it is physics jijñāsā, what is the prerequisite? The yōgyatā
for studying physics. M.Sc. physics should be preceded by B.Sc. physics,
legitimately gained. Similarly, PhD should be preceded by legitimate. If you
want to enter Olympics, there is a qualifying round. We have got qualifying
round for chess, Olympics, qualifying round for anything. And therefore, using
the word thereafter, Vyāsācārya implies the prerequisite of niyama-apēkṣita
yōgyatā. Niyama-apēkṣita-yōgyatā means the qualification, which should
invariably precede the study. Invariable prerequisite.
Now the next question is, ‘What is the invariable necessity for the study of
Vēdānta?’ What is compulsorily required for the study of Vēdānta? Śaṅkarācārya
says sādhana-catuṣṭayam. This is not directly mentioned by Vyāsa, but it is
indirectly implied by Vyāsa. And what is the advantage? The advantage is he
saves two words sādhana-catuṣṭayam. If he directly writes, the sūtra will
become very big. And therefore, by using the method of implication the
advantage that the author derives is reducing the size of the sūtra. So, what is
the idea conveyed by the word atha? Sādhana-catuṣṭaya-anantaram. Of this
anantaram is directly mentioned and sādhana-catuṣṭayam is indirectly implied.
What is the meaning of the word atha in English? After acquiring four-fold
qualification is the meaning of atha.
Now the next question is how do you know that sādhana-catuṣṭayam is

the qualification? For that, we have got two pramāṇams to show that sādhana-
catuṣṭayam is the qualification. The first pramāṇam is yukti-pramāṇam, the

logic and that logic is called anvaya-vyatirēka-nyāya, the logic of co-presence

and co-absence.
यत्सत्त्िे यत्सत्त्िं यदभािे यदभािाः तत् तस्य कारणम् ।

yatsattvē yatsattvaṁ yadabhāvē yadabhāvaḥ tat tasya kāraṇam |
When you add sugar, the milk becomes sweet and when you don’t add sugar,
the milk does not become sweet. Therefore, sugar is the cause for sweetness.
śarkarā sattvē madhuram sattvam śarkarā abhāvē madhuraḥ abhāvaḥ tasmāt
śarkarā ēva mādhuryasya kāraṇam. Similarly, from observation we come to
know that whoever has got sādhana-catuṣṭayam he is able to derive, get the
benefit of Vēdāntic study, viz., mōkṣa. Like Nacikētas, the kēnōpaniṣat student,
they were all qualified students and at the end of the teaching they all said –
िाहं मन्द्ये सुिेदेनत िो ि िेदेनत िेद च । ॥ केिोपनिषत् २-२ ॥

nāhaṁ manyē suvēdēti nō na vēdēti Vēda ca | || Kēnōpaniṣat 2-2 ||
धन्योऽहम ् कृिकृत्योऽहम ् ॥ वववेकचूडामण ः ४८८ ॥

dhanyō’ham krtakrtyō’ham || Vivēkacūḍāmaṇiḥ 488 ||
All these words indicate that a qualified student gets the benefit. On the other
hand, a student without sādhana-catuṣṭayam does not derive the benefit even if
he does śravaṇa, manana and nididhyāsana for hundred billion janmas. So,
sādhana-catuṣṭaya sattvē vicārēṇa phala-prāptiḥ sādhana-catuṣṭaya abhāvē
vicārēṇa aphala-prāptiḥ tasmāt sādhana-catuṣṭayam ēva kāraṇam.
िानिरतो दश्चररतात् िाशान्द्तो िासमानहताः । िाशान्द्तमािसो िाऽनप प्रज्ञािैिमाप्नुयात् ॥ कठोपनिषत् १-२-२४ ॥

nāviratō duścaritāt nāśāntō nāsamāhitaḥ | nāśāntamānasō vā’pi prajñānainamāpnuyāt ||
Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-2-24 ||
The same idea is conveyed in the Kaṭhōpaniṣat mantra. And this Śaṅkarācārya
very nicely puts in his Vivēkacūḍāmaṇi –
साििान्द्यत्र चत्िारर कसथतानि मिीनषभभाः ।

येषु सत्स्िेि सधन्नष्ठा यदभािे ि ससध्यनत ॥ नििेकचूडामभण १८ ॥
sādhanānyatra catvāri kathitāni manīṣibhiḥ |
yēṣu satsvēva sanniṣṭhā yadabhāvē na sidhyati || Vivēkacūḍāmaṇi 18 ||
Sādhanānyatra catvāri kathitāni manīṣibhiḥ – the wise people say four

qualifications are required. What type of qualifications are they? yēṣu sattvēva

sanniṣṭhā – only if these qualifications are there a person becomes Brahma

niṣṭhaḥ, muktaḥ. Yadabhāvē na sidhyati – if these qualifications are not there na
sidhyati. Yēṣu satsvēva sanniṣṭhā anvaya yadabhāvē na sidhyati vyatirēka ēvam
anvaya vyatirēkābhyām sādhana catuṣṭayasya sādhanatvam samyag nirṇitaṁ
bhavati. So, this is logical establishment. And if we have any doubt, we can look
at our own life. If we are lacking the qualifications Vēdānta becomes an
academic time pass. Just as in the train they have time pass, when it is twenty-
two hours late - time pass. Similarly, we have got lot of time and I want some
intellectual gymnastics, some exercise and therefore, I am studying the
Brahma-sūtra; it will more an information not a transform of the person. Why?
sādhana catuṣṭayam nāsti. And remember in the four qualifications even any
one of them is weak then it is going to trouble. And therefore, by logic we show
that sādhana catuṣṭayam is required. And therefore what? Therefore, atha
śabdasya, sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti anantaram ityarthaḥ. This is yukti
pramāṇam.
Then we have got śruti-pramāṇam also to show that. We have got many,
I will just mention one or two for your reference –
परीर्क्ष्य लोकाि् कमनसचताि् ब्राह्मणो नििेदमायान्नास्त्यकृताः कृतेि । तनद्वज्ञािाथं स गुरुमेिाभभगच्छे त् सधमत्पाभणाः श्रोनत्रयं
ब्रह्मनिष्ठम् ॥ मुण्डकोपनिषत् १-२-१२ ॥
Parīkṣya lōkān karmacitān brāhmaṇō nirVēda māyānnāstyakrtaḥ krtēna | tadvijñānārthaṁ
sa gurumēvābhigacchēt samitpāṇiḥ śrōtriyaṁ Brahma niṣṭham || Muṇḍakōpaniṣat 1-2-12 ||
In this very important Muṇḍakōpaniṣat mantra it is said that a person should go

through life and clearly know what is permanent and what is impermanent.
Through parīkṣya, examination, learning form kicks in life. So through that
statement the upaniṣat indicates one should have nitya-anitya-vastu vivēka. And
nirvēdamāyāt – he should get disgusted with the anitya-vastu, having suffered
enough he should know the limitation of anitya-vastu and turn his attention
away. Nirvēdam means dispassion, vairāgyam is indicated. He must be so tired
with the world, tadvijñānārthaṁ sa gurumēvābhigacchēt – he should go to a
guru seeking the permanent.
दिानरसंसारदिात्ग्ितप्तं दोिूयमािं दरदृष्टिातैाः ।

भीतं प्रपन्नं पररपानह मृत्योाः शरण्यमन्द्यद्यदहं ि जािे ॥ नििेकचूडामभण ३६ ॥

durvārasaṁsāradavāgnitaptaṁ dōdhūyamānaṁ duradrṣṭavātaiḥ |
bhītaṁ prapannaṁ paripāhi mrtyōḥ śaraṇyamanyadyadahaṁ na jānē || Vivēkacūḍāmaṇi 36
||
So, I am tired of saṁsāra therefore, give me mōkṣa or nitya-vastu, which

indicates mumukṣutvam. So, thus the Muṇḍakōpaniṣat mantra shows the
requirement of vivēka, vairāgyam and mumukṣutvam.
Again, if this is not clear, if it is too abstract, in Kaṭhōpaniṣat through the

story of Nacikētas the upaniṣat presents the same idea more concretely.
Nacikētas comes asking for mōkṣa. And Yamadharmarāja tempts him by
offering everything in life as a replacement for mōkṣa. So, Yamadharmarāja
says, I will give you iha-lōka-sukham I will give you parā-lōka-sukham also. And
not that Yamadharmarāja gives him a blank cheque.
ये ये कामा दलनभा मत्यनलोके

सिानि् कामाँश्छन्द्दताः प्राथनयस्ि । ॥ कठोपनिषत् १-१-२५ ॥
yē yē kāmā durlabhā martyalōkē
sarvān kāmā̐śchandataḥ prārthayasva | || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-1-25 ||
Sarvān kāmān chandataḥ prārthayasva – you can just write on the cheque, need
not be money, you can write a big palatial house in posh area with twenty four
hours water supply (that should not be forgotten) and the latest car that has
come, Benz, BMW, all these will get. So, now Nacikētas has to choose between
dharmārthakāma and mōkṣa, both are given freely. At least in our case, we
have to work for money but Nacikētas was given both of them freely. And
Yamadharmarāja says you have a right to choose only one of these two. Either
seek śrēyas or seek prēyas.
श्रेयश्च प्रेयश्च मिुष्यमेताः ॥ कठोपनिषत् १-२-२ ॥

śrēyaśca prēyaśca manuṣyamētaḥ || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-2-2 ||
And what will we choose? Closing your eyes tell within yourselves, if you tell
loudly your merit will go away! What will we generally think? Afterall, mōkṣa is
eternal, whenever we want we can have it. But house, water etc., they are
immediate problem and therefore, let me solve the immediate problem, mōkṣa
can wait. But Nacikētas,

स त्िं नप्रयास्त्न्द्प्रयरूपांश्च कामाि्

अभभध्यायन्नसचकेतोऽत्यस्राक्षीाः । ॥ कठोपनिषत् १-२-३ ॥
sa tvaṁ priyānpriyarūpāṁśca kāmān

abhidhyāyannacikētō’tyasrākṣīḥ | || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-2-3 ||
Oh Nacikētas! you threw them far away at the age of nine, and not out of
childishness, abhidhyāyan – after thinking very well you chose. So, from this
what is the idea conveyed? The story part let it be there, the idea is if I have to
grasp Vēdānta like Nacikētas, I should be after mōkṣa like Nacikētas and I
should be able to throw away dharmārthakāma like
ब्रह्माददस्थािरान्द्तेषु िैराग्यं निषयेष्ििु ।

यथैि काकनिष्ठायां िैराग्यं तद्धि निमनलम् ॥ अपरोक्षािुभूनत ४ ॥
brahmādisthāvarāntēṣu vairāgyaṁ viṣayēṣvanu |
yathaiva kākaviṣṭhāyāṁ vairāgyaṁ taddhi nirmalam || Aparōkṣānubhūti 4 ||
Kāka-viṣṭhāyāṁ yathaiva. Śaṅkarācārya tells in Aparōkṣānubhūti the vairāgyam

should be like vairāgyam towards kākaviṣṭhā – the droppings of a crow. Does
anybody has got passion for that? Had it been gōviṣṭhā it would have been
useful. We just immediately wipe it out and after wiping out we don’t claim that
it as a great achievement. So, just as a person effortlessly renounces, throws
away kākaviṣṭhā the whole fourteen lōkas should become kākaviṣṭhā samānam.
That is called tīvra vairāgyam. Without batting the eyelids, Nacikētas did not
say, ‘Give me a day’s time I shall think and let you know.’ So, thus through
Nacikētas story what do we get? śrēyas prēyas vivēkaḥ and vairāgyam towards
prēyas and mumukṣutvam, all these things are clearly presented and therefore,
the necessity of vivēka, vairāgyam etc., are given in the śruti also. So, yukti-
pramāṇam and śruti-pramāṇam . Of course, in these two mantras, i.e.,
Muṇḍaka and Kaṭhōpaniṣat we get vivēka, vairāgyam and mumukṣutvam, what
about śamādi-ṣaṭka-sampatti. Where is it said in the śruti, in the Vēdas? We say,
in Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat śamādi-ṣaṭka-sampattiḥ is clearly said. In
Brhadāraṇyaka (Mādhyandina śākhā) there is a famous mantra –
शान्द्तो दान्द्त उपरतस्स्तनतक्षुाः श्रिानितो भूत्िात्मन्द्येिात्मािं पश्येत् … ॥ शतपथब्राह्मणम्/काण्डम् १४/अध्यायाः

७/ब्राह्मणम् २ मन्द्त्राः २८ ॥

śāntō dānta uparatastitikṣuḥ śraddhāvitō bhūtvātmanyēvātmānaṁ paśyēt … ||

śatapathabrāhmaṇam/kāṇḍam 14/adhyāyaḥ 7/brāhmaṇam 2 mantraḥ 28 ||
In that statement śamādi ṣaṭka sampattiḥ is also emphasized. Śāntō dānta

uparataḥ titikṣuḥ śraddhāvitō bhūtvā. Then also a doubt may come. Only five
have been named? Because only śama, dama, uparama, titikṣā, śraddhā has
been said, samādhanam is missing. For that they say, (they have analyzed
everything, there is no work left for us, just we have to eat the cooked food) this
Brhadāraṇyaka itself has two versions - one belong to Kāṇva-śākhā and another
belonging to Mādhyandina śākhā. Just like puruṣa sūktam occurring in rg-Vēda
also, Yajurvēda also, sāma-vēda also, similarly Brhadāraṇyaka occurs in the
kāṇva-śākhā of śukla-yajurvēda and Mādhyandina śākhā of śukla-yajur-vēda.
And in one śākhā, śraddhā is mentioned and in the other branch, samāhitō
bhūtvā it is said. Therefore, samādhānam is mentioned. Thus in one branch of
Brhadāraṇyaka śraddhā is mentioned and in another branch samādhānam is
mentioned, then śāntō dānta uparataḥ titikṣuḥ is mentioned in both branches.
If you join both the branches of Brhadāraṇyaka, you will get śamādi ṣaṭka
sampattiḥ. So thus, vivēka, vairāgyam, śamādi ṣaṭka sampattiḥ and
mumukṣutvam are prerequisite conditions for the Vēdāntic study. Thus through
yukti pramāṇam and śruti-pramāṇam we prove that atha is equal to sādhana
catuṣṭaya anantaram.
Now, Śaṅkarācārya enters into another big topic. Another philosopher,

who comments upon Brahmasūtra, gives another meaning for this atha śabda.
Śaṅkarācārya has presented the meaning as sādhana-catuṣṭaya-anantaram.
Now another commentator says that should not be the meaning. He says,
pūrva-mīmāṁsā-anantaram must be the meaning. This is the suggestion of
another commentator. He accepts that the meaning is anantaram. ‘Thereafter’
part he accepts. But whereafter you analyze, Śaṅkarācārya says, sādhana
catuṣṭaya anantaram whereas the other commentator suggests pūrva-
mīmāṁsā anantaram, i.e., after the study of pūrva-mīmāṁsā alone Brahma-
sūtra should be studied. To put in Śaṅkarācārya’s language
‘karmāvabōdhānantaryaṁ’ arthaḥ, means pūrva-mīmāṁsā anantaram.

Now, Śaṅkarācārya elaborately refutes this commentary, idea. This is the next
topic, part of atha-śabda-vicāraḥ. It is pūrva-pakṣaḥ-nirākaraṇam. He has
established his siddhānta, now he is negating another opinion of a pūrva-pakṣi,
some other philosopher. Now you should see what is the intention of that
philosopher. Because he also wants to give a right-commentary alone. So, he
must have some intention in his mind when he says pūrva-mīmāṁsā
anantaram. So, what is pūrva-mīmāṁsā? Pūrva-mīmāṁsā is the analysis of the
first portion of the Vēda. Whereas Brahma-sūtras are called uttara-mīmāṁsā,
which is the analysis of final portion of Vēda. The first portion of the Vēda deals
with karma and upāsana and the last portion deals with jñānam. Therefore,
pūrva-mīmāṁsā is the analysis of karma and upāsana and uttara-mīmāṁsā is
the analysis of Brahman or jñānam. Now, the pūrva-pakṣi says, the word
indicates pūrva-mīmāṁsā should come first, pūrva means first, uttara means
later. The very word uttara-mīmāṁsā shows that it should come later, after.
And therefore, atha should be translated as pūrva-mīmāṁsā-anantaram uttara-
mīmāṁsā. After 1st class only 2nd class. The very word clearly shows that. They
have logical support also. Pūrva-mīmāṁsā deals with karma and upāsana. And
we all know that karma and upāsana; one has to perform to get the
qualification, the citta-śuddhi, the citta-naiścalyam, sādhana-catuṣṭayam.
Therefore, one should study pūrva-mīmāṁsā, follow karma-yōga and upāsana,
thereafterwards acquire sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti, and thereafterwards he
should come to the Vēdānta, the uttara-mīmāṁsā, the Brahmasūtram. And
therefore, since everybody requires qualification and since qualification
requires pūrva-mīmāṁsā, you should translate atha as pūrva-mīmāṁsā
anantaram, uttara-mīmāṁsā. This is the proper procedure, called krama. And if
you don’t go by krama it becomes what Vēdānta? Akrama-Vēdānta. Without
pūrva-mīmāṁsā study if you come to uttara-mīmāṁsā, it is akrama-Vēdānta.
So, the teacher should first teach pūrva-mīmāṁsā, athātō-dharma-jijñāsā. It is a
set of sūtras written by Jaimini rṣi called pūrva-mīmāṁsā sūtrāṇi, which is a
voluminous work, much much bigger than Brahma-sūtras. Brahma-sūtra has
got only four chapters; this has got twelve chapters. Therefore, what is the
pūrva-pakṣaḥ? Atha is equal to pūrva-mīmāṁsā anantaram. And what is

Śaṅkarācārya’s job now? Refutation of that. How does Śaṅkarācārya refutes this
view?
He gives both yukti as well as śruti support to refute their view. He gives
reasons and śruti-pramāṇam also. We will go one after the other. First, let us
take the yukti, the reasons against this view. Śaṅkarācārya gives four reasons to
refute this view. This view means the view that after uttara-mīmāṁsā alone one
should come to uttara-mīmāṁsā, Brahmasūtra. The first reason Śaṅkarācārya
says is,
i) Vyabhicāra-dōṣāt. Roughly translated as lack of consistency or

inconsistency. Suppose the word atha is translated as after the study of pūrva-
mīmāṁsā then there will be two problems.
(a) What is that? A person may study pūrva-mīmāṁsā thoroughly. And after
the study of pūrva-mīmāṁsā thoroughly, what will he do? In keeping with the
sūtra, he will say that I have studied pūrva-mīmāṁsā and therefore, now I am
qualified for uttara-mīmāṁsā. Because you have translated atha as pūrva-
mīmāṁsā-anantaram, therefore, a person will study pūrva-mīmāṁsā and he
may think that he is qualified for uttara-mīmāṁsā. For that Śaṅkarācārya says
there is a danger! What is the danger? Even after the study of pūrva-mīmāṁsā,
a person may not have sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti. Even after the thorough
study of pūrva-mīmāṁsā, he becomes a pūrva-mīmāṁsā scholar. And if he is a
student in a college, he may get śirōmaṇi. śirōmaṇi in what? In pūrva-mīmāṁsā.
So, for a śirōmaṇi in pūrva-mīmāṁsā there is no guarantee that a person will
have vivēka, vairāgyam, ṣaṭka sampattiḥ etc. And therefore, what will happen?
An unqualified person, though he may be a scholar in pūrva-mīmāṁsā, also
may go to Vēdānta after pūrva-mīmāṁsā, if you put pūrva-mīmāṁsā
anantaram. In fact, even after doing karmas for a long time, there are people
who are not qualified, so being the case how can one just by studying the
pūrva-mīmāṁsā get qualified for Vēdānta? So, therefore, the chances are that
an unqualified person will go to Vēdānta after study of pūrva-mīmāṁsā, in
which case he will not understand. This is one problem. There is a second
problem which we will see in the next class.



014 Sūtra 1.1.1 Jijñāsādhikaraṇam
We are analyzing the first word atha of the first sūtra, athātō Brahma-
jijñāsā. Śaṅkarācārya pointed out that the word atha means sādhana-catuṣṭaya-
sampatti anantaram, which means after the acquisition of the fourfold
qualification. Ataḥ Brahma-jijñāsā means one should enquire into Brahman.
After establishing his meaning, Śaṅkarācārya has now taken up one of the
views of another commentator. This commentator accepts that the word atha
means anantaram or afterwards. But he says, ‘instead of saying sādhana
catuṣṭaya anantaram, we should say pūrva-mīmāṁsā-vicāra anantaram, after
pūrva-mīmāṁsā one should come to Vēdānta. And we all should know that
pūrva-mīmāṁsā means karma-kāṇḍa vicāraḥ, analysis of the ritualistic of the
Vēda. And the pūrva-pakṣi’s contention is the very word pūrva-mīmāṁsā shows
that it comes in the beginning. And Vēdānta-vicāra is called uttara-mīmāṁsā
and the very word uttara-mīmāṁsā shows that it comes later. And therefore, it
is common sense knowledge that only after pūrva-mīmāṁsā, karma-kāṇḍa
vicāra one should come to Vēdānta-vicāra. And therefore, the contention of
pūrva-pakṣi is that only after karma-kāṇḍa-vicāraḥ one should go to jñāna-
kāṇḍa-vicāraḥ or Brahma-vicāraḥ. So this view, Śaṅkarācārya is refuting
elaborately. First, he gives various reasons in support of that. And
thereafterwards he gives śruti support also for his contention. First, we will take
up the reason. The first reason that I was discussing in the last class is
vyabhicāra-dōṣa. I was explaining this in the last class. To explain this
vyabhicāra-dōṣa, Śaṅkarācārya points out two-fold problems in pūrva-pakṣi-
view. What is the first problem?
(a) If you say that Vēdānta vicāra should come after karma-kāṇḍa-vicāra
then there is a problem, that is a person may go through karma-kāṇḍa-vicāra
and complete pūrva-mīmāṁsā and the completion of pūrva-mīmāṁsā does not
guarantee sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti. A person may become expert in ritual,
he might know all about the yāgas, but that does not mean he has the sādhana-

catuṣṭaya-sampatti. He need not develop vairāgyam. On the other hand, he may

be getting more interested in svarga phalaṁ etc.
इष्टापूतं मन्द्यमािा िररष्ठं िान्द्यच्छ्रे योिेदयन्द्तेप्रमूढााः ।

िाकस्य पृष्ठेतेसुकृतेऽिुभूत्िेमं लोकं हीितरं िा निशनन्द्त ॥ मुण्डकोपनिषत् २-१-१० ॥
iṣṭāpūrtaṁ manyamānā variṣṭhaṁ nānyacchrēyōvēda yantēpramūḍhāḥ |
nākasya prṣṭhētēsukrtē’nubhūtvēmaṁ lōkaṁ hīnataraṁ vā viśanti || Muṇḍakōpaniṣat 2-1-
10 ||
We saw in Muṇḍaka. There are many expert ritualists, they don’t have any
interest in Vēdānta, on the other hand, they want to perform more and more
rituals. Therefore, there is no guarantee that a person after pūrva-mīmāṁsā
study is qualified for Vēdāntic enquiry. And therefore, what will happen? A
person may study pūrva-mīmāṁsā he may not have qualifications at all and it is
said in the first sūtra, ‘pūrva-mīmāṁsā anantaram Brahma-jijñāsā’ seeing that
rule what he will do? After completion of pūrva-mīmāṁsā he may straight away
enter into Vēdānta-vicāra, even without acquiring the qualification. And if such a
person who has completed the pūrva-mīmāṁsā, and who has not acquired
sādhana-catuṣṭaya-saṁpatti, enters into Vēdānta-vicāra he will not get anything
out of it. This is the first problem. What is the first problem? An unqualified-
person going into Vēdānta is the first problem.
Now there is a second-problem also. What is that? There are some rare cases
wherein a person is born with sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti because of pūrva-
janma karmānuṣṭhānam, because of pūrva-janma-sādhana, some rare people,
some spiritual geniuses are born with vivēka, vairāgyam etc., if not in full
measure, at least in a reasonable measure. And such students who are already
sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampannaḥ, they do not require pūrva-mīmāṁsā. Because
pūrva-mīmāṁsā deals with rituals; rituals are meant for sādhana-catuṣṭaya
sampatti. And these people are born with sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti, then
why should they waste their time going back pūrva-mīmāṁsā, studying rituals;
they don’t require karma, they don’t require upāsana, they don’t require
grhasthāśrama, in fact, right from Brahmacaryāśrama they are ready for
Vēdānta-vicāra. And therefore, if pūrva-pakṣi says that after pūrva-mīmāṁsā
one should study Vēdānta, then what will be the problem? The problem will be

even a qualified person will waste his time studying pūrva-mīmāṁsā once
again. Even a small-qualified person, who already has sādhana-catuṣṭaya
sampatti, he will waste his time studying pūrva-mīmāṁsā, why? Because the
first sūtra says, pūrva-mīmāṁsā anantaram Brahma-jijñāsā kartavyaḥ.
Therefore, the second problem is what? A qualified person wasting the time in
the study of pūrva-mīmāṁsā. So, what is the first problem? An unqualified
person entering Vēdānta after pūrva-mīmāṁsā. And the second problem is a
qualified-person wasting his time by going through pūrva-mīmāṁsā. Whereas
in Śaṅkarācārya’s statement, sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampattyanantaram, Brahma-
jijñāsā means after acquiring the qualification you do the enquiry; you might
have acquired the qualification in the previous birth, you might have to acquire
the qualification in this birth. When you acquire, I don’t care. So in this
contention sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti becomes compulsory, pūrva-mīmāṁsā
is not compulsory for all. Then it is required for whom? A person who does not
have sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti, he has to acquire that, to acquire that he has
to go through karma and upāsana, and for that he has to study the karma-
kāṇḍa. So, for the unprepared-people pūrva-mīmāṁsā becomes compulsory.
For the prepared-people, pūrva-mīmāṁsā becomes unnecessary. But what is
necessary for all? Sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti is necessary for all. This is the
second reason.
Then he gives three more reasons. To understand the following three

reasons you should have the background of Śaṅkarācārya, with which he is
writing this. So, when this person says one should come to Vēdānta only after
studying pūrva-mīmāṁsā, this philosopher has got particular a philosophy in
his mind, which was very prevalent in Śaṅkarācārya’s time. What is that
philosophy? According to that philosophy, mere knowledge cannot give
liberation. Kēvala jñānēna mōkṣaḥ na sambhavati. And as an example this
philosopher quotes or shows all Vēdāntic students - they are all great Vēdāntic
people, they have studied Vēdānta for years together and if you see their
behavior they are worse than Vēdāntic illiterates. So, that philosopher shows
such people and says, they have all studied the Vēdānta and they don’t find any
benefit, from that it is very clear kēvala jñānēna mōkṣaḥ na and therefore, he

says, jñānam must be combined with karma, jñāna-karma-samuccayēna

mōkṣaḥ. This is not Śaṅkarācārya’s view, but this is the view of one philosopher,
whom Śaṅkarācārya is going to refute. So, he is called jñāna-karma-samuccaya-
vādi. samuccaya means combination, mixing up. His contention is everyone
should study pūrva-mīmāṁsā first, so that he will know about all rituals. How to
do agnihōtram, how to do this or that yāgam, how to perform different rituals
he should learn from the pūrva-mīmāṁsā, karma-kāṇḍa. And thereafterwards
he should start practicing that. Mere knowledge of rituals is not enough. All that
knowledge has to be implemented, therefore, do pūjā, japa, yāga everything.
And while he is implementing those portions performing the rituals
simultaneously he should do what? Attend the classes and do Vēdāntic enquiry,
pursue jñāna yōga. And therefore, atha means pūrva-mīmāṁsā anantaram one
should enter into Brahman-enquiry and while Brahman-enquiry is going on
parallelly he should perform the rituals and therefore pūrva-mīmāṁsā study is
important to combine karma with jñānam. This is the contention of pūrva-pakṣi.
pūrva-mīmāṁsā study is required to combine rituals with jñāna-yōga. And
therefore, what is the meaning of the sūtra? Atha pūrva-mīmāṁsā anantaram
karma kurvan san Brahma-jijñāsā kartavyaḥ. Now, Śaṅkarācārya refutes this
theory jñāna-karma-samuccaya. He says, ‘I cannot agree with the theory of
combining jñāna with karma.’ He gives his three reasons for this. So this is the
topic which Śaṅkarācārya enters into very often in his commentaries, because
this theory was very prevalent in his time. What are the three reasons? I will
briefly name the reasons and then explain.
i. Karma-jñāna-kāṇḍayōḥ viṣaya-bhēdāt,
ii. Karma-jñāna-kāṇḍayōḥ prayōjana-bhēdāt and
iii. Karma-jñāna-kāṇḍayōḥ pravrtti-bhēdāt.
Because of these three reasons karma & jñāna-kāṇḍas cannot be combined.

This is the nutshell.
(a) The first reason is the subject-matter of karma-kāṇḍa and jñāna-kāṇḍa

are diagonally opposite and therefore they cannot be combined. Combination is
possible only when the subjects are similar. In colleges also, we have got

combination or groups of subject when a person studies. What do they group?

A grouping will be done only of similar subjects so that one will help,
compliment the study of the other, like the Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics.
Economics, Statistics, Social Work, etc. So, grouping or combining is possible
only when they have got common interest. But these two have do not have any
such similarity. They are diagonally opposite. How? Śaṅkarācārya gives one
sample, in fact, we can find any different way of presentation. Śaṅkarācārya
says, karma-kāṇḍa deals with the unaccomplished goal, bhavya-viṣayaḥ,
whereas jñāna-kāṇḍa deals with a goal, which is already-accomplished. One is
dealing with sādhyam; another is dealing with siddham. One is dealing with
bhavyam, and another is dealing with bhūtam. Diagonally opposite. Some more
I will give, ācārya doesn’t say that, but for our conviction. One is dealing with
anātmā and another is dealing with ātmā. One is dealing with extroverted
dependence on the world whereas another is dealing with introverted
dependence on myself. One is dealing with anitya phalaṁ and another is
dealing with nitya phalaṁ . One is based on kartrtvam and another is based on
akartrtvam. karma-kāṇḍa is based on aham kartā. jñāna-kāṇḍa is based on
aham akartā. One is full of relationship, he should always says I am pautra,
grandson of so and so, son of so and so, father of so and so, for all saṅkalpas
three generations names taken – pitr, pitāmaha, prapitāmaha; mātā, mātāmahī,
pramātāmahī, all relationship. And the other is without relationship. One deals
with saṅga and the other deals with ‘I’, who is totally free from all relationship.
na putraḥ na putrī na bhrtyaḥ na bhartā, na mātā na pitā na bandhuḥ na
sakhyaḥ nothing is there. To put in basic term one is dealing with avidyā and
the other with vidyā.
दूरमेते निपरीते निषूची अनिद्या या च निद्येनत ज्ञाता । ॥ कठोपनिषत् १-२-४ ॥

dūramētē viparītē viṣūcī avidyā yā ca vidyēti jñātā | || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-2-4 ||
ētē dūram viparītē – karma and jñāna are far apart. In what way? Upaniṣat itself
is naming, karma is avidyā and the other one is called vidyā. One is prēyas and
other is śrēyas. So thus, tamaḥ-prakāśavad-viruddha-svabhāvayōḥ. Therefore,
how can you combine these two? And therefore, you cannot say, pūrva-
mīmāṁsā anantaram uttara-mīmāṁsā for combination.

(b) Prayōjana-bhēdāt. The benefit also is different. In what way? Karma-

kāṇḍa gives anitya phalaṁ, which falls within saṁsāra, whereas jñāna-kāṇḍa
gives nitya phalaṁ, which is mōkṣa.
आब्रह्मभुििाल्लोकााः पुिरािरततिोऽजुनि ।
मामुपेत्य तु कौन्द्तेय पुिजनन्द्म ि निद्यते ॥ गीता ८१६- ॥
ābrahma bhuvanāllōkāḥ punarāvartinō’rjuna |
māmupētya tu kauntēya punarjanma na vidyatē || Gītā 8-16 ||
One gives punarjanma phalaṁ, another gives apunar-janma phalaṁ . One gives
anātma-phalaṁ, another gives ātma-phalaṁ . Therefore, these benefits are also
totally different. If one is going towards south, which is presided over by
Yamadharmarāja, whereas the other is going towards the north, which is
presided over by Sōma-dēvatā.
सं सोमाय अमृत कलश हस्ताय िक्षत्राधिपतये अश्विाहिाय साङ्गाय सायुिाय सशसक्तपररिाराय उमामहेश्वर िमाः । सं
सोमाय िमाः । उिरददग्भागे सोम सुप्रीतो िरदो भितु ।
saṁ sōmāya amrta kalaśa hastāya nakṣatrādhipatayē aśvavāhanāya sāṅgāya sāyudhāya
saśaktiparivārāya umāmahēśvara namaḥ | saṁ sōmāya namaḥ | uttaradigbhāgē sōma
suprītō varadō bhavatu |
Uttaradigbhāgē sōmadēvatā, who has got amrta kalaśa hastāya, amrtam

means mōkṣa. Whereas Yamadharmarāja has got kālaḥ, mrtyuḥ in his hand.
Therefore, karma-kāṇḍa is going southwards, jñāna-kāṇḍa is going northward,
how can you combine a trip to Tiruvanantapuram and rṣikēś? Because of
direction-bhēdāt, prayōjana-bhēdāt. This is the second reason.
(c) Then finally technical one, pravrtti-bhēdāt. Because of the difference in

their functions. Functional difference is there in karma-kāṇḍa and jñāna-kāṇḍa.
What is the functional difference? When a karma-kāṇḍa teaches a person, it will
always persuades or incites a person into action. Every sentence of karma-
kāṇḍa is to make a person active. jyōtiṣṭōmēna svargakāmō yajēt | So, it
discusses svarga elaborately and svarga is a wonderful place,
स्िगे लोके ि भयं ककतचिास्स्त

ि तत्र त्िं ि जरया नबभेनत ।
उभे तीत्िानऽशिायानपपासे
शोकानतगो मोदते स्िगनलोके ॥ कठोपनिषत् १-१-१२ ॥

svargē lōkē na bhayaṁ kiṁcanāsti

na tatra tvaṁ na jarayā bibhēti |
ubhē tīrtvā’śanāyāpipāsē
śōkātigō mōdatē svargalōkē || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-1-12 ||
And after tempting the person,
याधममां पुस्त्ष्पतां िाचं प्रिदन्द्त्यनिपभश्चताः ॥ गीता २-४२ ॥

yāmimāṁ puṣpitāṁ vācaṁ pravadantyavipaścitaḥ || Gītā 2-42 ||
Karma-kāṇḍa says, if you want to go to svargalōka – jyōtiṣṭōmēna svargakāmō

yajēt – may you do this. So, after tempting karma-kāṇḍa provides rituals, the
reader will be tempted to do action only. Therefore, what is the function of
karma-kāṇḍa? In saṁskrta, we say pravartakam. Pravartakam means it makes a
person active, to achieve this, to achieve that. It is achievement oriented, action
oriented. It is pravartakam. Whereas what jñāna-kāṇḍam do? It does not tempt
you by providing various goals. On the other hand, it says whatever you want to
accomplish in life, all those fulfillments are your very nature. Brahman or ātman
includes all the ānandas.
स यश्चायं पुरुषे । यश्चासािाददत्ये । स एकाः ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् ३-१0-४ ॥

sa yaścāyaṁ puruṣē | yaścāsāvādityē | sa ēkaḥ || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 3-10-4 ||
In that Brahmānanda, Indrānanda is included Brhaspati-ānanda is included

Prajāpati-ānanda is included in you the ātma-ānanda.
सोऽश्नुते सिानि् कामान्द्सह । ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् २-१-१ ॥

स बुद्धिमान्द्मिुष्येषु स युक्ताः कृत्स्िकमनकृत् ॥ गीता ४-१८ ॥
sō’śnutē sarvān kāmānsaha | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-1-1 ||
sa buddhimānmanuṣyēṣu sa yuktaḥ krtsnakarmakrt || Gītā 4-18 ||
The one who has discovered Brahman has accomplished everything in life and
he has nothing more to accomplish. Having known that I am that pūrṇaḥ what
temptation will he have? Therefore, jñāna-kāṇḍa is apravartakam, it only reveals
the nature, it is only bōdhakam na tu cōdakam. It only reveals the nature, it
never pushes you into action. Even if you are tempted to do action, it will say
you are akartā. Therefore, by revealing the akartrtva nature and by revealing
the pūrṇatva nature jñāna-kāṇḍam makes a person udāsīnaḥ. Therefore, it is

apravartakam or it is nivartakam. It makes a person so contented that he

doesn’t want to accomplice anything.
आत्मन्द्येिात्मिा तुष्टाः ॥ गीता २-५५ ॥

एकान्द्ते सुखमास्यतां परतरे चेताः समािीयताम् ॥ सािि पञ्चकम् ५ ॥
ātmanyēvātmanā tuṣṭaḥ || Gītā 2-55 ||
ēkāntē sukhamāsyatāṁ paratarē cētaḥ samādhīyatām || Sādhana Pañcakam 5 ||
Throughout Vēdānta – சும்மா இருன்து ஸுகம் பெருவது எப்ெடி?; how to get

happiness without doing anything? How to be full and complete just by being
what I am. Therefore, what is the third difference? One is pravartakam and
another is nivartakam. Pravartaka-nivartaka-rūpa pravrtti-bhēdāt you cannot
combine.
So thus, because of all these reasons you cannot say pūrva-mīmāṁsā

anantaram Vēdānta vicāraḥ. So, what are the four reasons?
 Vyabhicāra-dōṣāt,
 Karma-jñāna-kāṇḍayōḥ viṣaya bhēdāt,
 Karma-jñāna-kāṇḍayōḥ prayōjana bhēdāt and
 Karma-jñāna-kāṇḍayōḥ pravrtti bhēdāt.
Thus, logically Śaṅkarācārya has refuted. Now comes the second part.
What is that? Scriptural refutation of the pūrva-pakṣi’s view. Śrutyā pūrva-
pakṣaḥ nirāsaḥ. Now this is very technical form. Let us see. What is
Śaṅkarācārya’s aim now? He wants to establish that jñāna-kāṇḍa or Vēdānta
vicāra need not be compulsorily preceded by pūrva-mīmāṁsā. Even without
pūrva-mīmāṁsā one can come to Vēdānta. Therefore, he wants to establish
that the karma-kāṇḍa study and jñāna-kāṇḍa study are not sequential. kramaḥ
nāsti. This is what he wants to establish. Karma-kāṇḍa study and jñāna-kāṇḍa
study are not sequential. We don’t say that one should not study, but we only
say it is not compulsory for all. Therefore, his aim is karmabrahma-vicārayōḥ
kramaḥ nāsti. There is no sequence in karma study and Brahman study. This is
what his aim is. For this Śaṅkarācārya says, there is Vēda-pramāṇam which says
there is a kramaḥ. Krama-bōdhaka Vēda-pramāṇam nāsti. There is no Vedic
reference which says that karma-kāṇḍa and jñāna-kāṇḍa are sequential. This is

what he wants say. Now for this, he goes to the pūrva-mīmāṁsā portoin of the
Vēda to establish this fact. So, this analysis he does by applying certain pūrva-
mīmāṁsā ideas. I thought that I will discuss this so that you will come to know
some ideas of pūrva-mīmāṁsā also. Now, in pūrva-mīmāṁsā, i.e., enquiry into
the ritualistic portion of the Vēdas, naturally they have to analyze many rituals.
One of the enquiry needed for them is this. In a few rituals, let us take some five
rituals, which are all said in the Vēdas, should they be done simultaneously or
they should be done in order? This is one of the topic they will have to discuss.
When there are a few rituals, whether they should be done one after the other,
sequentially or whether they should be done simultaneously. Now, to establish
this they put a particular condition; very common sense condition. If many
rituals are to be done simultaneously, then necessarily they have to be done by
many people. Isn’t it. If many rituals have to be simultaneously done, since a
person can do only one ritual at a time, naturally simultaneity means that those
rituals should be done by many people. Just like in kumbhābhiṣēkam and all you
see four hōma-kuṇḍas will be there, during pūrṇāhuti time all these priests will
ask ‘Are you all ready?’ And then saying, ’saptatē agnē’ all will put pūrṇāhuti
simultaneously. Now, simultaneously four pūrṇāhuti rituals could be done
because there are many different priests. So, what is the condition?
Simultaneity requires anēka-kartrkatvam, many performers; whereas if many
rituals have to be done by one person then it cannot be simultaneously.
Certainly, they will have to be done one after the other. If one person has to do
pūrṇāhuti, he cannot do simultaneously, unless he has got aṣṭaubhuja like
Durgādēvī, if has got eight hands he can try. Since he has got only two hands,
krama. Therefore, what is the condition for krama? ēka kartrkatvam. Many
rituals have to be done in order, if they all have to be done by a single person.
yatra yatra ēka kartrkatvam tatra tatra kramatvam. Whenever there are many
rituals to be done by one single person there kramatvam is compulsory, there is
no other way, because one can do only one at a time. When one person wants
to eat sambhar rice, rasam rice, payasam and curd rice, then what is natural?
krama. If it is simultaneous what is the condition? Four people should be there
each one eating one item. Now the next question, ‘How do you know whether
many rituals have to be done by one person or many people?’ what is the

condition to establish whether many rituals have got ēka kartrkatvam or anēka
kartrkatvam? For that Śaṅkarācārya (the whole discussion that I am doing he
just finishes in one line.) says, any one of these three conditions indicate ēka
kartrkatvam. Any one of these three conditions will indicate whether many
rituals are to be done by one person or many persons. I will just enumerate
them and then briefly explain them.
 Ēka-pradhāna śēṣatvam,
 śēṣa-śēṣitvam,
 adhikrta adhikāratvam.
The first one is ēka-pradhāna-śēṣatvam, i.e., if many rituals are subsidiary

rituals to one main ritual, it is called ēkapradhāna-śēṣatvam. If this condition is
there then it proves that all these subsidiary rituals should be done by one
person only, who wants to perform the main ritual. Because he wants to
perform the main ritual he alone should do all the subsidiary rituals also, then
only his performance will be complete. If somebody does the subsidiary rituals
and somebody does main ritual is like somebody washing the hands and
somebody else eating the food. No, the washing-subsidiary-ritual should be
done by the one who wants to do the main ritual. Therefore, if a few rituals are
subsidiary then ēka-kartrkatvam is there. They should be done by one person.
What is the second condition? If there are two rituals in which one is
subsidiary and the other is main, that is called śēṣa-śēṣitvam. What is the first
case? In first case many rituals are all subsidiary rituals. What is the second
case? There are two rituals one is subsidiary and the other is main. Previously
śēṣa-śēṣa sambandha, another is śēṣa-śēṣi sambandha. Then also both the
rituals should be done by one single person only, only then it will be complete.
And this condition is called śēṣa śēṣitvam.
What is the third condition? Adhikrta-adhikāratvam. Suppose there are

two main rituals, none of them is subsidiary. And sometimes Vēda says, a
person is qualified to do one main ritual only when he has done another main
ritual. If only he has done one main ritual then alone he becomes qualified to

do another main ritual. Both are main rituals only, but Vēdas says, you cannot
do that one if you have not completed this one. One is the qualification for the
other. Like only if a person is married then certain rituals can be done.
Therefore, marriage becomes one main ritual, which will qualify him to do many
other main rituals. This condition is called adhikrta-adhikāratvam.
If any one of these conditions is there then what to we arrive at? That
these few rituals will have to be done by one person. Ēka-kartrkatva-niyamāt.
Once you prove that they all have to be done by one person then what will be
the next step? They cannot be done simultaneously but have to done one after
the other. So, one of these three conditions proves the ēka-kartrkatvam and
ēka- kartrkatvam proves kramatvam. once you know that many rituals have to
be done by one person naturaly it should be done one after the other and not
simultaneously. So thus, in pūrva-mīmāṁsā, they do rituals and say that they all
have to be done in order. And thereafterwards further headache is there, which
I am not going to enter into; I will just hint. Once you prove that a few rituals
have to be done in order, the problem is not solved, their next headache is what
should be the order? They have to be done in order but the question is which is
the first one, which is the second one, which is the third one? For that, they have
got six pramāṇams (not our pramāṇams, but seperate ones) to analyze or
establish the order. So, śrutyartha-pāṭhakrama mukhya-pravrtti ṣaṭ-pramāṇāni,
they have got śruti-krama, arthakrama, pāṭhakrama, etc., six pramāṇams,
methods they use to arrive at the order. But that is the later problem, first they
have to establish that they should be done in order.
Now, Śaṅkarācārya’s question is, do we have any one of these conditions,

i.e., ēkapradhāna-śēṣatvam vā, śēṣa-śēṣitvam vā, adhikrta-adhikāratvam vā, to
prove that pūrva-mīmāṁsā and uttara-mīmāṁsā should be done in order? If
you analyze, Śaṅkarācārya says, none of the conditions are there. Since, none of
the three conditions are there you cannot say that there is an order in pūrva-
mīmāṁsā and uttara-mīmāṁsā. This we will discuss in the next class.


In the last class we saw that there is no ēka-pradhāna śēṣatvam relationship,

śēṣa-śēṣitvam relationship or adhikrta-adhikāratvam relationship between
pūrva-mīmāṁsā and Vēdānta and therefore there is no ēka-kartrkatvam
condition with regard to pūrva-mīmāṁsā and Vēdānta and therefore, there is
no krama between pūrva-mīmāṁsā and Vēdānta and therefore, ‘atha’ cannot
mean pūrva-mīmāṁsā anantaram. This is the technical analysis we made. If you
find it is too technical and it is going beyond your head, then you can just
ignore these technical words and just note the essence only and the essence of
this technical discussion is only this much. That is there is no Vēda-pramāṇam
to prove that pūrva-mīmāṁsā is compulsory for study of Vēdānta. This is the
gist of the technical discussion we had.
And then a pūrva-pakṣi comes and argues. He says there is Vēda

pramāṇam to prove that pūrva-mīmāṁsā is compulsory for study of Vēdānta.
Śaṅkarācārya pointed out there is no Vēda-pramāṇam to prove pūrva-mīmāṁsā
is compulsory.
Now the pūrva-pakṣi tells there is Vēda-pramāṇam to prove pūrva-mīmāṁsā is

compulsory. And what are the pramāṇams?
तमेतम् िेदािुिचिेि ब्राह्मणााः निनिददषनन्द्त यज्ञेि दािेि तपसाऽिाशकेि ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ४-४-२२ ॥

tamētam vēdānuvacanēna brāhmaṇāḥ vividiṣanti yajñēna dānēna tapasā’nāśakēna ||
brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 4-4-22 ||
In this Brhadāraṇyaka statement, the upaniṣat says one has to go through

three āśramas to get sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti. Tamētam vēdānuvacanēna
refers to Brahmacaryāśrama, yajñēna-dānēna refers to grhasthāśrama,
tapasā’nāśakēna refers to vānaprasthāśrama, we have seen in
Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat. And in another upaniṣat known as Jābāla upaniṣat it is
stated more clearly that
ब्रह्मचयं पररसमाप्य गृही भिेत् । गृही भूत्िा ििी भिेत् । ििी भूत्िा प्रव्रजेत् । ॥ जाबालोपनिषत् ४ ॥

Brahmacaryaṁ parisamāpya grhī bhavēt | grhī bhūtvā vanī bhavēt | vanī bhūtvā pravrajēt |
|| Jābālōpaniṣat 4 ||
You can understand the meaning. Brahmacaryaṁ parisamāpya – after

completing Brahmacarya life, student life grhī bhavēt – one has to become a
grhastha. And grhī bhūtvā vanī bhavēt – then he should become a vānaprastha.
Then vanī bhūtvā pravrajēt – thereafterwards he should become a saṁnyāsi.
Pravrajēt means saṁnyāsi bhavēt. So, in this Jābālōpaniṣat statement also it is
clearly said that one has to go through three āśramas to get sādhana-
catuṣṭaya-sampatti. Now if three āśramas are compulsory it means pūrva-
mīmāṁsā is also compulsory. Why? Why do we say so? It is because
grhasthāśrama requires karma anuṣṭhānam, vānaprasthāśrama involves
upāsana anuṣṭhānam, therefore, one has to practice karma and upāsana in the
first three āśramas, and karma and upāsana are discussed in Vēda-pūrva-bhāga
only and therefore, to go through the first three āśramas one has to depend
upon Vēda-pūrva-bhāga, he should have the understanding of Vēda-pūrva to
practice karma and to practice upāsana and therefore, pūrva-mīmāṁsā is
required to understand karma and upāsana and practice them in the first three
āśramas and to get sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti. Therefore, there is Vēda-
pramāṇam. This is the view of pūrva-pakṣi. Do not mis-place it.
Now we answer, of course Śaṅkarācārya does not discuss this in the first
sūtra, he discusses this elsewhere, and this topic is discussed by sub-
commentators. As I have told you that I am basing mainly on Śaṅkara bhāṣyam,
but I am borrowing from the other bhāṣyams and sub-commentaries also. So,
the sub-commentator answers, he says, you are talking about the Jābālōpaniṣat
statement, which says Brahmacaryāt grhī bhavēt | grhī bhūtvā vanī bhavēt |
But in the same Jābālōpaniṣat you are not reading the next statement. Partial
reading of the upaniṣat is problem. In the same upaniṣat, the immediate
statement is worth noting. And what is that? Athavā’ – otherwise there is an
option. Otherwise means option only. So, first it said one has to go through
three āśramas before taking saṁnyāsa or the three āśramas are not
compulsory
यदद िेतरथा ब्रह्मचयानदेि प्रव्रजेद्गहृ ाद्वा ििाद्वा ॥ जाबालोपनिषत् ४ ॥

yadi vētarathā Brahmacaryādēva pravrajēdgrhādvā vanādvā || Jābālōpaniṣat 4 ||
The upaniṣat gives another alternative, one need not go through

grhasthāśrama, one need not go through vānaprasthāśrama, and one can
directly take saṁnyāsa from Brahmacaryāśrama itself. Then is you are taking
that particular case, he need not go through grhasthāśrama and
vānaprasthāśrama, therefore, he doesn’t require karma and upāsana. So, this
short-cut person, the one who gets triple promotion, he doesn’t require karma
and upāsana, therefore, he doesn’t require Vēda-pūrva and therefore, he
doesn’t require pūrva-mīmāṁsā and therefore, even though Vēda-pramāṇam
says grhī bhūtvā vanī bhavēt, Vēda-pramāṇam does not make it compulsory. It
is an option.
Now comes the next question. If pūrva-mīmāṁsā is not compulsory for

the study of Vēdānta then what is compulsory? We have already said that. Why
are you asking? We have said sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti is compulsory and
pūrva-mīmāṁsā is not compulsory.
Then, when we say this, pūrva-pakṣi becomes wild with anger. You say
pūrva-mīmāṁsā is not compulsory and sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti is
compulsory, that means you say karma and upāsana are not compulsory but
sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti is compulsory. But it is wrong to say that because
(whatever I say now is pūrva-pakṣi’s argument) you say sādhana-catuṣṭaya-
sampatti is compulsory but karma is not compulsory, but unfortunately,
sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti itself is possible because of karma alone. And once
you say sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti is compulsory, karma-yōga is compulsory,
because karma-yōga alone gives sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti and upāsana
alone gives śamādi-ṣaṭka-sampatti. Therefore, once you say sādhana-catuṣṭaya-
sampatti is compulsory you should accept karma-yōga and upāsana are
compulsory, which means pūrva-bhāga of the Vēda is compulsory. It is like
saying your presence in āstika samājam is compulsory for learning but your
travel to the āstika-samājam is not compulsory. How is it possible? My dear, if
our presence is required then it presupposes travel. And therefore, pūrva-pakṣi
argues if sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti is compulsory, then pūrva-mīmāṁsā is

also compulsory, because without pūrva-mīmāṁsā no karma, no upāsana,

without karma and upāsana; there is no sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti.
For that we answer, we only say that pūrva-mīmāṁsā is not compulsory

for all. We don’t say pūrva-mīmāṁsā is not at all required. That part must be
very clear pūrva-mīmāṁsā is not compulsory for all people, for majority it may
be compulsory but for minority, at least for one pūrva-mīmāṁsā is not
compulsory karma-yōga is not compulsory, upāsana is not compulsory because
those few people are born with sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti, because of their
karma-yōga and upāsana of pūrva-janma.
तत्र तं बुद्धिसंयोगं लभते पौिनदेनहकम् ।

यतते च ततो भूयाः संससिौ कुरुिन्द्दि ॥ गीता ६-४३ ॥
tatra taṁ buddhisaṁyōgaṁ labhatē paurvadēhikam |
yatatē ca tatō bhūyaḥ saṁsiddhau kurunandana || Gītā 6-43 ||
पूिानभ्यासेि तेिैि नियते ह्यिशोऽनप साः ।

द्धजज्ञासुरनप योगस्य शब्दब्रह्मानतितनते ॥ गीता ६-४४ ॥
pūrvābhyāsēna tēnaiva hriyatē hyavaśō’pi saḥ |
jijñāsurapi yōgasya śabdabrahmātivartatē || Gītā 6-44 ||
When those people are born with sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti, why should we

insist upon pūrva-mīmāṁsā with regard to those people? And therefore, if
some people are born with sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti, we should not think
that Lord is partial, it only means they have practiced everything in their pūrva-
janma. That is why Svāmi Dayānanda nicely says this with an example. And
Svāmiji calls this as sapta-vaḍa-Nyāya (vaḍai is a fried black gram recipe), his
invention. It seems two people went to a hotel. And one person is not
experienced very well and therefore, he is not a regular visitor of hotel and
therefore, he straightaway went to the bill counter and asked how much should
I pay? And that person said, you have not at all eaten, please go inside and
whatever you want you eat, fill your stomach and whatever fills your stomach,
whatever removes your hunger for that alone you need to pay. So, both of them
went. This person likes vaḍai very much, therefore, he ordered vaḍai. Then he
eats; his hunger was not gone. He eat the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth,
the sixth, all the time his hunger did not go away, his stomach was not filled

and when he took the seventh vaḍai, his stomach got filled, hunger was gone.
His friend also has eaten. Then both of them went. And he paid for one vaḍai,
having eaten seven vaḍais. Then the server was shouting from the distance
seven vaḍais. Then the bill counter person asked, You have eaten seven vaḍais
and you are paying for only one. Then this person argues, what did you say?
Whatever removes your hunger, whatever fills your stomach for that alone you
need to pay.’ The first six vaḍais did not remove my hunger, did not give me
fulfillment, because the server was useless, he did not serve the fulfilling vaḍai
first. Shouldn’t he brought have that vaḍai first? He brings the fulfilling vaḍai
only the seventh time. And after eating that my hunger is gone and therefore, I
will pay for the seventh vaḍai only. Then this bill counter person argued, My
dear, the seventh vaḍai would fill you only because of the first six vaḍais. Then
for that, this person gives counter argument, no, I don’t agree with that. You
ask my friend. He eats only one vaḍai and after eating one vaḍai the friend said,
I am full. That means you have served the seventh vaḍai for my friend. So
therefore, first six vaḍais are not required, my friend viṣayē vyabhicārāt. First six
vaḍais are not required because without serving six vaḍais the friend could fill
his stomach. Then the clerk argued you ask your friend what he did before
coming to hotel? Then the friend said, yes it is true, in my house also today they
have made vaḍai, I have already taken six. But unfortunately, this person did
not see the friend eating six vaḍais.
So therefore, the first six vaḍais can be eaten either in the hotel or before
coming to the hotel, at home itself. Similarly, in the same manner, karma-yōga
vaḍais and upāsana vaḍais can be consumed in this janma or there are some
rare friends who have already consumed those two vaḍais when they entered
the hotel of manuṣya-janma. And for those people you need not say karma-
yōga-anantaram, you need not say upāsana-anantaram, directly they can go to
the seventh-vaḍai. And therefore, we agree that pūrva-mīmāṁsā is required for
majority, karma-yōga is required for majority, three āśramas are required for
majority, we agree. But there are some people who do not require these two.
And therefore, they all do not come under compulsory category. What comes
under compulsory category? Sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti and therefore, ‘atha’

śabda means sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti anantaram, which you might acquire

in this janma or you might have acquired in pūrva-janma, that I don’t care.
So thus finally, Śaṅkarācārya concludes atha is equal to sādhana-

catuṣṭaya-sampatti anantaram. And therefore only we say that the word atha
directly means sādhana catuṣṭaya sampattyanantaram and the word atha
indirectly signifies the adhikārīs. With this ‘atha‘ śabda-vicāra is over.
Now we have to go to the second word atātō Brahma-jijñāsa. If you split

the sandhi it would be ata, ataḥ Brahma-jijñāsa. So the second word is ataḥ. (be
careful about the tha; in atha, it is stressed; and in ataḥ, it is first tha). The literal
meaning of the word ataḥ is therefore. Therefore, Brahman enquiry should be
done. We all know that therefore always indicates reason. I am hungry
therefore, I want food. Hunger becomes the reason for eating food. I am sick
therefore, I require medicine. Sickness becomes the reason for taking medicine.
Therefore, the word ‘therefore’ should be preceded by some reason for
Brahman enquiry to be conducted. Vyāsācārya does not mention the reason
because it is sūtram. In the sūtra, everything cannot be written. And therefore,
we have to supply the reason and having supplied the reasons, we should say,
‘Therefore’, Brahman enquiry must be done.
Śaṅkarācārya gives two reasons. The first reason is karma cannot give
mōkṣa. The second reason is Brahma-jñānam alone gives mōkṣa. Therefore
Brahman enquiry should be done. To put in a single sentence, Since, karma
cannot give mōkṣa and since Brahma-jñānam alone gives mōkṣa, hence
Brahman enquiry must be done.
Now let us take each reason. The first reason is karma cannot give
mōkṣa. Why do we say so? So, we have to recollect all our previous portions.
Though you are well aware of all reasons, but still in this context you should
collect all the reasons for why karma cannot give mōkṣa. We can prove this
through śruti-pramāṇa, through yukti-pramāṇa and through anubhava-
pramāṇa.

What is the śruti-pramāṇa? Many śruti-pramāṇas are there. The well-

known śruti statement is –
ि कमनणा ि प्रजया ििेि त्यागेिक

ै े अमृतत्िमािशुाः । … ॥ कैिल्योपनिषत् १-३ ॥
na karmaṇā na prajayā dhanēna tyāgēnaikē amrtatvamānaśuḥ | … || kaivalyōpaniṣat 1-3 ||
na karmaṇā amrtatvam ānaśuḥ – by karma mōkṣa cannot be attained.

Śaṅkarācārya gives another śruti statement taken from Cāndōgya –
तद्यथेह कमनसचतो लोकाः क्षीयत एिमेिामुत्र पुण्यसचतो लोकाः क्षीयते ॥ छान्द्दोग्योपनिषत् ८-१-६ ॥
tadyathēha karmacitō lōkaḥ kṣīyata ēvamēvāmutra puṇyacitō lōkaḥ kṣīyatē ||
Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 8-1-6 ||
iha karmacitō lōkaḥ kṣīyatē – here (in this world) the world accomplished
through karma perishes, and amutra puṇyacitō lōkaḥ kṣīyatē – hereafter (after
death) the world accomplished through puṇya perishes. So, Śaṅkarācārya
writes in his bhāṣyam, yasmādvēda ēva agnihōtrādīnāṁ śrēyaḥ
sādhanānāmanityaphalatāṁ darśayati, Vēda itself shows the transiency of the
karma. So thus, śruti-pramāṇa is there.
Now, what is the yukti-pramāṇa? The logic is this. mōkṣa means saṁsāra
nivrtti, freedom. Freedom from what? Freedom from saṁsāra, saṁsāra nivrttiḥ
mōkṣaḥ. Then we say, saṁsāra nivrtti can take place only through jñānam,
because saṁsāra is adhyastam, it is superimposed. So, saṁsāraḥ jñāna-
nivartyaḥ adhyastatvāt rajju-sarpavat iti yuktiḥ. saṁsāra goes away through
knowledge, why? Because, it is adhyāsa, superimposition. Like what? Rajju-
sarpavat. How do you destroy rope-snake? You cannot destroy with the help of
a stick, you cannot destroy with the help of garuḍa-mantra, you cannot lure it
away with the help of snake charmer, you cannot ask the iruḷā tribe (they are
supposed to be specialists in snake catching) to take away rope-snake. So, rope-
snake can be eliminated only by one method, i.e., jñāna-mātrēṇa. Why? Because
it is superimposed. Saṁsāraḥ jñāna-nivartyaḥ adhyastatvāt rajju-sarpavat. Then
the question comes, how do you say, saṁsāra is adhyāsa? Śaṅkarācārya says, if
you have already forgotten that then better you go back to adhyāsa-bhāṣyam,
in fact, I have written adhyāsa-bhāṣyam only for explaining ataḥ śabdaḥ.

Therefore, saṁsāra is adhyāsa, which I have already established; because of

ātmānātmā avivēka there is jīva-svarūpiḥ, parichinna-buddhiḥ tasmāt aham
kāṇaḥ, aham krśaḥ, aham sthūlaḥ, aham husband, aham wife etc. Therefore,
what is the logic? Saṁsāraḥ jñāna-nivartyaḥ adhyastatvāt rajju-sarpavat. This is
yukti.
What is anubhava-pramāṇa? The anubhava is any superimposed problem

goes only by knowledge, as we see in the case of rope-snake, mirage water.
This is our experience. That the rajju-sarpa-janya-bhaya-kampādikam rajju-
jñānēna naśyati. The person who was frightened of snake, he has got bhayam,
he has got kampanam, he has got svēdaḥ (sweating), thus he is suffering from
saṁsāra caused by the rope-snake and when such a fear comes he clearly gets
out of this fear once he goes near and sees that it is nothing but rope. Similarly,
the problems caused in the dream are superimposition and you find all the
dream saṁsāra goes
याः साक्षात्कुरुते प्रबोिसमये ॥ श्री दभक्षणामूरतत स्तोत्रम् १ ॥

yaḥ sākṣātkurutē prabōdhasamayē || śrī dakṣiṇāmūrti stōtram 1 ||
So, therefore, by kēvala jñāni or waking you do find many of the

problems go, when the problems happens to be the superimposition. So, don’t
apply this in the case of a real snake! Going near a real snake and flashing
torchlight to see what it is. Dangerous! But you should not ask, Then Svāmiji,
the superimposed saṁsāra can go with jñānam - you yourself say that
superimposed-snake will go through jñānam, and real-snake will not go
through jñānam – it means real saṁsāra cannot go through jñānam. For that
we answer, in the case of example, there is a superimposed-snake and there is
a real-snake but fortunately, in the case of saṁsāra, there is a superimposed-
saṁsāra alone, real saṁsāra hai hi nahi; it is not there at all.
ि निरोिो ि चोत्पभििन बिो ि च सािकाः ।

ि मुमुक्षुिन िै मुक्त इत्येषा परमाथनता ॥ अमृतनबन्द्द उपनिषत् १० ॥
na nirōdhō na cōtpattirna baddhō na ca sādhakaḥ |
na mumukṣurna vai mukta ityēṣā paramārthatā || amrtabindu upaniṣat 10 ||

And therefore, śruti-yukti-anubhava-pramāṇaiḥ jñānādēva mōkṣaḥ; śruti-yukti-

anubhava-pramāṇaiḥ karmaṇā na mōkṣaḥ ataḥ, therefore, mōkṣāya Brahma -
jijñāsā kartavyaḥ. So thus, the word ataḥ directly means therefore, and
indirectly ataḥ word signifies mōkṣaḥ prayōjanam. The word atha signifies
adhikārī, the word ataḥ signifies prayōjanam, because I said anubandha
catuṣṭayam is there in the first sūtra. So, with this ataḥ śabdavicāra is over.
Now the third word Brahma-jijñāsā is left out. The final meaning is
Brahman enquiry. But we will analyze and arrive at it. The final meaning is
Brahman enquiry, in saṁskrta, we put it as Brahma-jñānāya Vēdānta-vicāraḥ.
Vēdāntic enquiry for gaining of, acquiring Brahma-jñānam. This is the final
meaning. Now we will see the details.
Brahma-jijñāsā has got three parts. It’s a compound word, with three
parts – Brahma is first part, jijñā is second part and sā is the third part. The
word Brahma means Brahman, the jagat-kāraṇam-Brahma. This we have to
carefully note because the word Brahma has different meanings in the śāstra.
So, in the Gītā –
कमन ब्रह्मोद्भिं निद्धि ब्रह्माक्षरसमुद्भिम् । ॥ गीता ३-१५ ॥

karma brahmōdbhavaṁ viddhi brahmākṣarasamudbhavam | || Gītā 3-15 ||
Here karma brahmōdbhavaṁ viddhi is translated Brahma as the Vēda. In

Taittirīyōpaniṣat –
मह इनत । तद्ब्रह्म । स आत्मा । ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् १-४-१ ॥

maha iti | tadBrahma | sa ātmā | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 1-4-1 ||
Here tadbrahma is translated Brahma as ōṃkāra. In Kaṭhōpaniṣat –
यस्य ब्रह्म च क्षत्रम् च उभे भित ओदिाः । ॥ कठोपनिषत् १-२-२५ ॥

yasya Brahma ca kṣatram ca ubhē bhavata ōdanaḥ | || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-2-25 ||
Here the word Brahma is translated as brāhmaṇas. Therefore, Brahma means

Vēda, Brahma means brāhmaṇa, Brahma means ōṃkāra, and sometimes
Brahma will mean Hiraṇyagarbha also.

स ब्रह्मनिद्याम् सिननिद्याप्रनतष्ठाम् ॥ मुण्डकोपनिषत् १-१-१ ॥

sa Brahma vidyām sarvavidyāpratiṣṭhām || Muṇḍakōpaniṣat 1-1-1 ||
Here Brahma vidyā means a vidyā given by Hiraṇyagarbha. And when
ब्रह्मनिदाप्नोनत परम् । ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् २-१-१ ॥

Brahma vidāpnōti param | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-1-1 ||
Brahmavit means knowing a brāhmaṇa. Here Brahma means satyaṁ jñānam

anantaṁ Brahma jagat-kāraṇam. Therefore, according to the context we have
to take. To know the context you have to see the second sūtra, in the second
sūtra Vyāsācārya himself has defined Brahman as jagat-kāraṇam. Therefore,
based on the second sūtra we come to the conclusion that in Brahma-jijñāsā,
Brahman means jagat-kāraṇam Brahma, satyam jñānam anantam Brahma.
Then what is the second part? The second part is jijñā. Śaṅkarācārya says,
here it means jñānam. That too what jñānam? It is not a vague, doubtful,
weather-report type of jñānam. (It may rain, it may not rain, may be thundering
only, like that it is not weather-report jñānaṁ). Avagatiparyantaṁ jñānam.
avagati means drḍha-aparōkṣa-jñānam. So, jijñā means drḍha-aparōkṣa-
jñānam of Brahman.
Then what is the final part? Sā. sā is the suffix. San-pratyayaḥ, which
literally means icchā or desire. That is the vācyārtha, the direct meaning. In
saṁskrta, when that the san-pratyaya it conveys the meaning of desire and
such a usage in saṁskrta is called desiderative usage. Jijñāsā – desire to know,
jigamiṣā – desire to go, pipaṭhiṣā – desire to learn, mumukṣā – desire to be free,
vividiṣā – desire to know. So, the san-pratyaya refers to desire. Now,
Śaṅkarācārya says desire is vācyārtha of the sā, the san pratyaya but here we
have to take lakṣyārtha, the implied meaning. The implied meaning is enquiry
or vicāraḥ. So, icchā is vācyārtha, vicāraḥ is lakṣyārtha. What is the connection
between desire and enquiry? Icchā janyaḥ vicāraḥ. Enquiry is always the result
of a desire for knowledge. Any desire for knowledge will lead to what? Enquiry.
And therefore, lakṣyārtha of icchā is icchā janyaḥ vicārē lakṣaṇā. Therefore, now
we have got three words Brahma, jñāna and icchā and that we modify and tell

Brahma, jñāna, vicāra. So, if you bring it out, if you split the compound the final
meaning will be drḍha-aparōkṣa-Brahma jñānāya Vēdānta vicāraḥ kartavyaḥ.
Then the question comes, Why do you add Vēdānta vicāraḥ? That has not
been said; Vyāsācārya has only said vicāraḥ, which means enquiry. Why can’t I
make Self-enquiry within myself? Because, there are some people who argue, I
don’t want to do Vēdāntic enquiry, I will do Self-enquiry. How? I will close my
eyes and ask the question, ‘Who am I?’ And there are certain people who claim
that ‘who am I’ enquiry is different from Vēdāntic-enquiry. Vēdāntic-enquiry is
propounded by Śaṅkarācārya, and ’who am I’ enquiry is propounded by
somebody else. So thus, they make a distinction and prove separate-philosophy
and they claim ‘who am I’ enquiry can be done without going to a guru, going to
śāstram; only I have to dwell deep into my heart and ask the question ‘who am
I’, ‘who am I’, ‘who am I’ and one day jñānam will come. So, Svāmi Dayānanda
nicely says, if you ask ‘who am I’, the only answer that will come is ‘I am an Idiot’,
‘I am an Idiot’, ‘I am an Idiot’. Because, that is what you know of yourself. So,
therefore, Self-enquiry is enquiry of the Self with the help of guru śāstra. Self-
enquiry does not mean self enquiry, independent-enquiry. Self-enquiry is ṣaṣṭī-
tatpuruṣa-samāsaḥ, the enquiry of the Self, with the help of guru and śāstra.
Because Vēdānta alone is the pramāṇam for Brahman, therefore, one has to
come to Vēdāntaḥ. More in the next class.


We are seeing the word Brahma-jijñāsā of the first sūtra. We saw that Brahma-
jijñāsā means Brahma jñāna icchā. And the word icchā in this context gives the
meaning of vicāraḥ. And therefore, Brahma jñāna icchā means Brahma jñāna
vicāraḥ. And Brahma jñāna vicāraḥ should be understood as Brahma jñānāya
Vēdānta vicāraḥ. Therefore, the final meaning of the word Brahma-jijñāsā
means Brahma jñānāya Vēdānta vicāraḥ, enquiry into Vēdānta for gaining
Brahma-jñānam. So, here the question may come why do we introduce Vēdānta
here, because Vyāsācārya does not mention the word Vēdānta in the sūtra. He
only talks about Brahman enquiry, why are you interpreting it as Vēdāntic-
enquiry? For that we answer, any knowledge can take place only through the
operation of a pramāṇam. pramāṇa janya pramā. And we have got six
pramāṇams enumerated, viz., pratyakṣa, anumāna, upamāna, arthāpatti,
anupalabdhi and śabda. Now, vicāraḥ or enquiry is not accepted as one of these
six pramāṇams. Mere enquiry, mere independent thinking, mere sitting in
meditation etc., are not accepted as one of the six pramāṇams. And therefore, if
a person goes on enquiring into Brahman without using any pramāṇam, it will
lead to only speculative systems of philosophy, it will lead to only various
hypothesis, it can never lead to knowledge. So therefore, if an enquiry should
lead to knowledge the enquiry should involve pramāṇam. In the case of
Brahman, we have got only one pramāṇam, relevant and useful and that is
śabda-pramāṇam, the Vēdānta-śabda-pramāṇam, the upaniṣad-śabda
pramāṇam. And therefore, without bring in the upaniṣad-śabda if we make
independent enquiry it can never lead to Brahma-jñānam; it will lead to
speculations only. And therefore, vicāraḥ should be associated with Brahma
pramāṇam, viz., the upaniṣad-śabda-pramāṇam. Even though Vyāsācārya does
not use the word Vēdānta-vicāraḥ, we have to supply the word Vēdānta-vicāraḥ
kartavyaḥ.
Not only that Vyāsācārya himself tells in the third sūtra that Vēdānta alone is
the pramāṇam for Brahman and Vyāsācārya himself enquires into Vēdānta

vākyams only. So, he himself says Vēdānta is the pramāṇam, śāstrayōnitvāt

ityasmin sūtrē, and he himself conducts Vēdāntic enquiry only, so from that it is
very clear that there is no Brahman enquiry without bringing the upaniṣat.
Therefore, Brahma-jijñāsā means Brahma jñānāya Vēdānta vicāraḥ. This is the
final meaning.
Now one more important point has to be understood here. Why do we

say enquiry is required for Brahma-jñānam? Because we want to attain Brahma-
jñānam, we are interested in Brahma-jñānam. And why are we interested in
Brahma-jñānam? We are interested in Brahma-jñānaṁ; because we are
interested in mōkṣa or saṁsāra-nivrtti, the removal of saṁsāra. And previously
we analyzed, why Brahma-jñānam removes saṁsāra? While enquiring into ata -
śabdaḥ we asked a question, why karma cannot give mōkṣa, why jñānam alone
gives mōkṣa? What was the logic we gave? The logic we gave was, since
saṁsāra is adhyastaḥ, superimposed, it can be removed only by jñānam. If you
remember I gave you an anumāna vākyam: ‘saṁsāraḥ jñāna-nivartyaḥ
adhyastatvāt rajju-sarpavat’.
Now a question comes, which should be carefully understood, then only you
can enjoy the answer. Any superimposition goes by knowledge. Like what? The
snake. Which snake? Our snake. Now, when we say the superimposed snake is
removed by knowledge, the question comes, ‘What knowledge removes the
snake?’ Not any knowledge. Knowledge of gold will not remove the snake,
knowledge of chemistry will not remove the snake, knowledge of train will not
remove the snake, the snake will be removed by the knowledge of the rope,
which is the adhiṣṭhānam of the snake. From this we get a rule. What is the
rule? Any adhyāsa is removed by adhiṣṭhāna-jñānam. Any superimposition is
removed by the knowledge of ‘its adhiṣṭhānam’. In saṁskrta, yatra yatra
adhyastatvam tatra tatra sva adhiṣṭhāna-jñāna-nivartyatvam, means whatever
is superimposed is removed by the knowledge of its substratum. Now, applying
this logic what do we say? Saṁsāraḥ sva adhiṣṭhāna-jñāna-nivartyaḥ
adhyastatvāt rajju-sarpavat. Saṁsāra can be removed by the knowledge of its

adhiṣṭhānam, because saṁsāra is superimposed like our snake. All these are
fine; now the pūrva-pakṣi is going to attack us!
Now while writing adhyāsa-bhāṣyam, Śaṅkarācārya pointed out that

entire saṁsāra or jīvatvam is superimposed on the adhiṣṭhānam, the ātmā. So,
in adhyāsa-bhāṣyam we saw that the adhiṣṭhānam of saṁsāra is what? Ātmā;
Ātmānātmanōḥ itarētarādhyāsaṁ etc., I hope you remember those details. So,
the entire jīvatvam is superimposed upon ātmā. So, if saṁsāra is superimposed
on ātmā, the adhiṣṭhānam happens to be ātmā. Now, if we have to remove
saṁsāra it will be removed by adhiṣṭhāna-jñānam and adhiṣṭhānam is ātmā and
therefore, joining all these ideas put together we derive that ātma-jñānam
alone will remove saṁsāra. Why? Because ātmā happens to be the
adhiṣṭhānam of saṁsāra. Therefore, if I am interested in saṁsāra-nivrtti, I
should get adhiṣṭhāna-jñānam and adhiṣṭhānam happens to be the ātmā,
therefore, I should get ātma-jñānam and if I should get ātma-jñānam, what
enquiry I should make? If I should get ātma-jñānam I should make ātman-
enquiry and therefore, pūrva-pakṣi argues, ‘We should be conducting ātma-
vicāraḥ; how come Vyāsācārya writes athātō Brahma-jijñāsā?’ ‘What should be
the first sūtram according pūrva-pakṣi? Athātō ātma-jijñāsā, ātma-vicāraḥ
kartavyaḥ. Ātma-vicārēṇa kiṁ sidhyati? Ātma-jñānaṁ-sidhyati. Ātma-jñānēna
kiṁ sidhyati? Ātmani adhyasta saṁsāra nivrttiḥ sidhyati, tasmāt ātma-jñānam
apēkṣitam Brahma jñāna pratijñā or Brahma-vicāra pratijñā na samīcīnā
bhavati. It is like the enquiry into the shell when we want to remove the rope-
snake. Pūrva-pakṣi says, we require ātma-jñānam, why are you introducing
Brahman enquiry? So, this is pūrva-pakṣi’s argument. Now, what is the answer
that we give? We can give two answers, almost similar answers.
(1) Brahman is same as the ātman, that is what Vyāsācārya means. And
therefore, Brahman enquiry is ātman enquiry. That is why in Taittirīya, tad
vijijñāsasva in that place Brahma vicāraḥ is mentioned. In Brhadāraṇyaka, ātmā
vā arē draṣṭavyaḥ śrōtavyō mantavyō nididhyāsitavyaḥ, there ātma-vicāraḥ is
mentioned. The upaniṣat loosely uses the two words – Brahma-vicāraḥ and
ātma-vicāraḥ – indicating Brahman and ātman are one and the same.

Therefore, the first sūtra itself indirectly reveals Brahma-ātma-aikyam. So, this is
the first answer. So, what is the answer? Brahma vicāraḥ is the same as ātma-
vicāraḥ, because Brahman and ātman are one and the same.
The answer can be presented in a different way also. When you say
Brahman-enquiry we should never think that Brahman is a new substance to be
revealed by the scriptures. It is the biggest mistake a seeker commits. When the
scriptures introduce Brahman we think Brahman is a new substance and that is
why even after studying the scriptures for years and years together we look for
Brahman in meditation. I have understood Brahman but I have not yet come
across face to face with Brahman. Therefore, we should very clearly understand
Brahman is not a new substance, the word Brahman indicates a new status of
the already available substance called ‘aham’. Brahman is not a new substance
that is revealed but it is a new status of mine, which is already available as
‘aham’; ‘aham’, ‘aham’, ‘aham’ iti siddharūpasya-ātmanaḥ Brahmatvam ēva
Brahma śabdēna ucyatē. So, therefore, when we say Brahman knowledge what
is the meaning? It is the knowledge of Brahmatvam status of mine, my parā-
prakrti; now I am lost in aparā-prakrti. We are only learning about our own
superior status, higher status called Brahmatvam. And therefore, Brahma
vicāraḥ should be translated as ātmanaḥ-Brahmatva-vicāraḥ. Brahman-enquiry
is to be understood as enquiry into the Brahmatvam status of ātmā. If
Brahmatvam is a new status that I have to discover, what is the old status
before enquiry? Jīvatvam is present status; by discovering the Brahmatvam
status I want to displace my jīvatvam status. Just as by discovering rajjutvam
status I am displacing sarpatvam status, similarly, ātmanaḥ Brahmatva jñānam
ēva pratijñātam. And therefore, Vyāsācārya has not committed any mistake.
Therefore, athātō Brahma-jijñāsā is equal to athātaḥ ātma-jijñāsā or athātaḥ
ātmanaḥ Brahmatva-jijñāsā. This is the meaning of the word Brahma-jijñāsā.
Through this word, Vyāsācārya indirectly reveals the subject-matter of

Brahmasūtra. What is the subject matter? Ātmanaḥ Brahmatvam, jīvātmā-
paramātmā-aikyam. So, now connecting back, the first word atha indirectly
revealed adhikārī, the word ataḥ indirectly revealed prayōjanam, the word

Brahma-jijñāsā indirectly reveals viṣayaḥ. Therefore, adhikārī has been

revealed, prayōjanam has been revealed, viṣayaḥ has been revealed, all
indirectly. So, now we have seen all the three words of the sūtra.
Now there is a fourth word, which we have to supply to complete the

sentence. What is that fourth word? Kartavyaḥ. Athātō Brahma-jijñāsā
kartavyaḥ. Kartavya means should be done. Brahman, Vēdāntic-enquiry should
be done for Brahma-jñānam. Why does Vyāsācārya use the word kartavya? That
I had said before, by using this word Vyāsācārya wants to reveal the vidhi, the
rule prescribed in the upaniṣat. What is that rule?
आत्मा िा अरे द्रष्टव्याः श्रोतव्यो मन्द्तव्यो निददध्याससतव्याः ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् २-४-५ ॥

ātmā vā arē draṣṭavyaḥ śrōtavyō mantavyō nididhyāsitavyaḥ || brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 2-4-5
||
Here in this sentence the words are ending in tavyaḥ, and all the tavyas put
together he uses one tavya, viz., kartavyaḥ. Tavya means should be done. In
saṁskrta grammar, tavya indicates the imperative mood. It is imperative,
without that you cannot escape from saṁsāra. So therefore, what is the
meaning of kartavyaḥ? It should be understood as śrōtavyaḥ mantavyaḥ
nididhyāsitavyaḥ. So, one should make Brahman enquiry means one should do
śravaṇam, mananam and nididhyāsanam. So, now what is the final meaning?
Sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti anantaram Brahma jñānāya Vēdānta śravaṇa
manana nididhyāsanāni kartavyāni yasmāt Brahma jñānāt ēva mōkṣaḥ na tu
karmaṇā. If you put in English, after acquiring the fourfold-qualification one
should do śravaṇa-manana-nididhyāsanam of Vēdānta, for the sake of Brahma-
jñānam because Brahma-jñānam alone gives mōkṣa and not karma. This is the
final expanded meaning of athātō Brahma-jijñāsā.
Suppose anyone asks Vyāsācārya what should I do? Many people have
got that doubt? What should we do? Then Vyāsācārya will ask a counter
question: you have already acquired sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti in pūrva-
janma? And if a person says, ‘Yes, I am another Nacikētas. I already have got
sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti.’ Then Vyāsācārya will say, Vēdānta-śravaṇa-
manana-nididhyāsanāni kartavyāni. And suppose a person says, that sādhana-

catuṣṭaya-sampatti is not there or is not sufficiently there, then he will say,

through pūrva-mīmāṁsā may you acquire sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti and
then Vēdānta-vicāra kartavyaḥ. Therefore, there is no universal advice; the
advice will depend upon the status of the student. Of course, you should
remember, when I say you should acquire the qualification through pūrva-
mīmāṁsā, it should not be literally taken, you need not directly study pūrva-
mīmāṁsā, one has to follow karma-yōga and upāsana; either by studying
pūrva-mīmāṁsā or by asking someone who has studied pūrva-mīmāṁsā, it is
not compulsory that I should know every ritual; if there is priest to guide me I
need not go through pūrva-mīmāṁsā. Somebody tells me how to do
sandhyāvandanam; somebody tells me how to do śrāddhaː somebody tells me
how to do tarpaṇam. Therefore, there is no compulsion that we have to study
pūrva-mīmāṁsā. The idea is we have to follow the lifestyle prescribed in the
pūrva-mīmāṁsā, viz., karma-yōga and upāsana. Therefore, follow them and
then gain knowledge.
Then comes the next question; Does that mean that we should all stop
Vēdāntic-study now? A very practical question. Brass tracks. You say without
acquiring sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti, without going through karma-yōga and
upāsana, one should not go through Vēdānta-vicāraḥ, the qualified people are
rare, majority of us are unqualified, that means we should all go back to pūrva-
mīmāṁsā, karma-yōga and upāsana, next week onwards instead of Brahma-
sūtra shall we convert our class into Jaimini-sūtra? Now, that is not the idea. We
can continue the study of Vēdānta; and we can continue to acquire or increase
or intensify our sādhana-catuṣṭaya sampatti. And what will happen is, the study
of Vēdānta will become more and more relevant, more and more significant,
more and more meaningful as we acquire the qualification. Without that, it will
appear an academic study. Let it start as an academic study and as even we
acquire the qualification, the so called academic study will become very relevant
for my life. A causal approach becomes a serious approach. I will give you an
example. Suppose you want to put a bulb as the room is dark, in the night there
is no light at all and therefore, you want to put a bulb. Now two things are
required. You have to put that bulb also in the holder and also the wire has to

be connected to that source of power. Now, you can do it in two ways. You
connect the wires properly and then put the bulb. After connecting the wires
properly, when you put the bulb what will happen? The moment you put the
bulb, the bulb will become bright, capable of removing darkness. Suppose, a
person puts the bulb first even before wire connection. There no danger is
going to happen, the bulb will be there but it will not be burning. The bulb will
be hanging there without burning that means without producing the result of
removing the darkness the bulb will be hanging, the moment the connection is
made what will happen? The bulb will begin to burn. It is like that. Sādhana-
catuṣṭaya-sampatti is wire connection; Vēdānta is like fixing the bulb. In normal
process after completing the wire connection, we are to put the Vēdānta bulb.
Now, kaliyuga being topsy turvy, everything is messy. So, what are we doing?
Vēdāntic bulb we are fixing first. And thereafter starting the wire connection
and as even the wire is connected the Vēdānta-bulb will begin to burn, that
means the gloom from life, darkness in our life is a gloomy life will disappear.
The only difference in the example is, the moment you give the connection the
bulb (mercury light) will suddenly burn with full power. Similarly, as even our life
gets refined the Vēdāntic-bulb becomes brighter and brighter and brighter.
That is called the conversion of jñānam into jñāna-niṣṭhā; prajñā into sthita-
prajñā, parōkṣa-jñānam into aparōkṣa-jñānam, sapratibandhaka-jñānam into
apratibandhaka-jñānam and therefore, we can continue vēdāntic-study and you
should continue our āśrama dharma also. One side we have refine our
qualification and on the other side śravaṇa-manana-nididhyāsana should
continue. So, with this I am concluding the word analysis of the first sūtra. So,
first we made general analysis, then we have completed now the word analysis.
Conclusion
Now I will go to the final topic of the first sūtra, viz., the conclusion. In the
conclusion what I propose to do is presenting the very same topic in the
technical format in which Brahma-sūtra should be presented. The same idea in
sūtra literature should be presented in a technical format. So, it is more of
academic interest but it is worth knowing what is that format. So, I am not

going to give any new idea to you but I am going to present in the technical
form. In my introduction, I had said that each topic is called an adhikaraṇam. In
Brahmasūtra, every topic is called an adhikaraṇam. And every adhikaraṇam will
have one sūtra or more number of sūtras also. In the first topic how many
sūtras are there? Only one sūtra is there, therefore, the first sūtra happens to
be the first topic also. What is the name of the topic? Generally, the name will be
based on the name of the sūtra, this sūtra is athātō Brahma-jijñāsā, the topic is
called jijñāsā-adhikaraṇam, which is the first topic. Every adhikaraṇam has to be
presented in a particular format, pattern, design, method. Just like letter writing
format, where you should write your address, where you should write the date,
how you should end the letter, how you should begin the letter, etc., there is a
format. So, what is that format?
निषयो निशयश्चैि पूिनपक्षस्तथोिराः ।

निणनयश्चेनत पञ्चाङ्गं शास्त्रेऽधिकरणं स्मृतम् ॥
viṣayō viśayaścaiva pūrva-pakṣastathōttaraḥ |
nirṇayaścēti pañcāṅgaṁ śāstrē’dhikaraṇaṁ smrtam ||
I gave the definition of adhikaraṇam in my introduction and I have quoted this

verse also, it is not a new verse. In this verse, it is said that every adhikaraṇam
should have five factors. That is the format. What is the first factor?
 viṣayaḥ – the subject matter, (shanmuka sha)

 viśayaḥ. viśayaḥ is same as śiva, saṁśayaḥ, which means doubt; the second
part is doubt.
So, what is the subject-matter that we have to present and then what is the
doubt, that we have to present.
 Pūrva-pakṣaḥ – the view of a non-Vēdāntin. We are supposed to be

Vēdāntins. Therefore, the view of a non-Vēdāntin, like Sāṅkhya, yōga or any
other person, who is opposed to us, who is against us. That is called pūrva-
pakṣaḥ.
 The Fourth factor is siddhāntaḥ – what is our conclusion.

 The fifth factor is saṅgatiḥ – what is the connection between this topic with
the previous topic.
In this five-stepped-way every topic should be presented. Śaṅkarācārya in his

commentary does this in a beautiful way. This is called adhikaraṇa-nirṇayaḥ. So,
this process of determining the five factors is called adhikaraṇa-nirṇayaḥ.
 For the jijñāsā adhikaraṇam, what is the first factor, viṣayaḥ? The subject-
matter is Vēdānta śāstram. The topic is the whole Vēdānta-śāstram is the
subject matter.
 What is the second factor, viśayaḥ, doubt? The doubt is doubt is vicāraṇīyam
vā na vicāraṇīyam vā. Whether it is worth studying or it need not be studied,
it is not worth studying? Should we study or not? Should we attend the class
or not? This is the second factor.
 What is the third factor, pūrva-pakṣa? The view of the objectionists, the view
of the non-Vēdāntins. He should not present his views casually, but he
should give the reasons also for his views. Therefore, pūrva-pakṣaḥ is in the
form of anumānam always. He will give a logical statement in support of
that. That is called pūrva-pakṣaḥ anumānam. So, what is his view and what is
the reason that he has for that contention. I will present in the saṁskrta
itself, you can understand, then I will explain. What is his anumānam?
Vēdānta-śāstram na vicāraṇīyam. One should not study Vēdānta, it is not
worthwhile studying. Why? Anubandha-catuṣṭaya abhavāt. Because it does
not have anubandha-catuṣṭayam. Vyatirēkēṇa dharma-śāstravat. Unlike
dharma-śāstram or tarka-śāstram. All the other śāstrams should be studied
because they have anubandha-catuṣṭayam, Vēdānta does not have
anubandha-catuṣṭayam. Therefore, according to pūrva-pakṣi there is no
anubandha-catuṣṭayam. Do you remember what is anubandha-catuṣṭayam?
So, the pūrva-pakṣi says elaborately. I am not going to give elaborately, I will
briefly mention. He says, no adhikārī is possible, vivēka is impossible,
vairāgyam is impossible, śamādi-ṣaṭka-sampatti won’t come at all, who is
having mumukṣutvam? Therefore, sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti asambhavāt
adhikārī nāsti. There is no adhikārī in the world; so it is impossible. The

adhikārī is only in the Kaṭhōpaniṣat book. Who has got mind control? Who
has got śama?, who has got dama?, who has got titikṣā? etc. So, adhikārī
nāsti. Similarly, viṣayaḥ nāsti. There is such thing called Brahman. Has
anybody seen Brahman? We are consistently talking about something which
is nothing but hare-horn. Because how can there be a nirguṇaṁ vastu at all?
And if we ask the question ‘How to know It?’, you say, ‘You cannot know It?’
When I ask, ‘How to see It?, you say, ‘It cannot be seen.’ ‘What is It’s color?’
‘No color, no form, no taste.’ From all this it is very clear that it is only
consistent brain washing, there is such thing called Brahman’, it is mere
bhrama of the student and the teacher. The teacher is confused and he is
transferring the confusion freely to the student, saying that ‘There is
Brahman,’ ‘There is Brahman,’ ‘There is Brahman.’ I have not seen any sign of
Brahman. And if you say ātmā, ‘I have seen very much inside there is no such
ātmā.’ And you say that there is such thing called Consciousness, ‘There is no
independent-Consciousness at all, nobody has proved independent-
Consciousness, matter alone is proved.’ According to the latest Time
Magazine, ‘Consciousness is an illusion happening in matter.’ Complete U-
turn! What do we say? Matter is an illusion happening in Consciousness. In
that Magazine, after elaborate research on brain, he has concluded
‘Consciousness is an illusion’ only saving grace is he has used the word, ‘may
be an illusion in the brain matter.’ And you are talking about some
Consciousness and independent and all, therefore, there is no such thing
called Brahman or ātman and therefore, there is no subject matter. Adhikārī
nāsti, viṣayaḥ nāsti. What about prayōjanam? When Brahman itself is not
there what to talk about prayōjanam! It is like emperor’s cloth story. No cloth
at all. But somebody bluffed that only sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampanna
adhikārīs can see the cloth. Then somebody said, he had put the clothes, and
pure people will see his clothes only, impure people will not see. Who would
like to say I am impure? Therefore, all the people said, ‘Yes’, ‘Yes’, ‘Yes’, there
is the cloth. And this person was walking naked. And the whole world said he
is clothed because nobody didn’t want to say ‘I am impure’. Then a child or
somebody comes and asks ‘Why is he walking naked?’ ‘So, the whole
Brahman seems to be like emperor’s cloth, with which you want to cloth

yourself against saṁsāra. And therefore, Brahmaṇaḥ ēva abhāvē katham

Brahma-jñānam, Brahma jñānasya ēva abhāvē kathantarām Brahma jñāna
prayōjanam? So, therefore, prayōjanam nāsti.’ So, says pūrva-pakṣi
(remember that). And if adhikārī, viṣayaḥ and prayōjanam are not there,
where is the question of sambandha. Sambandha means a book revealing
Brahman. How can it be there at all, when Brahman Itself is not there?
Therefore, Vēdānta-śāstram na vicāraṇīyam.
 Then siddhānti has to come and tell. What is our siddhānta anumānam? It is
called siddhānta-anumānam. And siddhānta-anumānam is our logical
statement, ‘Vēdānta-śāstram vicāraṇīyam,’ Why? ‘anubandha-catuṣṭayavatvāt
dharma-śāstravat.’ He said unlike dharma-śāstra, we say like dharma-śāstra,
adhikārī is there, viṣayaḥ is there, prayōjanam is there and sambandha is
there. Just because adhikārīs are very few, you cannot say adhikārīs are nil.
Sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampannas are very few, which is accepted by the
upaniṣats itself.
मिुष्याणां सहस्रेषु कभश्चद्यतनत ससिये । ॥ गीता ७-३ ॥

manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasrēṣu kaścidyatati siddhayē | || Gītā 7-3 ||
श्रिणायानप बहुभभयो ि लभ्याः

शृण्िन्द्तोऽनप बहिो यं ि निद्युाः ।
आश्चयो िक्ता कुशलोऽस्य लिा
आश्चयो ज्ञाता कुशलािुसशष्टाः ॥ कठोपनिषत् १-२-७ ॥
śravaṇāyāpi bahubhiryō na labhyaḥ

śrṇvantō’pi bahavō yaṁ na vidyuḥ |
āścaryō vaktā kuśalō’sya labdhā
āścaryō jñātā kuśalānuśiṣṭaḥ || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-2-7 ||
Adhikārīs are rare but don’t say not there. Similarly, Brahman is there because
It happens to be yourself, how can you negate Brahman? Brahman negation is
Self-negation. And prayōjanam is there that is mōkṣa, because many people
have attained mōkṣa and you can also study and seek the benefit. When you
study only you get it. Without studying gain if you say ‘No prayōjanam, No
prayōjanam, No prayōjanam.’ Attempt and see. Therefore, prayōjanam asti.

Tasmāt sambandhaḥ api asti. So therefore, anubandha-catuṣṭayam asti, tasmāt

vicāraṇīyam. This is the fourth factor.
Then the fifth-factor is connection with the previous topic. In the case of first
topic the connection is not there because, only the second topic will have the
connection with first topic, third will have the connection with second, fourth
will have the connection with third. As there is no previous topic the first will
have no connection so the fifth factor is not there for the first adhikaraṇam.
Tasya adhikaraṇasya ādyatvāt saṅgatiḥ nāsti. With this the first sūtra is over.


017 Sūtra 1.1.2 Janmādhyadhikaraṇam
Adhikaraṇa 002 janmādyadhikaraṇam ||
002 janmādyasya yataḥ ||
Definition of Brahman
I will repeat the sūtras, you can repeat after me.
अथातो ब्रह्मद्धजज्ञासा ॥
athātō Brahma-jijñāsā ||
जन्द्माद्यस्य यताः ॥
janmādyasya yataḥ ||
We have completed the first sūtra of Brahmasūtra, which happens to be

the first adhikaraṇam or the topic also. And we saw that the sūtra is upōdghāta
-sūtram, which gives an introduction to Brahma-vicāra-śāstram. And by way of
introduction the first sūtra indirectly presented the anubandha-catuṣṭayam also
– adhikārī, viṣayaḥ, prayōjanam and sambandha. Now that the stage is set for
Brahma-vicāra, Vyāsācārya enters the śāstram proper from the second-sūtra
onwards. Therefore, we can say the second-sūtra is the beginning of the
śāstram. Just as in Bhagavadgītā, the second chapter alone is Gītā-śāstram, first
adhyāya is upōdghāta-adhyāya only; similarly, here also from the second-sūtra
alone the śāstram proper begins. The second-sūtra happens to be the second-
adhikaraṇam also. And in this second-adhikaraṇam or topic, there is only one
sūtra. And as said before, that one adhikaraṇam can have either one sūtra or it
can have many sūtras also. But here there is only one sūtra for the second
adhikaraṇam. This adhikaraṇam is known as janmādi-adhikaraṇam, because
the sūtra contains the word janmādi. Generally, the name of the adhikaraṇam is
based on the name of the sūtra. Do you remember the name of the first
adhikaraṇam? The name of the first-adhikaraṇam is jijñāsādhikaraṇam and the
name of the second-adhikaraṇam is janmādi-adhikaraṇam, if you join it will

become janmādyadhikaraṇam. In this sūtra and in this adhikaraṇam the topic is

Brahma-lakṣaṇam or the definition of Brahman. Therefore, this sūtram is called
Brahma-lakṣaṇa-sūtram. Just as the first sūtra is called upōdghāta-sūtram, the
second sūtram is known as Brahma-lakṣaṇa-sūtram; lakṣaṇam means
definition.
There is a well-known statement in śāstra and the statement is lakṣaṇa-

pramāṇābhyām vastu-siddhiḥ, which means any object is established only
through two factors – lakṣaṇam and pramāṇam. Pramāṇam meaning a means
of knowledge. And only if the object is established, there is a possibility of
enquiry regarding the object. Only if the object is established, object is
siddham, then alone you can make further enquiry about the object. When the
object itself is not established where is the question of making an enquiry?
Suppose somebody asks you that ‘Has Mr. Pinākapāṇi come to the class
today?’ or ‘Is Mr. Pinākapāṇi seated on the chair or on the ground?’ So, now the
question is what? Regarding Pinākapāṇi. And this Pinākapāṇi is on the chair or
on the ground is the question. And before answering, what will you ask? Who is
this blessed Pinākapāṇi? Unless I know who that person is, where is the
question of giving further details about him? And therefore, vicāra, enquiry
presupposes siddhi. Enquiry or analysis presupposes the existence or the
knowledge of the vastu. So thus, first you require what? Pinākapāṇi’s lakṣaṇam
is required. He is so and so. Once you know that there is such a person called
Pinākapāṇi, he is a student, once the lakṣaṇam is given, then the next question
is enquiry, whether he is seated on the ground or not. But remember, even for
that enquiry, I require what? A pramāṇam. If I am a blind-person, even
lakṣaṇam is not sufficient to establish the person. Even if there is lakṣaṇam,
unless I have got eyes I cannot have access to discuss that particular person. So
therefore, you require what? Lakṣaṇam is required and thereafterwards you
require pramāṇam. If lakṣaṇam is there without pramāṇam, it is useless; if
pramāṇam is there without lakṣaṇam, it is useless. I will give you another
example. Suppose in the night I ask the child, ‘Is there moon in the sky?’ Now,
the child has got eyes, the pramāṇam to see the moon. But suppose the child

does not know what the moon is. With the eyes he will see the sky and he will
see the luminaries, stars he will see, and planets he will see, even moon he may
see but unless he knows the definition of moon, he will be looking at the sky but
he will not be able to say whether the moon is there or not. To say it is there or
not, he should know what? What is moon? Therefore, even eyes are there,
without knowing the moon lakṣaṇam, I cannot talk about it, and even if moon
lakṣaṇam is known; I will say moon is the biggest luminary in the night sky. You
have got lakṣaṇam but to talk about the moon you require the cakṣuḥ
pramāṇam. So, lakṣaṇa sattvē api pramāṇam vinā na vastusiddhiḥ, pramāṇa
sattvē api lakṣaṇam vinā na vastusiddhiḥ, yatra lakṣaṇañca vartatē pramāṇañca
vartatē tatra ēva vastunaḥ siddhiḥ; only when the definition and pramāṇam
both are there, there is that vastu. And once the moon is established through
lakṣaṇam and pramāṇam, thereafterwards, you can spend your lifetime
enquiring into the moon. What is the age of the moon, how many craters are
there and what is the radius; vicāra presupposes lakṣaṇam and pramāṇam.
Now, here we are talking about what vicāraḥ? Brahma-vicāraḥ, enquiry

into Brahman. Now, Brahma-vicāraḥ is possible only if there is a blessed thing
called Brahman, if Brahman is like rabbit’s-horn where is the question of
enquiry? Therefore, what do we require now? Brahma-siddhiḥ for the sake of
enquiry. And for Brahma-siddhiḥ you require what? Brahma-lakṣaṇam and
Brahma-pramāṇam. And therefore in the third-sūtra, Vyāsācārya gives Brahma-
pramāṇam. In the second-sūtra, Vyāsācārya gives Brahma-lakṣaṇam- vicāraḥ.
Tattu-samanvayāt ||
And in this context, I would like to breifly mention that Śaṅkarācārya has
at the end of the first-sūtra commented, which discussion I skipped when I was
dealing with the first-sūtra. And that discussion, which comes at the end of the
prathama-sūtra bhāṣyam I will briefly mention, because it is very relevant in this
context. So, Vyāsācārya is talking about Brahman-enquiry. Are you talking about
a Brahman, enquiry of a Brahman that is known, or enquiry of a Brahman that
is unknown? Jñāta-Brahma-vicāraḥ vā ajñāta-Brahma-vicāraḥ vā? Thus, pūrva-
pakṣi raises the question. And he says, either way, enquiry is not required.

Jñātam vā bhavatu ajñātam vā bhavatu vicāraḥ na apēkṣitaḥ. If Brahman is

unknown, how can you make an enquiry about something you don’t know?
Suppose I tell, ‘For your research, you make an analysis of paleontology.’ ‘Is it
analysis of Pāli language?’ ‘No, no, no, paleontology means the study of fossil.’ I
say that you take to the study of fossils. This person asked what is a fossil?
Brahman is not unknown, it is known through Vēda -pramāṇa. Pramāṇam
vartatē, Brahma siddhyartham. And that is why the word Brahman is familiar
only to those people who are conversant or familiar with the Vēdas. If Vēda is
not there, you cannot talk about a thing called Brahman at all. In a society,
where Vēda is totally absent, the word Brahman or the object Brahman is out of
question. Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya says when a vaidika studies the Vēdas, form
the Vēda he comes to know that there is something called Brahma, because
Vēda says
ब्रह्म िेद ब्रह्मैि भिनत ॥ मुण्डकोपनिषत् ३-२-९ ॥

Brahma Vēda Brahma iva bhavati || Muṇḍakōpaniṣat 3-2-9 ||

Brahma vidāpnōti param | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-1-1 ||
सत्यं ज्ञािमिन्द्तं ब्रह्म ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् २-१-१ ॥

satyaṁ jñānaṁ anantaṁ Brahma || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-1-1 ||
Then he says, that the very word Brahman indicates the existence of an object
or a thing, an entity, and not only I know that there is Brahman, but the very
word tells me that it is Big infinitely. Because the word is derived from the root
brh, brhatē or brhaṁtē. Vrddhi arthatvāt, brh dhātu indicates expansion or
bigness and the word Brahma means the Big. Therefore, I come to know that
there is a Big entity. Not only that Śaṅkarācārya says, that the very word Big is a
relative word. The meaning of the word Big will vary from situation to situation.
Suppose a person talks about a big mountain. Then what is the size that you
visualize? It must be 20,000 or 25,000 feet tall and also the length must be miles
and miles, therefore, bigness indicates so many miles of length and a few miles
of height also. Suppose I say, there is a big mosquito in my net. Then what is
the dimension of the bigness. Certainly, you don’t expect a few miles length and

a few miles height you don’t. That bigness is of different dimension. When a
person says that white corpuscle is big compared to red corpuscle, you know
the dimension of bigness. Even though it is big, you require a microscope.
Therefore, the dimension of the bigness, the adjective is determined by the
noun.
Normally we talk about the noun being determined by the adjective but now we
are saying a new thing - the adjective or the dimension of the adjective is
determined by the type of the noun. And when the upaniṣat talks about the
Brahman, it uses the adjective Big, not as an adjective but it uses the adjective
Big as the noun itself, the Big. So, what is Brahman? It is not big X or big Y or
big Z. What is Brahman? The Big. That means what? There is no noun to
condition the bigness, because here the big itself is used as a noun. Brahma.
And since there is no noun to condition the bigness it is unconditionally-Big,
which means infinite. It is the-Big. Just as we use Existence not as an adjective
but as a noun referring to Brahman. So, you will find in the scriptures,
adjectives are converted into nouns to say that we are not talking about a
relative thing but the absolute. Similarly, Conscious we use as an adjective but
in Vēdānta it becomes Consciousness itself. Similarly, Existence itself, similarly,
Brahman is unconditionally Big, therefore, Infinite. Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya
says, at the end of the first-sūtra-bhāṣyam that from Vēda-pramāṇam I come to
know that there is infinitely big entity called Brahman. Then Śaṅkarācārya says
further, naturally, when I hear about an infinitely big entity, I doubt the very
existence of that entity because I have never experienced an infinite entity. I
have experienced things which are finite - time bound, space bound. Therefore,
I get a doubt regarding its existence, therefore, to remove the doubt the
scriptures say that Brahman is ātmā, yourself. So, that infinitely big Brahman is
what? I, the Self; which means I should never doubt the existence of Brahman.
Why? Doubting the existence of Brahman is doubting my own existence.
Nobody doubts whether ‘I am’ or not? You can have doubt regarding the
existence of ‘our buddhi’. Whether brain is there or not you may get doubt,
but we can never have doubt regarding my existence because, the very doubt
presupposes my existence. Doubter cannot be doubted, because doubt cannot

exist without the doubter. So, Śaṅkarācārya says, very very very famous
statement he gives there, ’sarvō hyātmāstitvaṁ pratyēti, na ‘nāhamasmi’ iti |’ na
kaścit-nāhamasmi’ iti pratyēti. Nobody says, ‘I am not there.’ And therefore,
there is no doubt regarding ātma-astitvam, therefore, there is no doubt
regarding Brahma-astitvam, such a Brahman I come to know through Vēda-
pramāṇam. And therefore, the enquiry is into known Brahman only and
unknown; we have known from the Vēdas.
Then the pūrva-pakṣi asks that if Brahman is already known, from the
Vēdas, why should you make an enquiry? You are so nicely saying that Brahman
is infinitely big, and that Brahman is ātman, you seem to know so much, then
why enquiry. Stop Brahma-sūtra class. Then Śaṅkarācārya says, śāstra says
there is Brahman and that Brahman is ātmā, but now my problem is: ‘What is
this ātmā or who am I’ is not very clear. I know ‘Brahman I am’ from the śāstra,
so clear knowledge of Brahman is clear knowledge of myself. But I don’t have a
clear knowledge of myself, because different philosophers have got different
contention regarding ‘I’, the Self.
The cārvāka philosopher says, I am the body. There is no such thing

called sūkṣma-śarīram; who has seen the sūkṣma-śarīram? It seems to be like
emperor’s cloth. Therefore, the cārvāka-philosopher says I am the body. Mind is
an electrical-phenomenon of the brain, mind is not a substance. That’s why they
are able to take EEG – ElectroEncephaloGram; unmouthable words. So, what is
he doing? The electrical impulses it is studying and therefore, what is thought,
what is consciousness, what is thinking, what is emotion, that is all the brain’s
electrical phenomenon. When the brain goes fused, fused-brain means this
fellow is dead. Unnecessarily you are complicating this phenomenon by
introducing a blessed sūkṣma-śarīram, which nobody knows. And you talk
about it’s travels, which also nobody has seen. And you talk about the
acquisition of another body, which nobody knows. Therefore, cārvāka is very
simple. What is the individual? It is the body. It is like a mechanical spring clock,
which has to wound periodically. Suppose the spring gets unwound then the
clock stops functioning. Similarly, clock stopped, dispose off the body. So thus,

cārvāka says I am the body. And some people say the body is the ātmā, another
philosopher says sense organs are the ātmā. They are called cārvākas.
The Buddhists say mind is the ātmā.
दे हं प्राणमपीद्धन्द्द्रयाण्यनप चलां बुद्ित च शून्द्यं निदाः

स्त्ीबालान्धजडोपमास्त्वरममनत भ्रान्ता भृिं वाददनः ॥ श्री दक्षिर्ामूर्ति स्तोत्म् ५ ॥
dēhaṁ prāṇamapīndriyāṇyapi calāṁ buddhiṁ ca śūnyaṁ viduḥ

strībālāndhajaḍōpamāstvahamiti bhrāntā bhrśaṁ vādinaḥ | || śrī dakṣiṇāmūrti stōtram 5 ||
So, buddhi, mind alone is the ātmā.
Then the Naiyāyika comes and says, No, body mind etc., are not ātmā,
there is a Self, which is beyond the body and mind, and that ātmā are many.
Every individual has got one-one ātmā. You have one, I have another, so that we
don’t have quarrel. Just like that man, who saw the football match for the first
time. And he saw that twenty-two people are fighting for one ball. Why are you
making them fight? Buy twenty-two balls and give each one-one, so that there is
no quarrel. Similarly the Naiyāyikas say, unnecessarily advaitins talk about ēka
ātmā, which has to shared by so many people and population is expanding also.
So, thus ātmā for everyone. Thus, they talk about many ātmās and each ātmā is
infinite in size. So, my ātmā pervades you, your ātmā pervades me and our
ātmā pervades everywhere. Anēka vibhū-ātmānaḥ. And not only that, that ātmā
is kartā bhōktā ca. All dealing with what? ‘Who am I’.
Then the Sāṅkhya and yōga philosophers comes and say, no doubt there
are many ātmās, no doubt all the ātmās are all-pervading but the ātmās are not
kartā, they are only bhōktā. Only body is kartā, mind is kartā, body and mind
will do action and the ātmā will enjoy, like husband and wife relationship. Wife
cooks and reclining to an easy chair, the husband just eats from time to time,
and not just finishing the food, go on complaining there is no salt, no sugar,
you don’t know how to cook, how my mother uses to cook, creating mother-in-
law and daughter-in-law problem. So, coming to modern times, whoever eats
without helping the wife is called Sāṅkhya-ātmā. That is called akartā, but
bhōktā.

And of course, finally, there is ātmā as revealed by Vēdānta, which is real-

one, that is ātmā ēkaḥ sarvagataḥ akartā abhōktā ca.
So thus, regarding ātmā, there are so many confusions and therefore,

Śaṅkarācārya concludes enquiry is required. So, what was pūrva-pakṣi
question? Brahman is known or unknown? He said unknown-Brahman cannot
be enquired, known-Brahman need not be enquired. What is our answer?
Brahman is neither-known-nor-unknown, neither it is totally-known nor it is
totally-unknown, but it is unclearly-known from the śāstram. And therefore,
āpāta-jñānam vartatē. Āpāta-jñānam means unclear-knowledge, vague-
knowledge, partial-knowledge sometimes they say parōkṣa-jñānam. Therefore,
Brahman being unclearly-known, Brahma-vicāraḥ is required, for what purpose,
to convert the unclear-knowledge into clear-knowledge. So thus, there
Śaṅkarācārya shows there is pramāṇa for Brahman, which is Vēda-pramāṇam.
And in this sūtra, Vyāsācārya says, Brahma lakṣaṇam api asti, there is
lakṣaṇam also. Therefore, what is the conclusion? Brahma-lakṣaṇa-
pramāṇābhyām Brahma-siddhiḥ tādrśa siddha-Brahmaṇaḥ paripūrṇa-
jñānārtham Brahma-vicāraḥ-apēkṣitaḥ.
Now we will go to one more topic. All these things I am doing under the
general analysis of the sūtra. I said my approach will be in three stages –
 General analysis,
 Word analysis, and
 Conclusion.
That is how every sūtra I want to proceed. First we will be doing general
analysis and then we will go to word analysis. So, first thing in general analysis
to be known is this is Brahma-lakṣaṇa sūtra, lakṣaṇam is required for Brahma-
siddhiḥ.
General Analysis
Now this lakṣaṇam or definition is of two types.

 One is called svarūpa-lakṣaṇam and

 The other is called taṭastha-lakṣaṇam.
What is svarūpa-lakṣaṇam? When an object is defined through its

intrinsic feature that definition is called svarūpa-lakṣaṇam. When an object is
defined through its svarūpaṃ, its intrinsic feature then it is called svarūpa-
lakṣaṇam, or we can say direct definition.
Then what is taṭastha-lakṣaṇam? When an object is defined through an

incidental-feature, a temporary feature, which is not intrinsic to the object then
it is called taṭastha lakṣaṇam. In fact, the word taṭastha consists if two words
taṭa and stha. Taṭaḥ means a bank of a river; gaṅgā-taṭaḥ, nadī-taṭaḥ. Taṭaḥ-
means tīraḥ, bank. Not State Bank, etc. And sthaḥ means remaining. So,
taṭasthaḥ means that which remains on the bank, that means that which is not
part of the river, that which is not inside the river, but that which is aloof, away.
So, from this expression, in the śāstra the word taṭastha means something that
is away, something that is aloof, something that is incidental, something that is
not an intrinsic-nature. And when you define a thing through this incidental-
feature it is called taṭastha-lakṣaṇam.
I will give you an example then it will become very clear. Let us take
svarūpa-lakṣaṇam. One lāukika-example, worldly-example that they give is
prakrṣṭaḥ-prakāśaḥ-candraḥ. Moon is that object, which is the most luminous in
the night sky. That which is the most luminous, the most shining or the
brightest luminary in the sky is the moon. So, now I have used this definition for
the moon, because in the sky there are so many objects, so many luminaries
are there - planet is also luminary, of course borrowed light but still it is a
luminary, stars are luminary, moon is luminary. I have used what? Prakrṣṭaḥ-
prakāśaḥ – through that brightness of the moon I have defined the moon. Now
this brightness is intrinsic-feature or an incidental-feature? Don’t go science and
say moon doesn’t have original-light, it is borrowed from the Sun, that we are
not talking, we are taking it as an intrinsic-feature of the moon because you
never experience the moon without brightness. Whenever you experience the
moon in the sky, the brightness is inseparable-feature of the moon and

therefore, it is intrinsic. On the other hand, in the śāstra when you define
Brahman or ātman as jñānam, awareness is Brahman, then that jñānam is the
intrinsic-feature of Brahman. Therefore, it becomes svarūpa-lakṣaṇam.
prakrṣṭaḥ-prakāśaḥ-candraḥ is svarūpa-lakṣaṇam of moon, jñānaṁ-Brahma is
svarūpa-lakṣaṇam of Brahman, sat-Brahman is svarūpa-lakṣaṇam of Brahman,
ānandam-Brahman is svarūpa-lakṣaṇam of Brahman, because, sat-cit-ānanda
etc., are the intrinsic features. Therefore, what is svarūpa-lakṣaṇam? What is the
definition of svarūpa-lakṣaṇasya lakṣaṇam kim? We say, svarūpam sat
vyāvartakam svarūpa-lakṣaṇam. Svarūpa-lakṣaṇam is that intrinsic feature of an
object, which reveals an object, it defines an object.
What is the example of taṭastha-lakṣaṇam? When you show a particular

person’s house, Dēvadatta-grham. Somebody wants to know which is the house
of Mr. Dēvadatta . Because there are so many houses. You can define the house
by taking the features of the house, that it is painted red or it has got two
windows outside or it has got so many steps or it has two storied. So, if you
define the house in terms of its own intrinsic features it will become svarūpa-
lakṣaṇam. But suppose I find all the houses have got similar features then I see
a crow is sitting on Dēvadatta’s house. We want work to be done. Then I say,
kākavat grham Dēvadatta-grham. I have defined Dēvadatta-grham as the house
on which a crow is seated, kākavat-grham Dēvadatta-grham. Now the crow is
incidental-feature of the house or intrinsic feature of the house? Suppose there
is a paramānanda śiṣyaḥ, a brhaspati, who thinks, wherever crow is seated it is
all Dēvadatta-grham. Then what will happen? So many problems. When the
crow goes away that house will no more be Dēvadatta’s-house. And not only
that if the crow gets seated on the neighbor’s terrace, then what will happen?
That will become Dēvadatta’s-grham. So, like crow you also will shift. So
therefore, I have made use of an incidental feature, temporary feature to
define. Therefore, what is the definition of taṭastha-lakṣaṇam? Kādācittam sat
vyāvartakam taṭastha lakṣaṇam. Kādācittam means kadācit bhavati – once in a
while it is there. The crow is kādācitkam of the house or the svarūpam of the
house? You know crow is kādācitka-dharmaḥ. Anityam-ityarthaḥ. So,
kādācitkam sat vyāvartakam. Vyāvartakam means that which specifies, that

which pinpoints. And what are the examples? The worldly example is kākavat-
grham Dēvadatta-grham. And what is the śāstriya-example? What is the
taṭastha-lakṣaṇam of Brahman? We say, jagat-kāraṇam Brahma. What is the
definition of Brahman? Brahman is that which is the cause of the universe. So,
you should know whether it is taṭastha-lakṣaṇam or svarūpa-lakṣaṇam? To
know that you should ask this question, ‘Whether the world is an intrinsic-
feature of Brahman or incidental-feature of Brahman?’ What is our answer? We
know that the world is only an incidental-feature, srṣṭēḥ pūrvam jagat nāsti,
pralayasya anantaram jagat nāsti; jñāna anantaram, vidēha-mukti anantaram
sarvadā nāsti. For a vidēha-mukta, world is permanently not there. And
therefore, world is only an incidental-feature of Brahman. And therefore, it is
taṭastha-lakṣaṇam of Brahman. And this second-sūtram is presenting the
taṭastha-lakṣaṇam of Brahman. Therefore, we can say, Brahma-taṭastha-
lakṣaṇa sūtram, dvitīya-sūtram.
Now I will come to the general meaning of the sūtram, the whole sūtram.
Word analysis I will do later. I will just give you the overall meaning of the
sūtram. What is the sūtram? Janmādyasya yataḥ. And this sūtram is
grammatically incomplete. Therefore, we have to supply two words to complete
the sūtram. Why can’t Vyāsācārya himself add those two words? Because
sūtram should be
अस्तोभमनवद्यञ्च सूत्ं सूत्नवदो नवदुः ॥ परािरोपपुरार्म् १८-१३-१४ ॥
astōbhamanavadyañca sūtraṁ sūtravidō viduḥ || parāśarōpapurāṇam 18-13-14 ||
Sūtram by definition should be as small as possible. And therefore, whatever

word can be revealed through implication Vyāsācārya will not write. Therefore,
it is our job to supply that and in saṁskrta, it is called adhyāhāraḥ. Adhyāhāraḥ
means supplying the words required to complete the sūtra grammatically. So,
in all sūtra-literature we will require heavy adhyāhāraḥ (fourth ध‌ dha). Whether
it is Pāṇini-sūtra or whether it is Sāṅkhya-sūtra, Yōga-sūtra, any sūtra literature

will involve adhyāhāraḥ, because he will not complete. But the context will help.

Just like saying, give him some cup of coffee. And I say, give me also one. When
I say, ‘Give me also one,’ by adhyāhāraḥ what do you know? One cup of coffee.
Therefore, the context will help in adhyāhāraḥ, therefore, there will be no
vagueness in the sūtra. Now, here what is the adhyāhāraḥ? ‘tat Brahma’ two
words we have to supply. Therefore, what is the final sentence? Janmādyasya
yataḥ, tat Brahma. In fact, you can supply one more word, bhavati. But in
saṁskrta, generally that bhavati is not added. But to be very clear even bhavati
can be added. Janmādyasya yataḥ, tat Brahma bhavati. What is the meaning of
this sentence? Brahman is that from which the origin etc., of the world takes
place. In simple saṁskrta, srṣṭyādi-kāraṇam. janma means srṣṭi. Srṣṭyādi-
kāraṇam-Brahma. And ‘etc’ means what? sthiti and laya. And therefore, the final
definition is jagat srṣṭi sthiti laya kāraṇam Brahma; Brahman is that from which
the origination, the existence and the resolution of this universe takes place.
Details in the next class.


018 Sutra 1.1.2 Janmādhyadhikaraṇam
I will first chant the sūtras, you can repeat after me.
We are now analyzing the second-sūtra. I am now doing a general

analysis of the sūtra. And I pointed out that this sūtra gives Brahma-lakṣaṇam;
or to be more specific, taṭastha-lakṣaṇam of Brahman. And this Brahma-
lakṣaṇam is given to establish the existence of Brahman, according to the rule
lakṣaṇa-pramāṇābhyām vastusiddhiḥ. Then I gave you the general meaning of
this sūtra. The sūtra consists of three words – janmādi, asya and yataḥ. To
complete the sūtra grammatically, we have to add two more words tat Brahma,
bhavati you can add or need not add also. The first word janmādi means janma
etc. and etc’ means sthiti and laya. Therefore, the final meaning of janmādi is
srṣṭi-sthiti-layāḥ, or to use Śaṅkarācārya’s expression ‘janma-sthiti-bhaṅgaṁ.’
bhaṅgam means layāḥ. So, the origin etc., which includes the existence and
resolution. The word asya means: of this. Vyāsācārya uses only a pronoun here.
And from the context, we should understand asya as asya jagataḥ – of this
universe, of this cosmos, of this world. And the word yataḥ means yasmāt
kāraṇāt – from which cause, tat Brahma – that is Brahman. Therefore, the final
meaning of this sūtra is Brahman is that cause, from which cause the origin etc.,
of the universe takes place. To put in simple language, jagat srṣṭi-sthiti-laya
kāraṇam Brahma. This is the general meaning of the whole sūtra. The word
analysis we will be doing later.
Before going to the word analysis, I would like to discuss two more points
in the general analysis itself. As I had said earlier, Brahma-sūtra is a Nyāya-
grantha, it is a textbook of logical-analysis. Therefore, every sūtram must

present a logical statement, a Nyāya vākyam, an anumāna vākyam. This sūtra

also must present a Nyāya - vākyam and anumāna-vākyam. What is that Nyāya-
vākyam derived through the second-sūtra? It is this, Brahma-asti, lakṣaṇa-
sattvāt dharmavat. Brahman is existence because there is lakṣaṇam for
Brahman just like dharma. Yatra yatra lakṣaṇa sattvaṁ, tatra tatra vastusiddhiḥ,
because lakṣaṇapramāṇābhyām vastu-siddhiḥ iti nyāyēna, yatra yatra lakṣaṇa
sattvam tatra tatra vastu-siddhiḥ, and therefore, Brahma asti lakṣaṇasattvāt
ghaṭavat. Once we prove the existence of Brahman through lakṣaṇam and
thereafterwards we can talk about enquiry into Brahman. Because Brahma-
siddhi is impossible without Brahma-vicāraḥ. So, the first sūtra talks about
Brahma-vicāraḥ, the second-sūtra talks about Brahma-siddhi. Brahmaṇaḥ
siddhatvāt Brahma vicāraḥ kartavyaḥ. This is the Nyāya-vākyam.
Now the next point I would like to discuss is the viṣaya-vākyam of this
sūtra. I had pointed out before that Brahma-sūtra is not an independent work
of Vyāsācārya. The Yōga-sūtrāṇi, Nyāya-sūtrāṇi, Vaiśēṣika-sūtrāṇi are the
product of the brain of an individual. Therefore, there are called pauruṣēya-
śāstrāṇi. Whereas Brahma-sūtra is not a product of Vyāsa’s brain, because it is
an analysis of Vēda-anta-vākyāni. Therefore, no idea is Vyāsācārya’s. He is only
analyzing the upaniṣad-vākyas. Therefore, when he writes any sūtra, he must
keep in mind some Vēdānta-vākyam even though he doesn’t explicitly mention
the statement in his mind. And that’s why problem also occurs because from
the sūtram, we have to presume what śruti-vākyam must be in Vyāsācārya’s
mind. And sometime different commentators get into different opinions also
with regard to viṣaya-vākyam. But fortunately, for us Śaṅkarācārya gives the
viṣaya-vākyam wherever it is there. And for the second-sūtra, the śruti
statement kept in mind is the statement occurring in the Bhrguvallī, i.e., the
third chapter of Taittirīya and in the Bhrguvallī the first mantra. That vākyam is –
यतो िा इमानि भूतानि जायन्द्ते । येि जातानि जीिनन्द्त । यत्प्रयन्द्त्यभभसंनिशनन्द्त । तनद्वद्धजज्ञासस्ि । तद्ब्रह्मेनत । ॥
तैभिरीयोपनिषत् ३-१-१ ॥
yatō vā imāni bhūtāni jāyantē | yēna jātāni jīvanti | yatprayantyabhisaṁviśanti |

tadvijijñāsasva | tadbrahmēti | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 3-1-1 ||

This Bhrguvallī vākyam is Brahma taṭastha-lakṣaṇa vākyam. yatō vā imāni

bhūtāni jāyantē means Brahman is srṣṭi kāraṇam, yēna jātāni jīvanti means
Brahman is sthiti kāraṇam, yatprayantyabhisaṁviśanti means Brahman is laya-
kāraṇam. Tadbrahma means jagat srṣṭi-sthiti-laya kāraṇam Brahma. So thus,
this is the viṣaya-vākyam of the second sūtra. With this I am concluding the
general analysis of the sūtra.
Word Analysis
Now I am going to the word analysis of this sūtra. We will take up the first
word, which is janmādi. This word itself is a compound-word consisting of two
words janma and ādi. In simple English, janma etc., or srṣṭi etc. And
Śaṅkarācārya points out that the etc includes two more phenomena, viz., sthiti
and laya. And therefore, it is a bahuvrīhi compound, which indicates srṣṭi-sthiti-
layam, of course, of this universe. Srṣṭi-sthiti-layam of this universe.
Now one pūrva-pakṣi comes and gives another suggestion, why can’t you
take this meaning? Śaṅkarācārya has interpreted janmādi as srṣṭi-sthiti-laya,
that means three phenomena with regard to the universe. Therefore, janmādi
refers to janmādi-trayam. According to Śaṅkarācārya’s interpretation janmādi
refers to janmādi-trayam, i.e., three phenomena with regard to the creation or
the universe.
Now this pūrva-pakṣi says that there is another book known as niruktam,
which is written by a great author called Yāska. Yāska muni praṇītam niruktam.
In that nirukta work, Yāska points out that every object in the creation goes
through six-fold phenomenon and he calls them ṣaḍbhāva-vikārāḥ. Bhāvaḥ
means padārthaḥ. vikāraḥ means change or state. Therefore, ṣaḍbhāva-vikārāḥ
means six conditions or six states or six modifications or six phenomena. And
after mentioning these six vikāras, Yāska Muni enumerates them. While
enumerating, he starts with janma. He says, jāyatē, asti, vardhatē,
vipariṇamatē, apakṣīyatē and vinaśyati. It appears as though you have heard
these words somewhere, do you feel familiar with these things, these are the

first lesson that we learnt in Tattva-bōdhaḥ, while dealing with the sthūla-
śarīram, we said
षड् नवकारवदे तत्िूलिरीरम् ॥ तत्त्वबोधः ३-१ ॥
ṣaḍvikāravadētatsthūlaśarīram | || tattvabōdhaḥ 3-1 ||
The only difference is in Tattva-bōdhaḥ we started asti, jāyatē but Yāska Muni in
his Nirukta grantha starts with jāyatē, asti. So, there the first one is janma.
Therefore, form that Nirukta we come to know that every object in the creation
goes through janmādi ṣaṭkam; ṣaṭkam means six changes or phenomenon. And
therefore, the suggestion of pūrva-pakṣi is, in the sūtra when Vyāsācārya writes
janmādi, Śaṅkarācārya takes as janmādi-trayam, so this pūrva-pakṣi suggests it
should be interpreted as janmādi-ṣaṭkam. Why do you take trayam? Why can’t
you take ṣaṭkam? Therefore, Brahman is janmādi ṣaṭka-kāraṇam not janmādi
traya-kāraṇam. This is the pūrva-pakṣi’s suggestion. I hope pūrva-pakṣaḥ is
clear. Otherwise siddhānta will have no impact.
Now, Śaṅkarācārya gives two answers for that. The first answer is this.
Yāska nirukta grantha, niruktam means a science of etymology, which deals
with derivation of vaidika words. While studying Muṇḍakōpaniṣat I have
discussed this word niruktam. Where does it come?
तत्रापरा ऋग्िेदोयजुिेदाः सामिेदोऽथिनिेदाः सशक्षा कल्पोव्याकरणं निरुक्तं छन्द्दोज्योनतषधमनत । ॥ मुण्डकोपनिषत् १-१-५ ॥

tatrāparā rgvēdōyajurVēdaḥ sāmavēdō’tharvaVēdaḥ śikṣā kalpōvyākaraṇaṁ niruktaṁ
chandōjyōtiṣamiti | || Muṇḍakōpaniṣat 1-1-5 ||
So, there we saw niruktam means the science, the śāstram of etymology or
derivation of vaidika words. And this book is written by Yāska Muni. There are
many nirukta works, but the most famous is Yāska praṇītam niruktam.
Śaṅkarācārya points out, after all Yāska is a human being. Therefore, niruktam
work is Pauruṣēyam or apauruṣēyam? Nirukta is a pauruṣēya-grantha. If he
discussing the modification, janmādi ṣaṭkam, he can talk about only the objects
within the creation. He cannot discuss the creation of the whole universe
because the human intellect does not have the access to study the jagat-
kāraṇam. Yāska cannot talk about the origin of ākāśa, because he himself has

come later than ākāśa. He cannot talk about vāyu-utpatti, agni-utpatti. In short,
he cannot talk about pañca-bhūta-utpatti at all; and therefore his discussion is
confined to bhautika-prapañca. Bhaudika-prapañca means the object obtaining
within the universe, like the human body, a tree, a wall, a building, a few things
within the creation. Therefore, the janmādi-ṣaṭkam that he deals with or that he
talks about deals with only bhaudika-prapañca, objects within the creation.
Whereas here we are discussing not about the bhaudika-prapañca but we are
talking about the whole cosmos, which includes not only bhaudika, but it also
talks about bhūta utpatti, why it talks about even dēśa kāla utpatti. And
therefore, since the context is samasta prapañcaḥ and since Yāska deals with
only a part of the universe; Yāska’s discussion is irrelevant here. So, since we
are discussing the bhūta-bhaudika-prapañca and since Yāska is discussing the
bhautika prapañca alone, Yāska’s statement is irrelevant in the discussion of
jagat-kāraṇam- Brahma. And for that pūrva-pakṣi gives an answer.
Why do you say Yāska’s work is pauruṣēya grantha? Why cannot you say
Yāska’s textbook is based on śruti-pramāṇam, it is a smrti grantha? If Nirukta is
taken as smrti-grantha then the advantage is even though it is pauruṣēyam, but
it gets the validity of apauruṣēya-grantha. Why? Because, it is not his intellectual
product but it is based on śruti-pramāṇam. Like Gītā. Gītā is pauruṣēyam or
apauruṣēyam? For that matter any smrti grantha is pauruṣēyam or
apauruṣēyam, if you ask, we say all smrti-granthas are pauruṣēya-granthas but
enjoying apauruṣēya status because they are based on śruti-pramāṇam.
श्रुतेररिाथनम् स्मृनतरन्द्िगच्छथ् ॥ रघुिंशम् २.२ ॥

śrutērivārtham smrtiranvagacchath || raghuvaṁśam 2.2 ||
So Kālidāsa makes a statement that smrti discusses the topic based on śruti and
therefore, smrti also must be given as much apauruṣēya-status as śruti.
Therefore, pūrva-pakṣi says that the janmādi-ṣaṭkam that is discussed by Yāska
can be taken as dealing with the entire cosmos. Because, even though he
cannot independently discuss the entire cosmos, he might have discussed it
based on śruti-pramāṇam and therefore, Yāska’s-vākyam is relevant for us. I
hope you are following. What was our statement? Yāska’s statement is dealing

with the partial-universe, because human intellect can deal with only partial-
universe. For that pūrva-pakṣaḥ says, Yāska can deal with the total-universe
because he is not using his intellect, he is depending upon Vēda-pramāṇam and
therefore, Yāska’s statement is valid; therefore, why can’t you take that
statement? And what is the advantage? If Yāska’s statement is taken, the
meaning of the janmādi will be not janmādi-trayam but janmādi-ṣaṭkam. This is
pūrva-pakṣi’s contention.
And for that Śaṅkarācārya gives the answer, ‘My dear, you say Yāska
vākyam is relevant, because it has got borrowed-validity. So, you want me to
depend upon Yāska-vākyam because it has got borrowed validity, whereas I
have commented upon this word depending on śruti-vākyam itself, which has
got original intrinsic-validity. So, I am commenting upon based on śruti-vākyam
which has got original-intrinsic-validity but you are asking me to write the
meaning based on the Yāska-vākyam which has got borrowed-validity. Tell me
is it better to depend upon Yāska-vākyam?, who himself is depending upon
śruti-vākyam or is it better to straightaway depend upon śruti-vākyam? You
want to depend upon Yāska and Yāska is depending upon śruti, instead of that,
why can’t you depend upon śruti-vākyam? And when you depend upon śruti,
śruti talks about janmādi-trayam only and śruti does not talk about janmādi-
ṣaṭkam. To show that he quotes from Taittirīya –
र्तो वा इमानन भूतानन जार्न्ते र्ेन जातानन जीव्न्त र्त्प्रर्न्त्र्क्षभसंनवि्न्त ॥ तैक्षिरीर्ोपननषत् ३-१-१ ॥
yatō vā imāni bhūtāni jāyantē (1) | yēna jātāni jīvanti (2) |

yatprayantyabhisaṁviśanti (3) | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 3-1-1 ||
where the upaniṣat talks about janmādi trayam – srṣṭi-sthiti-laya only. What are
they?
 yatō vā imāni bhūtāni jāyantē |

 yēna jātāni jīvanti |
 yatprayantyabhisaṁviśanti |

Therefore, the answer is Yāska does deals with only bhaudika-prapañca

and we are dealing with bhūta bhautika-prapañca and we deal with bhūta-
bhaudika-prapañca we should go to śruti and śruti talks about janmādi-trayam
and therefore, janmādi must be taken as janma-sthiti-bhaṅgam. Out of two
answers, this is the first answer to the pūrva-pakṣi.
The second answer is simple. Vyāsācārya has written the entire Brahma-
sūtra for analyzing Vēdānta-vākyams. That is the stated-purpose of
Brahmasūtra. The very stated-purpose of Brahma-sūtra is the analysis of
Brahmasūtra. And that is why Brahma-sūtras have got another name Vēdānta-
sūtrāṇi and it has got another name uttara-mīmāṁsā-sūtrāṇi. Thus, the very
name Vēdānta-sūtrāṇi, uttara-mīmāṁsā-sūtrāṇi indicate the stated purpose
that is the analyzing Vēdānta-vākyams. And therefore, when Vyāsa uses the
word janmādi you should give the meaning in keeping with Vēdānta-vākyam,
you should not go to Yāska’s Nirukta grantha or any other grantha. So, then if it
is the analysis of Yāska’s-statement, it will not be Vēdānta-sūtrāṇi, it will become
nirukta-sūtrāṇi. And therefore also, we should give the meaning in keeping with
Vēdānta-vākyam and Vēdānta-vākyam deals with janmādi trayam only and
therefore, janmādi is equal to srṣṭi-sthiti- bhaṅgam.
Then what about the ṣaḍ-vikāra? We, certainly, are ready to include the
ṣaḍ-vikāras also, but we will say the ṣaḍ-vikāras must be included in the three.
Therefore, the primary meaning of janmādi is srṣṭi-sthiti-laya and by
implication, the meaning is ṣaḍ-vikārāḥ. The primary meaning is srṣṭi-sthiti-
layam and by implication we include the other vikāras also. Vipariṇamatē is
there, apakṣīyatē is there, all these are included. So, with this the first pūrva-
pakṣi is answered.
Now comes the second pūrva-pakṣi. His argument is interesting. It is all

for chastening the intellect. You say in Vēdānta and in your śāstra that the srṣṭi
sthiti and laya are a cyclic process. You do not accept a linear-creation. That is a
creation beginning afresh and then a creation ending, you are not talking about
a linear-creation; which will create a lot of problems. The first problem is when
did all this begin? If this srṣṭi is because of pūrva-karma, that pūrva-karma is

because of its pūrva-karma and its pūrva-karma is because of its pūrva-karma,

you will immediately ask the question how did the first-karma come. And when
they ask the question, they have got triumphant-attitude also, advaiti is going
to be cornered now. So, with that triumphant-attitude they ask the question,
how did the first-jīva come, first-creation come. And how do we circumvent the
problem? By pointing out that it is a cyclic-process. janma to karma, karma to
janma, thus srṣṭi-sthiti-layam. And after layam what? Srṣṭi. Again, what? Sthiti.
Again, what? layam. And what is the pramāṇam for that? In the Gītā we have,
अव्यक्ताद्व्यक्तयाः सिानाः प्रभिन्द्त्यहरागमे ।

रात्र्यागमे प्रलीयन्द्ते तत्रैिाव्यक्तसञ्ज्ञके ॥ गीता ८-१८ ॥
avyaktādvyaktayaḥ sarvāḥ prabhavantyaharāgamē |
rātryāgamē pralīyantē tatraivāvyaktasañjñakē || Gītā 8-18 ||
अव्यक्तादीनि भूतानि व्यक्तमध्यानि भारत ।

अव्यक्तननधनान्र्ेव तत् का पिः रदे वना ॥ गीता २-२८ ॥
avyaktādīni bhūtāni vyaktamadhyāni bhārata |

avyaktanidhanānyēva tatra kā paridēvanā || Gītā 2-28 ||
All these indicate that srṣṭi-sthiti-layam will be followed by again srṣṭi-sthiti-

layam, it is a cyclic process. So, this is the quotation of ours cited by pūrva-
pakṣi’s.
And having quoted our statement he says, if srṣṭi-sthiti-laya is a cyclic-process

you cannot say which one is the beginning, because in a cycle you cannot talk
about this is the beginning-point, this is an end-point you cannot say. Because
the beginning-point of the cycle is an end-point also. So therefore, in cyclic-
process you cannot talk about a beginning. This being so, the pūrva-pakṣi’s
question is, how did Vyāsācārya say janma ādi asya jagataḥ? Because, the word
ādi, in saṁskrta, literally means beginning with. I gave you a secondary-
meaning ‘etc.’ ‘Etc’ is not the literal meaning. Ādi means begin with. Janma ādi
yasya tat janmādi. So, therefore, the translation should be ‘the three
phenomena of the universe beginning with janma’ is the statement. Now,
pūrva-pakṣi’s question is, how do you say, ‘Beginning with janma’, why can’t you

say ‘Beginning with sthiti’, why can’t you say ‘Beginning with laya’? So,
sthityādyasa yataḥ, layādyasya yataḥ; why do we say janmādyasya yataḥ?
Śaṅkarācārya gives two answers. One answer is this. Even though it is a

cyclic process and therefore, even though we cannot talk about a beginning in
these phenomena, our comprehension generally goes in a particular order. In
the events there is no order. But in our pratipatti, in our understanding there is
an order. How? If I have to talk about the destruction of something or death of
something, the topic of death presupposes the existence of that thing. Any
object in the creation, if I have to talk about the laya, it presupposes the sthiti,
because the existing-thing alone can have destruction or resolution and not a
non-existing thing. And if I have to talk about existence of something, that
existence presupposes the origin of a thing. So, the understanding of laya
presupposes the concept of sthiti and the understanding of sthiti presupposes
the concept of srṣṭi or origin. That’s why even in our common parlance also,
once a child is born, then we get the curiosity whether it is surviving or will die.
It can die or it can exist. So, once the child is born you can talk about the
existence of the child and once we talk about existence, after sometime we can
talk about the laya. And therefore, Śaṅkarācārya says, understanding
presupposes or requires this logical sequence. What is the logical sequence?
Srṣṭi came, is there, and gone. Svāmiji (Dayānanda) nicely puts, ‘Born, is, gone.’
‘Born’ srṣṭi; ‘is’ sthiti; ‘gone’ laya. Therefore, pratipatti-kramaḥ has been
presented by Vyāsācārya. The order of comprehension, understanding;
vyāvahārīka-drṣṭyā. This is the first answer. So, what is the conclusion? Janma
ādi only you should say and not sthiti-ādi or laya-ādi.
The second answer is this. He says, after all Vyāsācārya is writing a sūtra
keeping a śruti-vākyam in the mind. (We should never blame Vyāsācārya for
anything. Because his aim is analysis of Vēdānta or upaniṣat vākyam.) When he
is writing sūtra, he is keeping the śruti-vākyam. Even though there is no order in
srṣṭi-sthiti-laya, because, it is a cyclic-process, śruti gives a particular order.
Therefore, choice of the order is not Vyāsācārya’s, therefore, don’t blame him;
the choice of the order is śruti’s. Therefore, don’t fight with Vyāsa, if at all you

want to fight, fight with the author of the śruti. who is the author of the śruti?
Either you say, no author or you say, God. So, interview God. And ask, Oh Lord!
why did you say –
यतो िा इमानि भूतानि जायन्द्ते ।

yatō vā imāni bhūtāni jāyantē |
Why can’t you start with –
येि जातानि जीिनन्द्त ।

yēna jātāni jīvanti |
Or why can’t you start with –
यत्प्रयन्द्त्यभभसंनिशनन्द्त ।
yatprayantyabhisaṁviśanti |
śruti does not start like that. I am a humble, obedient-follower of the śruti and
śruti gives janmādi, janma as the beginning. Therefore, Vyāsācārya says,
janmādi asya yataḥ. And not only Vyāsācārya, you will find anywhere the
scriptures talk about the three phenomena, they maintain this order. If you go
to Bhagavadgītā –
भिाप्ययौ नह भूतािां श्रुतौ निस्तरशो मया।

त्विः कमलपत्ाि मारात्म्र्मनप चाव्यर्म् ॥ गीता ११-२ ॥
bhavāpyayau hi bhūtānāṁ śrutau vistaraśō mayā|

tvattaḥ kamalapatrākṣa māhātmyamapi cāvyayam || Gītā 11-2 ||
bhava api ayau hi bhūtānām. bhavaḥ means janma, ayaḥ means layaḥ. In Gītā
also that is the order. And the Bhāgavatam begins with a dhyāna-ślōka and in
that dhyāna-ślōka –
जन्द्माद्यस्य यतोऽन्द्ियाददतरतश्चाथेष्िभभज्ञाः स्िराट् तेिे ब्रह्म हृदा य आददकिये मुह्यनन्द्त यत्सूरयाः । तेजोिाररमृदां यथा
निनिमयो यत्र नत्रसगोऽमृषा िाम्िा स्िेि सदा निरस्तकुहकं सत्यं परं िीमनह ॥ श्रीमद्भागितम् १-१-१ ॥
janmādyasya yatō’nvayāditarataścārthēṣvabhijñaḥ svarāṭ tēnē Brahma hrdā ya ādikavayē
muhyanti yatsūrayaḥ | tējōvārimrdāṁ yathā vinimayō yatra trisargō’mrṣā dhāmnā svēna
sadā nirastakuhakaṁ satyaṁ paraṁ dhīmahi || śrīmadbhāgavatam 1-1-1 ||
िमनाः प्रोस्थज्ितकैतिोऽत्र परमो निमनत्सराणां सतां. .. ॥ श्रीमद्भागितम् १-१-२ ॥

dharmaḥ prōjjhitakaitavō’tra paramō nirmatsarāṇāṁ satāṁ... || śrīmadbhāgavatam 1-1-2 ||

etc. Bhāgavatam deals with Brahman and dharma. And what is Brahman?
Janmādyasya yataḥ. And if you go to Kamba Rāmāyaṇa –
உலகம் யாவவயும் தாம் உள ஆக்கலும்

நிவல பெறுத்தலும் நீக்கலும் நீங்கலா … ॥1 ॥
ulagam yāvaiyum tām uḷa ākkalūm

nilai pēṟuttalum nīkkalum nīṅgalā … || Kamba Rāmāyaṇam 1 ||
uḷa ākkalūm, nilai pēṟuttalum and nīkkalum. What is the order? ula ākkalūm –
janma, nilai pēṟuttalum – sthiti, nīkkalum – laya. Therefore, all the śruti, smrti,
purāṇa and itihāsa granthas talk about janma alone as the beginning. And
therefore, janmādi alone is correct. So, with this the analysis of the word
janmādi is over.
Now we will come to the word asya. The word asya is a simple pronoun,
which means ‘of this’. The srṣṭi-sthiti-layam of this. And Vyāsācārya does not say
what do you mean by this? Because a pronoun can stand for any noun. And
since Vyāsācārya has not specified a particular noun, we should include all
nouns in the pronoun. And therefore, asya means sarvasya-jagataḥ,
samastasya-jagataḥ. And Vyāsācārya has used the pronoun ‘this’ and not ‘that’.
According to grammar, the pronoun ‘this’ is used for something which is
available in front, if it is not accessible in front he would have used the pronoun
‘that’. And therefore, this indicates pratyakṣa-gōcarasya.
इदमस्तु सधन्नकृष्टं समीपतरिरतत चैतदो रूपम् ।

अदसस्तु निप्रकृष्टं तददनत परोक्षे निजािीयात् ॥
idamastu sannikrṣṭaṁ samīpataravarti caitadō rūpam |
adasastu viprakrṣṭaṁ taditi parōkṣē vijānīyāt ||
is the rule regarding pronoun. Taditi parōkṣē vijānīyāt whereas idamastu

sannikrṣṭam, indriya-sannikrṣṭam, pratyakṣa gōcaram ityarthaḥ. Tasmāt
‘pratyakṣādisannidhāpitasya dharmiṇa idamā nirdēśaḥ’ thus Śaṅkarācārya
writes. Therefore, the final meaning is asya means of this pratyakṣa-prapañca.
so, this ṣaṣṭī, the sixth case of this should be connected with the previous word
srṣṭi-sthiti-laya. And therefore, combining these two words we get the meaning

pratyakṣa-prapañcasya srṣṭi-sthiti-layāḥ. In English, ‘The origin etc., of this

visible, objectifiable universe takes place because of which cause that cause is
Brahman.’ With this, the meaning of the word ‘asya’ we have seen.
Now, we have to go to the third word, i.e., yataḥ. Śaṅkarācārya gives

yataḥ means yasmāt kāraṇāt – from/because of which cause all these takes
place. ‘All these’ means pratyakṣa-prapañca-srṣṭi pratyakṣa-prapañca-sthiti

pratyakṣa-prapañca-layaśca yasmāt kāraṇāt sambhavati tad Brahma. So, yataḥ
means kāraṇāt. Now, the question comes, ‘Which kāraṇam the śruti is referring
to?’ Because, we know or we should know, that the kāraṇam is twofold –
nimitta-kāraṇam and upādāna-kāraṇam, the intelligent-cause and the material-
cause. Or to use Svāmiji’s expression, ‘the maker and the material’. The Maker is
called nimitta-kāraṇam, the Material is called upādāna-kāraṇam, both these are
required for any kāryam to take place. Directly we can come to one conclusion.
That is, since Vyāsācārya is talking about srṣṭi-sthiti-laya-kāraṇam, we can say
directly the word kāraṇam refers to upādāna-kāraṇam. I will explain it later. I
am just making the statements. Since we are referring to srṣṭi-sthiti-laya, the
word kāraṇam must immediately refer to upādāna-kāraṇam. What is the
reason? All these you know. I am not supposed to explain. But still I will just
remind you.
You will find that nimitta-kāraṇam or the intelligent cause is responsible

only for the origination or a creation of a thing. The nimitta-kāraṇam is not
responsible for the existence and resolution. Kulālaḥ ghaṭa srṣṭi-mātra kāraṇam
bhavati, kulālaḥ ghaṭasya sthiti kāraṇam na bhavati. yadi kulālaḥ ghaṭasya sthiti
kāraṇam api bhavati tarhi kim sambhavēt? Tarhi ghaṭēna saha kulālasyāpi
apēkṣā bhavati. Kulālam vinā ghaṭaḥ naiva tiṣṭhēt. Tarhi ēkaika ghaṭēna saha
kulālaḥ api āgacchēt. Therefore, if kulālaḥ, the potter is responsible for the
existence of the pot also or the survival of the pot also, then for the pot to
survive you will have to bring kulālaḥ. How many materials you bring?
Therefore, along with every material you will have to bring the maker also.
Therefore, nimitta-kāraṇam is defined as srṣṭi-mātra-kāraṇam whereas
upādāna-kāraṇam, the material-cause is defined as srṣṭi-sthiti-laya kāraṇam.

And therefore, the primary-meaning of yataḥ is upādāna-kāraṇam. Details in

the next class.


Now we are doing the word-analysis of the second-sūtra. The second-

sūtra consists of three words, janmādi asya yataḥ and we have to supply two
words tad Brahma. Of these five words, we have seen the first two words.
janmādi means origin etc. And we saw the word ‘etc’ means here existence and
resolution. Therefore, the final meaning of janmādi is srṣṭi-sthiti-layāḥ. Or to
use Ācārya’s expression janma-sthiti-bhaṅgam. Instead of using the word layaḥ
Ācārya uses the word bhaṅgam, so that the gender will be in agreement.
janmādi is napuṁsaka liṅgam and Śaṅkarācārya wants to use a napuṁsaka
liṅga. Samāhāra-dvandva-samāsa. Therefore, he uses the word janma-sthiti-
bhaṅgam. Then we saw the word asya literally means of this and in this context,
this refers to the entire universe, pratyakṣa-prapañcasya. And for the sake of
anvaya, convenience we have to reverse the order janmādi asya should be read
as asya janmādi pratyakṣa-prapañcasya srṣṭi-sthiti-layāḥ. And then the third
word is yataḥ, that alone we are analyzing now. I pointed out the word yataḥ
Śaṅkarācārya comments as yasmāt kāraṇāt – from which cause, and that is
Brahman. Brahman is that from which cause takes place the creation, the
existence and the resolution of this pratyakṣa-prapañca. And when you say
Brahman is kāraṇam, naturally the question comes, is It nimitta-kāraṇam or
upādāna-kāraṇam, which is referred to here? In the last class, I pointed out the
difference between nimitta-kāraṇam or upādāna-kāraṇam, the difference
between the Maker and the Material. What is the difference? srṣṭi-mātra
kāraṇam nimitta-kāraṇam. Of course, normally or generally, nimitta-kāraṇam is
responsible for the creation but the maintenance and destruction nimitta-
kāraṇam is not responsible for. The pot-maker creates the pot but he is not
responsible for its maintenance. Carpenter creates the desk but he is not

responsible for its maintenance. And therefore, intelligent cause is defined as

srṣṭi-mātra-kāraṇam. Whereas material-cause is defined as srṣṭi-sthiti-laya-
kāraṇam. Because out of the material alone, the product comes and because of
the material alone, the product exists and unto the material alone, the product
resolves. So therefore, upādāna-kāraṇam is defined as srṣṭi-sthiti-laya-kāraṇam.
Here, we are talking about, in this particular sūtra, srṣṭi-mātram or srṣṭi-sthiti-
layam? The word janmādi refers to srṣṭi, sthiti and laya and therefore, the word
yataḥ refers to srṣṭi-sthiti-laya-kāraṇam. Therefore, primarily the word yataḥ
conveys the upādāna-kāraṇam. So, yasmāt upādāna-kāraṇāt pratyakṣa-
prapañcasya srṣṭi-sthiti-layāḥ saṁbhavanti tad upādāna-kāraṇam Brahma. So
thus, the primary meaning of the word yataḥ is upādāna-kāraṇam. Then later
on enquiry we find that the jagat-kāraṇam is and has to be only one. The jagat
cannot have two kāraṇams. In the case of worldly-objects or products, we can
afford to have a separate nimitta-kāraṇam and a separate upādāna-kāraṇam,
like pot-maker and clay, but we are talking about the cause of the entire-
universe, which includes even dēśa and kāla. Therefore, we are talking about a
kāraṇam, which is beyond even dēśa-kāla and which is the creator of even dēśa-
kāla.
मायाकस्थल्पतदे शकालकलिािैसचत्र्यसचत्रीकृतम् । ॥ श्री दभक्षणामूरतत स्तोत्रम् २ ॥

māyākalpitadēśa-kāla kalanāvaicitryacitrīkrtam | || śrī dakṣiṇāmūrti stōtram 2 ||
So, if we are talking about that cause which beyond even dēśa-kāla, that
kāraṇam should be what? ēkam ēva advitīyam, It has to be one only. If it has to
be one, then we can say It should itself serve as upādāna-kāraṇam, since there
is no second thing, It should itself serve as nimitta-kāraṇam ca. Dvitīyasya
abhāvāt na kēvalam Brahma upādāna-kāraṇam parantu Brahmaiva nimitta-
kāraṇam api bhavitum arhati. So, therefore, the second-meaning of the word
yataḥ is nimitta-kāraṇam ca. The direct, primary meaning of the word yataḥ is
upādāna-kāraṇāt and since there is no separate nimitta-kāraṇam, we have to
include nimitta-kāraṇam ca. Therefore, the final meaning of the word yataḥ is
abhinna-nimitta-upādāna-kāraṇāt. You should remember:
यथोणनिाभभाः सृजतेगृह्णतेच. .. ॥ मुण्डकोपनिषत् १-१-७ ॥

yathōrṇanābhiḥ srjatēgrhṇatēca... || Muṇḍakōpaniṣat 1-1-7 ||

Therefore, the final meaning of the word yataḥ is ‘From which the material and
the intelligent-cause the world has srṣṭi-sthiti-layam that abhinna-nimitta-
upādāna-kāraṇam is Brahman.’ In saṁskrta, yasmāt abhinna-nimitta-upādāna-
kāraṇāt adya pratyakṣa-prapañcasya srṣṭi-sthiti-layāḥ saṁbhavanti tad abhinna-
nimitta-upādāna-kāraṇam Brahma.
O.K. One more step. Now, in the definition, Brahman is that from which
the srṣṭi-sthiti-laya takes place. In that definition the śruti uses the word –
र्तो वा इमानन भूतानन जार्न्ते र्ेन जातानन जीव्न्त र्त्प्रर्न्त्र्क्षभसंनवि्न्त तद्ब्रह्म. ..
yatō vā imāni bhūtāni jāyantē | yēna jātāni jīvanti | yatprayantyabhisaṁviśanti |

tadbrahma... |
So that from which srṣṭi takes place, that from which sthiti takes place, that
because of which laya takes place, the upaniṣat uses the pronoun ‘that from
which’ but the upaniṣat does not say what that is. That is homework for Bhrgu.
You should remember the context in which the definition was given. Bhrgu, the
son of Varuṇa, approached his father Varuṇa and asked for this teaching.
Varuṇa did not want to give the complete teaching, he just says that ‘X’
(unknown factor) from which srṣṭi-sthiti-layam takes place that is Brahman. You
find out what that ‘X’ is. That means he gave only taṭastha-lakṣaṇam, he did not
give svarūpa-lakṣaṇam. By using the word yataḥ, he gave only taṭastha-
lakṣaṇam but what is that ‘X’ he didn’t say. That was left for the śiṣya to enquire
and find out. And Bhrgu was an intelligent-śiṣya, like us (or unlike us; I don’t
know, you append it). And therefore,
अन्नं ब्रह्मेनत व्यजािात् ।

annaṁ brahmēti vyajānāt |
then,
प्राणो ब्रह्मेनत व्यजािात् ।

prāṇō brahmēti vyajānāt |

He is substituting that ‘X’. He says, whether annam can be srṣṭi-sthiti-laya

kāraṇam, whether prāṇa can be srṣṭi-sthiti-laya kāraṇam, whether manas can
be, vijñāna can be etc., he enquires. Where does this enquiry culminate? Finally,
Bhrgu discovers
आ॒न॒न्दो ब्र॒ह्मने त॒ व्य॑जानात् आ॒नन्दा॒ध्र्े॑व खस्थपव॒मानन॒ भूता॑नन॒ जार्॑न्ते आ॒न॒न्दे न॒ जाता॑नन॒ जीव्॑न्त आ॒न॒न्दं
॒ े व्यो॑म॒न्प्रनत॑मिता ॥ तैक्षिरीर्ोपननषत् ३-६-१ ॥
प्रर्॑न्त्र्॒क्षभसंनव॑ि॒न्तीनत॑ सैषा भा॑गय॒वी वा॑रु॒र्ी नव॒द्या प॒रम
ānandō brahmēti vyajānāt | ānandādhyēva khalvimāni bhūtāni jāyantē | ānandēna jātāni

jīvanti | ānandaṁ prayantyabhisaṁviśantīti | saiṣā bhārgavī vāruṇī vidyā | paramē
vyōmanpratiṣṭhitā | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 3-6-1 ||
Therefore, finally he discovers that ‘X’ factor, because of which srṣṭi-sthiti-laya

takes place, that ‘X’ is ānanda-svarūpam Brahma. Therefore, the word yataḥ in
this definition refers to what?; ānanda-svarūpam Brahma, which is the svarūpa-
lakṣaṇam of Brahman. Jagat-kāraṇatvam is the taṭastha-lakṣaṇam of Brahman.
Ānandaḥ is the svarūpa-lakṣaṇam of Brahman.
नवज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म ॥ बृरदारण्र्कोपननषत् ३-९-२८ ॥
vijñānamānandaṁ Brahma || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 3-9-28 ||
बृहदारण्यक श्रुतेाः.
आ॒ि॒न्द्दो ब्र॒ह्मेनत॒ व्या॑जािात् । ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् ३-६-१ ॥
Brhadāraṇyaka śrutēḥ.
ānandō brahmēti vyajānāt | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 3-6-1 ||
iti Taittirīya śrutēśca. And therefore, the word yataḥ further means ānanda-
svarūpam. So now, we have seen three meanings for the word yataḥ.
 First we said, yataḥ refers to upādāna-kāraṇam.

 Next we said, yataḥ refers to nimitta-kāraṇam.
 Now finally we are adding yataḥ means ānanda-svarūpam ca.
So therefore, now restudy the sūtra.
यस्मात् अभभन्ननिधमिउपादािकारणात् आिन्द्द स्िरूपात् प्रत्यक्षप्रपञ्चस्य सृधष्टस्थस्थनतलयााः संभिनन्द्त तद्

अभभन्ननिधमिउपादािकारणम् आिन्द्द स्िरूपम् ब्रह्म भिनत |

yasmāt prapañcasca abhinna-nimitta-upādāna-kāraṇāt ānanda svarūpāt pratyakṣa-

prapañcasya srṣṭi-sthiti-layāḥ saṁbhavanti tad abhinna-nimitta-upādāna-kāraṇam ānanda
svarūpam Brahma bhavati.
So therefore, the word yataḥ refers to abhinna-nimitta-upādāna-

kāraṇam, which is taṭastha-lakṣaṇam and ānanda-svarūpam, which is svarūpa-
lakṣaṇam. Thus, the word yataḥ reveals both taṭastha-lakṣaṇam and svarūpa-
lakṣaṇam of Brahman. But primarily it is taṭastha-lakṣaṇam and indirectly
svarūpa-lakṣaṇam also. And therefore, this sūtra is called Brahma-lakṣaṇa
sūtram. Which lakṣaṇa sūtram? Taṭastha-svarūpa-dvaya lakṣaṇa sūtram iti. With
this, we conclude the analysis of the word yataḥ.
Now there are two more words left, of course not written by Vyāsācārya,
we have supplied two more words tad Brahma – that is Brahman. And here
Śaṅkarācārya adds one more feature of Brahman. We have already seen three
features. Upādāna-kāraṇam, nimitta-kāraṇam and ānanda-svarūpam. Now,
Śaṅkarācārya arrives at one more feature. What is that? It is based on this idea
that once we know the intelligent-cause, then the amount of intelligence can be
inferred from the nature of the product. The more greater the product is the
more intelligent must be the creator. That’s why in the scientific and
technological fields also, when better and better instruments are created we
appreciate the intelligence of the creator. From seeing the nature of the
children, generally, people talk out, ‘Whose child is this?’ And similarly, from the
nature of śiṣyas, whether you like or not, they will ask, ‘Who is his/her guru?’
Therefore I am proud of all of you. . It is nice to say that I am the teacher of all
of you. Therefore, this is a general thing; as the product is, so must be the
producer or his intelligence.
Now, Śaṅkarācārya says, if you see the nature of the world and its
greatness, its wonders, its vibhūti, then, you can definitely conclude that Īśvara
is sarvajñaḥ and sarva-śaktimān. Īśvara means Brahman. That Brahman, the
jagat-kāraṇam is sarvajñaḥ and sarva-śaktimān. Incidentally remember, when
Brahman is seen as the kāraṇam he gets the name Īśvaraḥ and therefore, we
are in this context indiscriminately using the word Brahman and Īśvara,
because the discussion is kāraṇatvam. To establish the sarvajñatvam and

sarvēśvaratvam, Śaṅkarācārya talks about the glory of this universe by giving

four adjectives in his commentary. It is a very beautiful statement he makes
there.
अस्य जगतो िामरूपाभ्यां व्याकृतस्य अिेककतृनभोक्तृसंयुक्तस्य

प्रनतनियतदे शकालनिधमिनक्रयाफलाश्रयस्यमिसाप्यसचन्द्त्यरचिारूपस्य जन्द्मस्थस्थनतभङ्गं यताः सिनज्ञात्सिनशक्तेाः
कारणाद्भिनत, तद्ब्रह्मेनत िाक्प्यशेषाः ।
asya jagatō nāmarūpābhyāṁ vyākrtasya anēkakartrbhōktrsaṁyuktasya pratiniyatadēśa-kāla
nimittakriyāphalāśrayasya manasāpyacintyaracanārūpasya janmasthitibhaṅgaṁ yataḥ
sarvajñātsarvaśaktēḥ kāraṇādbhavati, tadbrahmēti vākyaśēṣaḥ |
So, what type of universe it is? Nāma-rūpābhyāṁ-vyākrtasya – it’s a well-

designed universe. Which means it cannot be an accidental one. You cannot
explain it away as a simple evolution, which accidentally took place. Natural
selection of species, Darwinism and all don’t place here. If you have to design a
simple cloth so much intelligence is required, how can you say it is accidental?
As somebody said, that suppose you take the best works of Shakespeare and
you show that; nobody, in this generation, has seen Shakespeare. Then
somebody says, this work was not created by anyone. It just came by itself.
Then how did it come? In a huge printing-press, there was a big-bang
explosion. Then what happened? All the letters of alphabets got thrown out in
the explosion. And they all have to fall. And when the letters all fell, accidentally
it got arranged and that is this work. When you will not be able to accept this
with regard to an ordinary work of a human being, how can you say the whole
cosmos and its laws and all of them accidentally evolved? Therefore, nāma-
rūpābhyāṁ vyākrtasya, it’s a well-designed universe, therefore, it should have a
cētanā-kartā, an intelligent-being is required we come to know.
Then he uses the second adjective, anēka-kartr-bhōktr-saṁyuktasya – this

universe consists of countless jīvas who are kartās and bhōktās. From this
Śaṅkarācārya indicates that the jīvas themselves fall within the creation as a
product and therefore the producer must be a non-jīva. Since, jīva comes within
the product, the creator must be a non-jīva and therefore, jīva-bhinnatvam is
indicated. So, there is an intelligent-creator and that intelligent-creator is
different from jīvas, because jīva falls within the created thing. And not only He

is jīva-bhinnaḥ, He must be omniscient, because prati-niyata-dēśa-kāla nimitta-

kriyā-phala-āśrayasya – we find there is any accident in the creation, every event
is an incident caused by specific time, specific place and specific reason. And
that is why the world is not a chaos but it is a cosmos. Because every event
depends upon what? Pratiniyata, pratiniyata means specific; specific-dēśa,
specific-kāla and specific-nimitta – reason is there. So, what we say accident is
actually an incident for which we do not know the reason. What we call an
accident is not at all an accident; it is an incident for which we do not know the
reason. And therefore, if you take countless number of jīvas, every jīva is going
through a series of experiences and every experience is caused by what? Dēśa,
kāla, nimitta. My second experience is based on dēśa-kāla-nimitta, third
experience dēśa, kāla, nimitta. So thus, every jīva has countless-experiences and
there are countless jīvas going through countless-experiences. Imagine the
amount of knowledge required to run this master-show in keeping with dēśa-
kāla-nimitta. Can an ordinary computer do that? It requires infinite intelligence,
sarvajñatvam.
And not only that, we find, there are certain events, which are common to
many jīvas, that Bhagavān has to design that event in such a way that one and
the same event should give puṇya phalaṁ to certain people and the same
event should give pāpa-phalaṁ to another jīva. Therefore, I give the example of
our class itself. Suppose at the end of the class, somebody says it was a thrilling
experience, it was wonderful, I liked it, I enjoyed from beginning to end, you are
exhausting your puṇya. But suppose somebody has come as a friend of a
student. (sometimes what students does is, if some guests come to their house,
they think it is not a courtesy to leave them alone in the house, so they bring
them also to the class) And therefore, imagine, a person who doesn’t know
anything of Gītā, Upaniṣat, Tattva-bōdha and as a friend he comes and sits in
front also {had he be sitting behind, he could have get up and go silently} but
he sits at the front and for one hour it is pāpa-phala-kṣayaḥ. You can save
yourself next time but this time you have to go through it. And another person
said, one lady has come from some other country, just wanted to come to me
and then got trapped in the class. It was some upaniṣat class and it was so dry

and she slept. She was very open, she did not try to secretly sleep and all, she
nicely slept. Then at the end she said, ‘Svāmiji, I have not enjoyed sleep like this
in any other place. I have to take the tablet to sleep, now without tablet I
enjoyed the sleep.’ Remember sleep also is because of some puṇya. At least
some pāpa-pratibandha is not there. Anyway, class event remaining the same,
Bhagavān manages in such a way that some people puṇyam and some people
pāpam are exhausted. Similarly, imagine in one family a handicapped-child is
born and he has got wonderful rich parents, loving parents who take care of the
child very well. Now, the event remaining the same, for the parents it may be a
painful-thing because they have to take care of the child, he is not alright. They
are exhausting one type of karma, but at the same time as per as the child is
concerned, even though it is handicapped, there also there is some puṇyam to
get wonderful parents. Therefore, is it puṇyam or pāpam? From one standpoint
puṇyam it is and from another standpoint pāpam it is. And within the puṇyam
also there is gradation. One student enjoys solo and another student says, it
was wonderful. Therefore, even in that puṇyam one unit of puṇyam,
ते ये शतं मिुष्यगन्धिानणामािन्द्दााः ।. .. ते ये शतं दे िगन्धिानणामािन्द्दााः । ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् २-२-१ ॥

tē yē śataṁ manuṣyagandharvāṇāmānandāḥ |... tē yē śataṁ dēvagandharvāṇāmānandāḥ |
|| Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-2-1 ||
etc, as we say. So, what a design? Every event is designed according to the
karma-phalaṁ of not one jīva, not two jīvas but countless number of jīvas. And
remember we are taking into account human beings only; Lord has to take into
account even the mosquito. If mosquito is biting you it may your pāpam to
exhaustion but remember it is mosquito’s puṇyam, it has got the prārabdha to
survive on your blood! So therefore, prati-niyata-dēśa-kāla nimitta-kriyā-phala-
āśrayasya means it is a masterly-creation, which can be done by only sarvajñaḥ.
So, first adjective through there is cētanā-kartā, second adjective through that it
is jīva-bhinnaḥ, third adjective through that it is sarvajñaḥ. Then the Ācārya uses
the fourth adjective. Manasāpi acintya-racanā-rūpasya, that is a scientist can
know how the brain functions, but he cannot create a brain. Therefore, even if
we know the functioning of many things in the creation we have only the
knowledge of it but we don’t have the power to create one. And that is why,

when certain organs are damaged we only know it doesn’t function but we are
not able to reproduce a pancreas, reproduce a liver, and reproduce a heart. And
therefore, not only the Lord has the omniscience; the Lord has omnipotence
also to implement the knowledge. Science and technology as they call it, He has
got enough power to produce such a creation, which is for us is inconceivable.
Such things Bhagavān creates. There are ants we can see and we can destroy,
but to produce an ant we don’t have power. When I read in the newspaper for
the first time test-tube baby, then I thought, my God!, the scientists have
become god. I was a school student at that time, I have seen in the chemistry
laboratory and all they put silver nitrate, sodium chloride and all those things
when you do precipitate comes. Therefore, I thought when the test-tube baby I
read I thought they will take various laboratory chemicals and mix them all and
the precipitate is Mr. Nārāyaṇasvāmi. Then later they write in small letters, test-
tube baby is written in big letters, and then they say you have to take from male
and female, the egg and sperm, and then this lab. That who created? You
cannot create. Similarly, they talked about producing rain. I thought it is
another laboratory thing they will add so many chemicals and then rain will
come. Then they write in small letters ‘when there are clouds.’ I am not belittling
scientific achievement, certainly we have to admire the science, therefore, in the
context were the science has to be admired, I will admire. But now the present
context is not the admiration of the science, the present context is talking about
the limitation of science. When there are clouds, and that too what, not any
clouds but rain-bearing-clouds then they put this costly Silver Iodide, solid
Carbon Dioxide (dry ice) or even finely powdered Sodium Chloride and then it
will get condensed and instead of pouring into the ocean it will pour here.
Therefore, many things, which are inconceivable, Bhagavān implements and
therefore, who is Bhagavān?
सिनज्ञाः सिनशसक्तमाि् ईश्वराः. तस्मात् ब्रह्म सिनज्ञात्सिनशक्तेाः सिनकारणत्िात् व्यनतरेकेण घटित्, कुलालित्. So, ब्रह्म i s
सिनज्ञम् सिनशसक्त,
sarvajñaḥ sarvaśaktimān Īśvarḥ. Tasmāt Brahma sarvajñāt sarvaśaktēḥ sarvakāraṇatvāt
vyatirēkēṇa ghaṭavat, kulālavat.

So, Brahma is sarvajñam sarvaśakti, why? Sarvakāraṇatvāt vyatirēkēṇa

kulālavat. So, this alone Svāmiji nicely says, ghaṭasya kartā, ghaṭajñaḥ, paṭasya
kartā, paṭajñaḥ, sarvasya kartā, sarvajñaḥ, sarvaśakti ca.
Now, what is the fourth feature? Sarvajñaḥ sarvaśaktimān. This is the final
meaning of the sūtra. Yasmāt abhinna-nimitta-upādāna-kāraṇāt, ānanda
svarūpāt sarvajñāt-sarvaśaktāt prapañcasya srṣṭi-sthiti-layāḥ saṁbhavanti tad
Brahma. With this Śaṅkarācārya concludes his commentary on the second
sūtra.
Then after the conclusion, he enters into another discussion by introducing a

pūrva-pakṣaḥ, who is from Naiyāyika pūrva-pakṣaḥ. Since this discussion is
important and useful, I thought I will discuss that also.
Ok, now let us go back to what we have seen already. In the first sūtra it was
said, we have to do Brahman enquiry. Then, we said that Brahman can be
enquired into only if you establish that there is something called Brahman. And
to establish Brahman we said lakṣaṇa-pramāṇābhyām vastusiddhiḥ. Something
is established only when you give its lakṣaṇam, definition and also pramāṇam,
the means of knowing that. All these things I have said before, so I won’t repeat
them again.
My assumption is that every time, you are coming to the class, you are coming
after revising the previous portion. If you are not doing that, the benefit that
you will get will be far less; I don’t say no benefit, but the benefit will be far less.
If you revise, you can enjoy every statement, every moment. I had said lakṣaṇa-
pramāṇābhyām vastusiddhiḥ. Then I said, the second sūtra gives Brahma-
lakṣaṇam and the third sūtra presents Brahma-pramāṇam, the means of
knowing. In the third sūtra it is said, the pramāṇam for Brahman or pramāṇam
for jagat-kāraṇam is śāstram. śāstrayōnittvāt, śāstra-pramāṇakattvāt
Brahmaṇaḥ. This is what we have said – the second sūtra is lakṣaṇam for jagat-
kāraṇam-Brahma and the third sūtra is pramāṇam.

Now, Naiyāyika is giving a suggestion, which we are going to refute. What is his
suggestion? He says why we can’t take the second sūtra itself as a pramāṇam
for Brahman also. What do we say? The second-sūtra is only lakṣaṇam, it does
not deal with pramāṇam. Now, the Naiyāyika says, the second-sūtra gives the
pramāṇam for Brahman also. He explains that further. What is his explanation?
He says the second-sūtra defines Brahman or Īśvara as jagat-kāraṇam. Then
what jagat or the world? It is very simple. If Daśaratha is Rāma’s father, Rāma is
Daśaratha’s son. You don’t require a PhD for that. Anybody can say. If Brahman
or Īśvara is the kāraṇam of the world, then the world is kāryam of Brahman.
jagat kāryam, Īśvaraḥ kāraṇam.
Now, Naiyāyika says, since Īśvara (instead of Brahman I am using the

word Īśvaraḥ, because Naiyāyika replaces the word Brahman by Īśvara,
therefore, hereafterwards I will be using the word Īśvaraḥ in the place of
Brahman) is the kāraṇam, world is kāryam. The invisible Īśvara can be inferred
from the visible world. Like what? An invisible-father, who is in America, can be
inferred from the visible solid son, who is in front of me. Invisible-root can be
inferred from the visible tree. Invisible fire can be inferred from the visible
smoke. Similarly, invisible-kāraṇa-Īśvaraḥ can be inferred from the visible-kārya-
prapañca. Therefore, what is pramāṇam for Īśvara? He says, anumānam is the
pramāṇam for Īśvara. This anumānam is popularly known in tarka-śāstra as
kārya-liṅgaka- anumānam – the inference of kāraṇam from kāryam. Therefore,
his conclusion is śāstram is not required for proving Īśvara, logic itself can
prove Īśvara. So, put in practical language, the final idea is Īśvara can be
established through reasoning. This is the contention of tārkīka. And that
reasoning is called kārya-liṅgaka anumānam. And what are we going to do? We
are going to say, No. Īśvara cannot be established through pure logic, without
the help of śāstram. Īśvara is proved through śāstram only. So thus, there is a
radical difference between tārkikas and Vēdāntins. Tārkikas say with regard to
Īśvara, logic is the primary means of knowledge, śāstram may talk about Īśvara,
may not talk about Īśvara; śāstra is secondary, tarka is primary. Whereas
Vēdāntin is going to establish that with regard to Īśvara, śāstram is primary,

tarka or anumānam is secondary. This is the discussion, the details of which we

will see in the next class.


We will chant the two sūtras,
After commenting upon all the words of the second-sūtra, Śaṅkarācārya

discusses two general points, which are very important. So, we will discuss
those points now. I had said in the introduction that Brahman is established
through lakṣaṇam and pramāṇam, because of the general rule lakṣaṇa-
pramāṇābhyām vastu-siddhiḥ. Anything is established only if it is specified
through a definition and only if it is revealed through a pramāṇam. Without a
specifying-definition and without a revealing pramāṇam a thing cannot be
established. Therefore, if Brahma-vicāra has to be done we should first
establish Brahman through a proper-lakṣaṇam and pramāṇam. And I had said
that the second-sūtra presents the lakṣaṇam and the third-sūtra presents the
pramāṇam. And the Brahma-lakṣaṇam as presented by the second-sūtra is
jagat-kāraṇam Brahma and the Brahma-pramāṇam as presented by the third-
sūtra is śāstram-Brahma-pramāṇam. So thus, jagat-kāraṇam is Brahma-
lakṣaṇam, revealed in the second-sūtra and śāstram is Brahma-pramāṇam,
revealed in the third-sūtra. Now, keeping this background we have to study this
discussion.
Now Śaṅkarācārya introduces a pūrva-pakṣaḥ raised by the Naiyāyika,

Nyāya philosopher. In his commentary on the second-sūtra, a pūrva-pakṣaḥ is
by Naiyāyika. What does he ask? You are taking the second-sūtra as Brahma
lakṣaṇam, why can’t you take the second-sūtra itself as Brahma-pramāṇam
also. Why, Because he says, you define Brahman / Īśvara as jagat-kāraṇam.
(Naiyāyika does not use the word Brahman, in the place of Brahman he uses
the word Īśvara. Therefore, during this discussion, we should take Brahma na

and Īśvara as synonymous, because we say Brahman is jagat-kāraṇam,

Naiyāyika says, Īśvara is jagat-kāraṇam, the words are different but both are
jagat-kāraṇam.) Now, he argues if Īśvara is defined as jagat-kāraṇam and if the
world is Īśvara’s-kāryam, a product you can easily know Īśvara through
inference. And that inference alone is famous in the Nyāya-śāstra as kārya-
liṅgaka-anumānam. What is kārya-liṅgaka-anumānam? The inference of
kāraṇam from the kāryam is called kārya-liṅgaka-anumānam. For example,
whenever I see a person, even though I don’t see that person’s parents, I know
that he/she has parents. The existence of parents is known through inference
alone; I have not seen the parents. In the same way, I see the product called
universe and if there is a product there must be a producer whose existence I
can infer from the product. And therefore, I come to know the jagat-kāraṇam
Brahma, otherwise called Īśvara through the method of inference. And
therefore, Brahma siddhau, for establishing Brahman, can serve as pramāṇam,
śāstram is not required. This is the Naiyāyika’s argument. Īśvara can be
established through anumānam, through reasoning, you don’t require śāstram
to prove Īśvara. This is Naiyāyika’s pūrvapakṣa.
Śaṅkarācārya says it is not so. Not so means what? The second-sūtra does
not provide anumānam pramāṇam for Brahma-siddhi or Īśvara-siddhi.
Śaṅkarācārya gives a simple reason for that. The sub-commentators go on and
give further reasons. So, first I will give you simple reason given by
Śaṅkarācārya, later we will go to the sub-commentators’ further explanation. It
is an interesting topic. I like it and therefore I am giving it; but I cannot say
whether you will like it or not.. What is the simple reason? If the second-sūtra
is providing anumāna-pramāṇam for Brahman or Īśvara, these Brahma-sūtras
cannot be called Vēdānta-sūtras at all. I will explain further. See, Vyāsācārya
does not propound a philosophy by using his reasoning-power. All the other
darśanams have propounded a philosophy by using the reasoning-power. The
six nāśtika-darśanas are anumānam-based. Sāṅkhya is anumānam-based, yōga
is anumānam-based, Nyāya is anumānam-based, Vaiśēṣika is anumānam-
based. So, all the other systems of philosophy are primarily based on tarka, that
is why Śaṅkarācārya calls them as tārkika-systems. Even the Sāṅkhya, Yōga etc.,

they accept the śruti-pramāṇam only as subservient to, as a secondary

pramāṇam to logic. The Nāstikas do not accept śāstra-pramāṇam, whereas
Sāṅkhya, Yōga, Nyāya, Vaiśēṣikas accept but they give Vēda only a step-
motherly treatment.
And the uniqueness of Brahma-sūtras is what? Vyāsācārya does not

establish a philosophy through reasoning. Then what is his aim? He is using
reasoning only to derive a philosophy from the Vēdas. He is using reasoning not
to propound a philosophy but he is using reasoning to understand the vaidika-
teaching and to derive a cogent, systematic-philosophy out of the Vēdānta or
upaniṣat. And therefore, every sūtra has got a Vēdānta-vākyam for analysis.
Therefore, if you say the second-sūtra is providing anumāna-pramāṇam to
establish Brahman or Īśvara, then the importance will go to anumānam and it
will not be a śāstra-based system. So, we are defeating the very intention of
Vyāsācārya. Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya uses a beautiful line, a famous quotation
often used he gives here, Vēdānta-vākya-kusuma-grathanārthatvāt sūtrāṇām.
He says every sūtram is providing an anumānam all right; but this anumānam is
not an independent- anumānam, this anumānam is used only to bring out the
Vēdāntic-teaching in a cogent form. It is like a thread used to make a garland
out of the flowers of Vēdānta-vākyam. The whole-anumānam or tarka is like a
thread. It does not have any independent use. Nobody wears the thread on the
head by itself. Thread is worn on the head because of what? The thread is used
to strung the flowers and to make a garland. Here the garland is Vēdānta-
darśanam and the flowers are Vēdānta-vākyas, not anumāna-vākyas. And tarka
is only hiding behind the flowers just to keep them in an orderly form. Tarka is
only the invisible-thread, secondary-thread, subservient- factor to keep the
flowers of Vēdānta-vākyams in place and therefore, no sūtra provides
anumānam as the main thing. Therefore, the second-sūtra is not an
independent-anumānam, the second-sūtra is only to analyze Vēdānta -vākyams.
What is the Vēdānta-vākyam?
यतो िा इमानि भूतानि जायन्द्ते । येि जातानि जीिनन्द्त । यत्प्रयन्द्त्यभभसंनिशनन्द्त । ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् ३-१-१ ॥
yatō vā imāni bhūtāni jāyantē | yēna jātāni jīvanti | yatprayantyabhisaṁviśanti | ||
Taittirīyōpaniṣat 3-1-1 ||

That vākya has been brought out through the second-sūtra and Brahma-
lakṣaṇam is given. Therefore, second-sūtra is only lakṣaṇa-sūtra and not
pramāṇa-sūtra. This is the simplest answer that the Śaṅkarācārya gives.
Now, the sub-commentators go further and bring out some more important
ideas, that also we will discuss. Now, what does the Naiyāyika say? He says, the
second-sūtra provides anumānam as pramāṇam for establishing Īśvara. From
this it is very clear that the Naiyāyikas believe that Īśvara can be logically
established. And Vēdāntins are dead against Naiyāyikas in this aspect. And
Vēdāntins argue that Īśvara cannot be established through logic. Then what?
Īśvara can be established or revealed through śāstram alone. Īśvara, which is
revealed through śāstram, can be assimilated through logic. Therefore, logic
serves as a funnel for the Īśvara, which is coming from the śāstra-bottle. The
śāstra bottle is having a liquid called Īśvara and put that liquid-Īśvara in the
small container called our mind we are using a funnel called logic, but the
funnel cannot give the liquid Īśvara. Funnel can be used only for receiving what
śāstra gives. And therefore, when Naiyāyika logically establishes Īśvara, the
Vēdāntins proves that their logic is defective. So therefore, what is our job now?
The sub-commentator what is he going to do? The Naiyāyika is going to
establish Īśvara logically and what is the Vēdāntin going to do? He is going to
join the Nāstika-people and he is going to say that your logic is wrong-logic and
therefore, you cannot establish Īśvara through logic. And when you see the
Vēdāntins’ argument it will appear as though Vēdāntin is a Nāstika. Because,
now what is going to be the discussion? Naiyāyika will say, Īśvara is logically
proved; Vēdāntin will say, your logic is wrong; therefore, Īśvara is not proved
logically. But remember, we will ultimately say, we are not nāstikas; we only
argue that Īśvara is revealed through śāstram alone. And we accept Īśvara
revealed by the śāstram and we use logic also to assimilate śāstra-revealed
Īśvara, but we don’t use logic to establish Īśvara independently. So, can we now
see a little bit that aspect? We have to see two things now; a lot of work for the
intellect.
 First we have to see how Naiyāyika establishes Īśvara logically.

 Thereafterwards we have to point out defects in their logic.
That is our job now. Naiyāyika is going to establish Īśvara logically, and we are
going to say that there are defects in your logic. I hope you are ready for that.
We will start with Naiyāyika.
 Naiyāyika arrives at Īśvara through three anumānam, logical statements.

All should be clean anumānam. I will present first the anumānams and later I
will explain them.
a) Firstly, jagat sakartrkam, kāryatvāt ghaṭavat. This is anumānam-number
1. In fact, he doesn’t use the word jagat for technical reasons. He uses another
word but it is difficult to pronounce and write therefore, I didn’t tell that, he says
भक्षत्यङ् कुराददकं सकतृनकं कायनत्िािटित् इत्यिुमािस्यैि प्रमाणत्िात् । ॥ तकनसङ् ग्रह दीनपका २-८ ॥
kṣityaṅkurādikaṁ sakartrkaṁ kāryatvāddhaṭavat ityanumānasyaiva pramāṇatvāt | ||

tarkasaṅgraha dīpikā 2-8 ||
Kṣityaṅkurādikam. Kṣiti means bhūmi, aṅkuraḥ means sprouts of plants etc. He

uses this for some technical reason, so I am simplifying, I am compromising a
little bit, and instead I am using the word jagat. Jagat sakartrkam, kāryatvāt
ghaṭavat. This is the first-anumānam. What is the significance of this
anumānam? He says that the world must have a creator. Why? Because, it is a
product, it is an effect, it has a created thing, kāryatvāt. He gives an example,
like a pot. So, for this anumānam he uses a vyāpti, because no inference is
possible without a vyāpti, a generalization. What is his vyāpti? Yadyad kāryam
tattat sakartrkam – whatever is a product must have a creator. And the world is
also a kāryam and therefore, world also must have a kartā. So, this is the first-
anumānam. Through the first-anumānam, what is the first step he has arrived
at? The first step is, there is a creator.
b) Then he gives the second-anumānam. jagat kartā Īśvaraḥ jīva bhinnatvē

sati cētanatvāt, ex. vyatirēkēṇa kulālavat. What does he try to say here? In the
first-anumānam he had said, there must be a creator. Now, in the second-
anumānam he says, the creator must be Īśvara alone. What is the logic he
gives? Because, I know there is a creator and I also know that no jīva has

created this world. I cannot say the creator is any one of the jīvas locally
available. Because I know he cannot create the earth, he cannot create the Sun,
he has not created the moon. So, I know that there is a creator, who is other
than the jīva. Not only He is other than jīva but He is an intelligent being also,
because creator. So therefore, ‘there is a creator’ is the first-step, and the
second-step is ‘creator is some intelligent being’ other than the jīva. So, we have
now the creator, the world and the jīva. Now, I am asking you the question,
‘what is the intelligent being other than jīva?’ You have to answer one of these
three – jīva, jagat and Īśvara. Only Īśvara. Jagat is other than jīva but is not
intelligent being. Īśvara is other than jīva. And therefore, there is a creator and
creator must be an intelligent being and He is not the jīva also, therefore,
pāriśēṣa-nyāyēna Īśvaraḥ. Therefore, the second-anumānam is what? Jagat-
kartā Īśvaraḥ jīva bhinnatvē sati cētanatvāt, vyatirēkēṇa kulālavat, unlike a pot
maker. I cannot give you ‘like’ example, because, there is only one Īśvaraḥ.
So, when I don’t have an example for Īśvaraḥ, I will give an unlike example -
unlike a pot-maker. So, this is the second anumānam. What is the vyāpti for
that? Yat jīva bhinnatvē sati cētanam tat Īśvaraḥ – whatever is Conscious being
other than jīva that must be Īśvaraḥ. This is the second-anumānam. So now, in
the first step he established there is a creator and in the second step he
established that creator is Īśvara.
b) Then he gives one more reasoning, the third step. What is that third-
anumānam? Īśvara sarvajñaḥ; sarva-kartrtvāt, vyatirēkēṇa kulālavat. That
Īśvara has to be omniscient. Why? Because He is an omni-creator, the
creator of everything; unlike a pot-maker, who is only alpajñaḥ. Unlike an
alpajñaḥ kulālaḥ. So, this is the third-anumānam. What is the vyāpti, here?
yatra sarva-kartrtvam tatra sarvajñatvam api bhavati yō yat kartā saḥ tat
jñaḥ iti vyāptēḥ. So, this is the third-inference.
Through these three inferences, Naiyāyika logically establishes not only Īśvara
but sarvajña Īśvaraḥ also. And therefore, we don’t require Vēda and all for
Īśvara-siddhi. And generally, we will be happy with Naiyāyikas because the
present day scientists don’t accept śāstra-pramāṇam and they always want to

establish everything logically. The scientists don’t want to accept śāstram, to

accept śāstram means you are superstitious. That is what their view is. And we
say Īśvara is established through śāstram. Modern people are rationalists, you
know. Therefore, naturally Naiyāyika seems to be a superior person, because he
claims to establish Īśvara logically, without requiring belief in śāstram. And
therefore, the modern day scientists will be more happy with the Naiyāyikas
because, he claims to establish things through reasoning. Rational people
means what? Don’t say who depend upon ration! The ration card holders are
rational people!! Rational means reasonable, the one who uses reason.
I do not have a ration card nor Śankarācārya; So we are irrational people.

.
Now we want to negate this view. We say all the three-anumānams are
defective. It is sufficient even if we prove one of them is defective, because all of
the steps. If one step we break Naiyāyika is in trouble. We say all the three steps
are faulty. You can get away with reasoning by talking to irrational people, but
not with Vēdāntin, he is more rational than Naiyāyika. Ok, let us see how.
What is the first-anumānam? Jagat sakartrkam kāryatvāt ghaṭavat. The

world has a creator, because it is a product like a pot. For that you are using a
vyāpti. What is the vyāpti? Yadyad kāryam tattat sakartrkam – whatever is a
product there must be a creator. What is the example quoted? The pot. So, pot
is a product, there is a creator. The hall is a product, there is a creator. Clock is a
product, there is a creator. World is a product, therefore, there is a creator. Now
we say, in anumāna you require a vyāpti and the most important thing to note
is, this vyāpti is gathered from pratyakṣa. This vyāpti jñānam is gained through
pratyakṣa-pramāṇam. So, this is the most important principle of anumānam.
Anumānam requires vyāpti-jñānam, vyāpti-jñānam is gathered by pratyakṣam
alone, not by another anumānam for it will lead to infinite regress problem.
Therefore, the rule is what? Vyāpti-jñānam has to be necessarily gathered by
pratyakṣam alone, neither by anumānam nor by śāstram. Because already you
have rejected śāstram. So, no more śāstram is available for you. Because you
say kēvala tarkēṇa Īśvara-siddhiḥ. Tasmāt śāstra sahāyaha tvayā na

apēkṣaṇīyam. Therefore, vyāpti you have to prove through pratyakṣa alone.

Like what? In the example, the mountain has got fire, because there is smoke.
And what is the vyāpti-jñānam there? Wherever there is smoke, there is fire.
How did you know that? By observation I arrived at the vyāpti. And similarly, by
observation you want to arrive at the vyāpti and what is that vyāpti? Wherever
there is a product, there is a creator. This vyāpti you are arriving at by
observation.
And you should remember, a vyāpti arrived at by observation is acceptable only

when it holds good in all the cases. Vyabhicāra should not be there, exception
should not be there. If there is an exception what will happen? The vyāpti will
collapse. I will give you an example. What is the vyāpti in the example?
Wherever there is smoke, there is fire. We accept this vyāpti, why? Because
there is no exception to that. Isn’t it. Wherever there is smoke, there is fire. But
suppose a person gives another vyāpti – wherever there is fire, there is smoke.
Because he found in the pākaśālā or yāgaśālā, there was fire and there was also
smoke. From this experience suppose I make a vyāpti – wherever there is fire,
there will be smoke. Will you accept this vyāpti? You don’t accept this vyāpti,
why? Because, there are exceptions, proved by what? Our own pratyakṣa.
Therefore, what are the points to be remembered now?
 vyāpti has to be proved by perception.

 The vyāpti proved by perception should not have any exception. These two
points you should remember.
Now Vēdāntin argues. You say whatever is a product has got a creator,
because you see when the hall is made there is a creator. When there is a clock
there is a creator, how proved; through perception. Now, Vēdāntin says, only in
the case of artificial-product you are able to prove a creator through perception
whereas in the case of any natural-product, like a tree in the Amazonian jungle,
where no human being has gone; is it a product or not? It is a product. And in
that product can you prove a creator through perception? You cannot prove a
creator through perception in the case of natural product. And therefore,
wherever there is a product there is a creator, that vyāpti is not perceptually

proved, because, what is the exception? Vyabhicāraḥ kutra? In all the natural
products there is a vyabhicāra. This is the first-defect in the first anumānam –
vyāpti-asiddhiḥ.
Now let us come to the second-anumānam. What is the second

anumānam? Jagat kartā Īśvaraḥ. Why? Cētanā-jīva bhinnatvē sati cētanatvāt.
There is a conscious being other than jīvaḥ. Vyatirēkēṇa kulālavat. In this what
is the vyāpti he is assuming? So, wherever a conscious being is involved other
than jīvaḥ that conscious being must be Īśvara, this is the vyāpti-jñānam here.
yatra yatra jīva-bhinnatvē sati cētanatvam tatra tatra Īśvaratvam. Now, that
means what? In your vyāpti-jñānam, you are talking about a conscious being
other than jīva. What is the rule I have said? Vyāpti-jñānam must be gathered by
perception alone, how can you talk about a conscious being other than jīvaḥ
with the use of perception, because through perception we can never talk
cannot about a conscious being other than jīvaḥ. Because perception only talks
about one type of conscious being i.e., the jīvas alone are proved; any other
conscious being other than jīva is not perpetually proved. Therefore, that
cannot be used in the vyāpti-jñānam. If you have already proved that there is an
Īśvara and this world was not created by jīva and so Īśvara alone has created
this world. Suppose, here there are two people sitting. And there is a cup of
coffee. And then when I turn to other side the coffee disappears. And I know
that one of these two does not drink coffee. Now, I can say, there are two
conscious beings, drinkers, and then the coffee has disappeared and one has
not drunk and therefore, the other-one must be. I can prove because I know
there are two conscious beings here perceptually. Similarly, Īśvara is a
conscious being proved through perception. Jīva is a conscious being proved
through perception. And I know that jagat has got a creator and jīva is not the
creator. Therefore, pāriśēṣa-nyāyāt Īśvaraḥ. Here I cannot use that pāriśēṣa-
Nyāya because, a conscious being other than jīvaḥ is not at all perpetually-
proved to apply pāriśēṣa-Nyāya. And therefore, the second-anumānam also is
goofy, it is a goofed anumānam.

Then he uses the third-anumānam. What is that? Īśvaraḥ sarvajñaḥ. Why?

Sarva-kartrtvāt, vyatirēkēṇa kulālavat. Īśvara is omniscient because, He is the
creator of everything. Now, to negate this argument we should know some
axioms that Naiyāyika has assumed, only then we can show the fallacy.
Naiyāyika says that every knowledge is born out of mind. Yad jñānam tad
manōjanyam. Thus, he has created an axiom. Because, he depends upon
perception and inference heavily and perpetually we see wherever there is
mind, there is knowledge. This he has said in one place. And then he has made
another statement somewhere, thoughtlessly, because when he makes this
statement he forgot the earlier one. That is why if śāstram is not there, you will
find that every system of philosophy will have wonderful statements when it is
taken in an isolated manner. Even science. You will see it is wonderful when it is
taken in one segment. But all logically derived systems will have a very big
problem; because when you try to tie all the statements together and try to
make it consistent, it will have problem. Even modern science will be full of
fallacy if you try to tie up the matter, the Consciousness, the mind, the creation,
the law, you will have problem. Science is wonderful because it doesn’t want to
analyze Consciousness. Consciousness is allergic to science. So therefore, each
system of science is trying to take away the Consciousness from its system and
they are trying to give it other systems, you take care of it. Similarly,
Consciousness whether it comes under neurology, whether it comes under
quantum-science, whether it comes under psychology, nobody is sure.
Psychologists are not able to explain therefore, they try to give it on to
neurologists. Neurologists are not able to explain therefore, they try to give it
on to Quantum. So, one Indian-scientist has come up with a book called ‘The
self-aware universe’ by Amit Goswami, great Quantum-physicist, who is deriving
idea from the śāstra and he is trying to show how all the systems of science are
not able to explain Consciousness. Therefore, their systems are wonderful if
you keep aside life or Consciousness. Therefore, all the darśanams have
problems when it comes to jñānam. So, Naiyāyika also has made two
statements (1) one statement is knowledge is born out of mind. (2) And another
statement he has made is Īśvara doesn’t have mind. Īśvaraḥ aśarīraḥ. Now, the
problem is how can Īśvara be sarvajñaḥ, for he has taken away the mind from

Īśvara because he found wherever mind is there saṁsāra comes. So, to make
Īśvara an asaṁsāri, he took away His mind. By taking away the mind he cannot
fit the jñānam. Therefore, Īśvaraḥ sarvajñaḥ you cannot say because Īśvaraḥ
cannot have jñānam at all, jñānasya manōjanyatvāt Īśvarasya amanaskatvāt.
Therefore, the third-anumānam also is wrong. Therefore, how do you establish
Īśvara? Through śāstrika-anumānam.

य ुदच्र्ते पूर्यस्र् पूर्यमादार् पूर्यमेवावशि्र्ते ॥ ॐ िा्न्तः िा्न्तः िा्न्तः ॥ रिः रः ॐ.॥

Janmādyasya yataḥ ||
After analyzing the second-sūtra, Śaṅkarācārya in his commentary

discusses two important points, of which we are discussing the first one, which
is based on a suggestion of Naiyāyika or Nyāya philosopher. The suggestion of
Naiyāyika is that the second-sūtra should be taken as pramāṇa-sūtram also, not
only lakṣaṇa-sūtram. As a pramāṇam for Brahma astitvam; or in his language
Īśvara-astitvam. Therefore, his contention is that Īśvara can be proved through
logic. And through three different anumānams he arrives at sarvajña-Īśvaraḥ.
In Vēdānta, we refute this contention of Naiyāyika and point out that

anumānam or logic cannot prove Īśvara. So, if at all we use logic to prove
Īśvara, our logic is blessed by śāstram, śruti-sammata tarkēna Īśvara siddhiḥ, na
tu kēvala tarkēna, na tu śuṣka-tarkēna Īśvara siddhiḥ, is Vēdāntin’s contention.
Whereas Naiyāyika contends that Īśvara can be established without the support
of śāstram. And therefore, Vēdāntin negated his anumānam, which we saw in
the last class. The first anumānam was jagat sakartrkam kāryatvāt ghaṭavat.
And the vyāpti he used was yadyad kāryam tattat sakartrkam. Then the second
anumānam he used was jagat kartā Īśvaraḥ jīva bhinnatvē sati cētanatvāt
vyatirēkēṇa kulālavat. And the vyāpti that he assumed was yatra yatra jīva-
bhinnatvē sati cētanatvam tatra tatra Īśvaratvam. The first two anumānams are
called kārya-liṅgaka-anumānam. Then the third anumānam he gave Īśvaraḥ
sarvajñaḥ sarva-kartrtvāt vyatirēkēṇa kulālavat. And the vyāpti that he assumed
was yaḥ yat kartā saḥ tat jñaḥ, the one who creates something he is the knower
of that something. Therefore, the creator of all must be the knower of all. And
Vēdāntin pointed out that in the first-anumānam, the vyāpti is defective
because, you assume that all products have got creator, which is not true
because all artificial products have got creator, for natural products creator is

not perceptually proved. So, therefore creator of natural product is not

perceptually proved and vyāpti has to be always proved through perception.
In second-anumānam also the defect is in the vyāpti, because you assume that
whoever is a conscious-being other than jīva; wherever a conscious-being is
involved other than jīva, It must be Īśvara. Wherever a job is done by a
conscious being other than jīva, then that conscious being must be Īśvara. The
earth is created by a conscious being, which is other than jīva, therefore, It must
be Īśvara. So, in this what is the mistake? You are assuming that there is a
conscious-being other than jīva and a conscious-being other than jīva is not
perceptually-proved, therefore, the vyāpti is defective.
And the third-anumānam is Īśvara is omniscient, because he is omni-creator,

creator of all, because the creator of something must be the knower of
something. In this third-anumānam, which is called lakṣaṇa-liṅgaka-anumānam,
the defect is sva-abhyupaga-virōdhaḥ – contradicting his own philosophy. His
own means whose own? Naiyāyika is contradicting his own philosophy when he
says Īśvara is omniscient. What is the contradiction? I discussed this at the end
of the last class. He has got two axioms, which are mutually contradictory. The
first axiom, the basic-assumption, is that any knowledge is born out of mind –
yad jñānam tad manō-janyam. This is one of the axioms, the basic-assumption.
The second-axiom or basic assumption is that Īśvaraḥ aśarīraḥ, Īśvara is without
body-mind-complex. Therefore, Īśvara is mindless. Because, if you say bodiless
then we have to include mindless as mind is also part of the śarīram. You may
say in Vēdāntic language as sūkṣma-śarīram. So, the first-axiom is knowledge is
born out of mind and the second-axiom is Īśvara has no mind; therefore,
combining these two together what will be the conclusion? Īśvara has no mind
and mind alone is the creator of knowledge and therefore, Īśvara cannot be
even alpajñaḥ. Sarva-jñatvam we will see later. Īśvara cannot be even alpajñaḥ
like a jīvaḥ. He will enjoy a worse status than a jīva and you are trying to give
him a higher status. All these problems because you want to establish Īśvara
without the śāstram. If śāstram is available, we can establish everything. And
therefore, the defect is sva-abhyupaga-virōdhaḥ – contradicting one’s own

axioms. And Īśvara’s omniscience contradicts that knowledge is born out of

mind. So thus, in the first two anumānams vyāpti-dōṣa, in the third-anumānam
sva abhyupagam virōdha-dōṣa and therefore, all the three anumānams are
defective and therefore, we say that Īśvara cannot be established by
anumānam. And an Īśvara established by purely anumānam alone can be
negated by anumānam. And this is the job done by the sub-commentators.
Śaṅkarācārya did not enter into this.
‘Sub-commentators means who?’ somebody asked. For Śaṅkara-bhāṣyam there

are many commentaries; I told you in the introduction. Śaṅkara-bhāṣyam has
got many sub-commentaries. One famous sub-commentary is Ratnaprabhā
attributed to one Gōvindānanda Sarasvatī. It is not commentary to Brahma-
sūtram, it is commentary to the Śaṅkara-bhāṣyam. So, the full name is ‘bhāṣya-
ratnaprabhā-vyākhyā’. But in shortened form, it is called Ratna-prabhā. And this
Ratnaprabhā has a sub-commentary. There is a beautiful sub-commentary on
the first four sūtras only called catussūtri-ratnaprabhā-vyākhyānam. It is written
by Pūrṇānanda Sarasvatī and therefore, it is called Pūrṇānandīyā. And it is in
this Pūrṇānandīyā all these points I said, I give you my source of my
information, they are available, of course, in a brief form in the Pūrṇānandīyā-
vyākhyānam. What does he do you know, very interesting. He refutes the
Īśvara, which is logically established by Naiyāyika. And why does he refute? To
prove that Īśvara cannot be logically established, this Pūrṇānandīyā refutes the
logically established Īśvara. So then, he feels very bad, how can we refute
Īśvara? It is nāstika-vāda and therefore, at the end of the refutation he writes a
maṅgala-ślōka and invokes the grace of his iṣṭa-dēvatā, Lord Krṣṇa. Therefore,
Krṣṇāya maṅgalam, ‘Oh! Lord, don’t mistake me, I don’t want to refute you
really, I refuted Naiyāyika only to establish that pure logic will not work.’
सिनज्ञं कारणं खादे ाः कृष्णाख्यं श्रुनतसम्मतम् ।

वन्दे रमीश्वरं गोनपशचिपद्ममधुव्रतम् ॥
sarvajñaṁ kāraṇaṁ khādēḥ krṣṇākhyaṁ śrutisammatam |

vandēham Īśvara-ṁ gōpicittapadmamadhuvratam ||

With that maṅgala-ślōka, he concludes the Naiyāyika condemnation. This is one

significant point that we find in the bhāṣyam.
Then one more significant point Śaṅkarācārya mentions in his bhāṣyam.

What is that? We say that logic cannot reveal or prove Brahman. And we told
the defects of logic and we also show the śruti-pramāṇa itself,

The upaniṣat itself tells us never go to logic when you are enquiring into the
Truth. Once the topic of God comes, once the topic of Truth comes never rely
upon tarka. When this is said, we might get into a misunderstanding. What is
this misunderstanding? That tarka is totally-useless, we may conclude. Because,
we have been talking about the defects of tarka. So, when we see this
discussion we may conclude that tarka is totally unnecessary and therefore,
Śaṅkarācārya says it is not so, tarka is very important in Vēdānta. So, don’t go to
the other extreme of total rejection of tarka; tarka is very important. That is why
śruti itself says, śrōtavyaḥ, mantavyaḥ, nididhyāsitavyaḥ. The word mantavyaḥ
indicates tarka is important for understanding Vēdānta. In fact, the very
Brahma-sūtra is called Nyāya-prasthānam; the whole Brahma-sūtra is a logical
analysis of upaniṣats. And therefore, we do not say that tarka should be totally
rejected, we do not say that tarka should be totally accepted; so neither total-
rejection nor total-dependence. Then what are we suppose to do? Use tarka as
a subservient means in understanding Vēdānta. I gave you the example in the
last class - use tarka as a funnel for pouring Vēdāntic-teaching. Because our
brain is too narrow therefore, we require a funnel. Therefore, śruti-sammata
tarkaḥ abhyupagataḥ – a logic which is blessed by śruti alone is accepted. If you
remember our Taittirīya study, once upon a time, we studied Taittirīyōpaniṣat.
There we studied Brahmānanda-vallī, where a portion comes with regard to the
student’s doubt regarding the existence of Brahman –
असन्नेव स भवनत असद्ब्रह्मेनत वेद चेत् अस्स्त ब्रह्मेनत चेद्वेद सन्तमेनं ततो नवदुिः रनत ॥ तैक्षिरीर्ोपननषत् २-६-१ ॥
asannēva sa bhavati | asadbrahmēti Vēda cēt | asti brahmēti cēdVēda | santamēnaṁ tatō
viduriti | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-6-1 ||

In that context, we said the student raises three questions, of those three
questions the first question was Brahma asti vā na vā? I am assuming that all of
you have attended or studied. That’s why I said Brahma-sūtra will be very
beneficial if we have gone through the upaniṣats. So, while answering the
question of the student, what is the question? Whether Brahman exists or not?
The teacher gave six or seven reasons Brahma asti nimitta-kāraṇatvāt, Brahma
asti upādāna-kāraṇatvāt, Brahma asti jagadrūpēṇa-vartamānatvāt, Brahma asti
jīvarūpēṇa-vartamānatvāt, Brahma asti rasa- prasiddhēḥ, Brahma asti sukrta-
prasiddhēḥ etc. So, there we were giving six or seven reasons and we should
remember all those logical reasons mentioned in Taittirīya are not
independent- reasons establishing Brahman, all those reasons are śāstra-based
reasons. And therefore, there are two types of tarkās, what are they?
 Śruti-sammata tarkaḥ
 Kēvala-tarkaḥ
Vēdānta accepts the first-one, tārkika accepts the second-one. And therefore,
we criticize tārkika. In sādhana pañcakam Śaṅkarācārya writes –
वाक्र्ाथयश्च नवचार्यतां श्रुनतशिरः पिः समाश्रीर्तां दुस्तकायत्सुनवरम्र्तां श्रुनतमतस्तकोऽनुसन्धीर्ताम् ॥साधन पञ्चकम् ३

॥
vākyārthaśca vicāryatāṁ śrutiśiraḥ pakṣaḥ samāśrīyatāṁ dustarkātsuviramyatāṁ

śrutimatastarkō’nusandhīyatām| ||Sādhana Pañcakam 3 ||
Dustarka means independent tarka without the support of śruti. Śaṅkarācārya

says never do that. Then, what should you do? śrutimatastarkō’nusandhīyatām‌.
And therefore, tarka is important.
Why is tarka important in Vēdānta? Śaṅkarācārya gives the reason, which

is very important to be noted, because some of the misconceptions are
removed through this discussion.
Here Śaṅkarācārya makes a comparison between the karma-kāṇḍa and

jñāna-kāṇḍa. While discussing the role of tarka or logic, Śaṅkarācārya compares
or contrasts the karma-kāṇḍam and jñāna-kāṇḍam. Śaṅkarācārya points out

that in karma-kāṇḍam, tarka is not very important, it has got a limited role
alone, because in karma-kāṇḍa, the performance or procedures of doing are
important. We should have sufficient knowledge of how to perform the ritual.
Therefore, much reasoning is not involved because you should know whether
ghee must be used, milk must be used, milk should be used before ghee or
ghee must be used before milk, for this minimum tarka for knowing the
procedure alone is required.
Because, in karma-kāṇḍa, knowledge does not produce result; after

knowledge performance is important and after performance, in fact you need
not even know the mechanism of the ritual just like to learn driving you need
not be a mechanic of the car - how the clutch works, how the break works, how
an ignition works - I need have that knowledge, I will only know what should be
pressed when, what should be operated when, that much knowledge is
sufficient, then I have to keep doing the result will happen.
Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya says, in karma-kāṇḍa knowing has got only an

indirect-role and doing alone has got a direct role, because the benefit is a
product to be accomplished in time. Therefore, learn and keep on doing, one
day the benefit will come to you. Therefore, in Śaṅkarācārya’s language, karma-
kāṇḍasya sādhya-viṣayatvāt karma-pradhānam jñānam tu apradhānam ēva, it’s
place is only an indirect role. Karma-kāṇḍasya sādhya-viṣayatvāt – it deals with
something to be produced in future and therefore, doing is important and
knowing’s plays only an indirect-role. Similarly, suppose mōkṣa is something to
be produced in future, then like karma-kāṇḍa, what should you learn? You learn
the procedure of meditation. Many people think that only. The study of Vēdānta
gives you the procedure of getting mōkṣa. Isn’t it the misconception of many
people? By the study of Vēdānta, I know the procedure and after the study,
what should I do? I have to practice. Like science and technology, Vēdāntic
study is a science and thereafterwards I have to follow that procedure and one
day mōkṣa will be produced. Śaṅkarācārya says, here alone we commit a
mistake. Vēdānta does not deal with a future event, to be created or processed.
So, we are not learning any procedure through Vēdānta, we are not learning

any technique through Vēdānta, we are not learning any method of meditation
through Vēdānta, no procedure we are learning, no technique we are learning,
no method we are learning, we don’t want to implement anything after
Vēdāntic-study.
Then what is Vēdānta dealing with? It is dealing with a fact of mōkṣa,

which is an accomplished fact. We are not learning any technique to produce
mōkṣa, any method to produce mōkṣa, any procedure to cause an event of
mōkṣa to happen. So, no technique, no produce, no event, no creation. That
mōkṣa happens to be an accomplished fact, which you have to understand.
So, the whole Vēdāntic-sādhana is only a process of understanding, there

is nothing to implement in Vēdānta. The whole-process is a process-of-
understanding, there is nothing to implement after understanding.
When does implementation come? When you want to produce

something, then you have to act then you have to learn the procedure,
implement the procedure, and accomplish the future end.
So, suppose somebody says, prāṇāyāma for Asthma nivrtti. śvāsarōga

nivrttyartham prāṇāyāma kartavya, so it is said, suppose. Now, you go through
a course of seven days, ten days, one month. Through the course what do you
do? Learn the technique of prāṇāyāma. Does the learning produce the result?
No, because the result is an event, a benefit in future to be accomplished
through the implementation of a particular process. Therefore, after seven
says, we have to regularly get up in the morning and practice prāṇāyāma, which
is implementation. Because the goal is what? Sādhya-viṣaya.
So, whenever the goal is sādhya, knowledge must be followed by what?

Implementation. And implementation is more important than knowledge itself
or at least as important as knowledge.
Śaṅkarācārya says, in Vēdānta we are not learning a technique to be

implemented for the accomplishment of mōkṣa. Why? Because mōkṣa is not-to-
be-accomplished, but mōkṣa is already an accomplished-fact. Na tu sādhyaḥ

parantu siddhaḥ. Therefore, with the understanding the end is accomplished,

there is nothing to be implemented later. You don’t say I know now that I am
Brahman, now I am wondering how to become Brahman! Through Vēdānta,
Svāmiji by your grace, by your wonderful teaching I have clearly understood, I
am nitya-mukta-Brahma. Now, only I have to do sādhana to become Brahman
and attain that mōkṣa. Svāmiji, if not in this janma at least in the next janma is
also I am Ok. And I have completed four courses. If the teacher does not get
vairāgyam for teaching, it only shows his prārabdha is not yet exhausted..
Therefore, in Vēdānta understanding is an end in itself. Therefore,

whatever obstacles are there in understanding they must be knocked off.
Because, there is nothing to implement in Vēdānta. Therefore, whatever
obstructs understanding should be knocked off and one of the main
obstructions come from intellect in the form of saṁśayaḥ, in the form of doubt.
Therefore, tarka or mananam is very important, not as an independent-tarka
but to remove the intellectual-obstacle created in assimilating the Vēdāntic-
teaching. So, tarka serves as a broomstick when the Vēdāntic teaching is
entering the head. If the path is cleaned then a red carpet welcome can be
given for Vēdānta. Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya says, never compare Vēdānta to
karma-kāṇḍa. In karma-kāṇḍa you learn a procedure.
And not only that, that procedure can be implemented, that procedure
need not be implemented, that procedure can be implemented in different
ways also. Therefore, options are there, choices are there, you can do, you need
not do, whereas in jñāna-kāṇḍa there is no question of implementation. You
study and either you understand or you don’t understand. If you don’t
understand what do you do? Try to understand. Then if you have understood
what do you do? Don’t do anything. Because the understanding is that, I need
not do anything to attain mōkṣa. Therefore, either way, there is no
implementation in Vēdānta. The whole struggle is the clear vision of this
teaching.
And therefore, Śaṅkarācārya says, śruti is important yukti is important

and also anubhava is important. Na tu śrutyādayaḥ ēva pramāṇam

anubhavādayaḥ api pramāṇam. And why do we say anubhava is important?

Because, our saṁsāra is present in what form? In the form of anubhava that I
am limited, I am small, I am miserable, why did I born?
ஏன் ெிறந்தாய் மகனே ஏன் ெிறந்தானயா

ஏன் ெிறந்தாய் மகனே ஏன் ெிறந்தானயா
ஆரானரா ஆனரா ஆரிரானரா
ēṉ piṟantāy makaṉē ēṉ piṟantāyō

ēṉ piṟantāy makaṉē ēṉ piṟantāyō
ārārō ārō ārirārō
ஆனரா ஆரிரானரா means நி யாபரா நான் யாபரா ஒன்னுவம
பதரியவில்வல, எப்ெடிபயா எேக்குவந்து பொறந்து வச்சாய்.
ārō arirārō means ni yārō nān yārō unmai tēriyavillai, ēppaḍiyō ēnakkuvandu
pōṟandō vaccāy.
Why, son, why were you born?
Why, son, why were you born?
Aaraaro aaro aariraaro
aaro aariraaro means ‘who are you and who am I’ – don’t know the truth,
somehow you were born to me.)
So, therefore, the helplessness, the misery, this doubt, the saṁsāra is in the
form of mental anubhava as disturbance, lack of peace, helplessness,
smallness, inadequacy etc. And the mōkṣa presented by the śāstra is what?
Freedom from these sensations. Which also has to be in what form? If saṁsāra
is an anubhava, mōkṣa is also the śānti, which is freedom from the sense of
limitation, the pūrṇatvam, which is freedom from the sense of limitation,
samatvam, which is also an anubhava. Anubhava not in the form of mystic-
experience that I am talking but anubhava in the form of freedom from the
smallness, limitation etc. As we are seeing in the Gītā –
सुखमात्यनन्द्तकं यिद् बुद्धिग्राह्यमतीद्धन्द्द्रयम् ।

िेभि यत्र ि चैिायं स्थस्थतश्चलनत तत्त्िताः ॥ गीता ६-२१ ॥

sukhamātyantikaṁ yattad buddhigrāhyamatīndriyam |

vētti yatra na caivāyaṁ sthitaścalati tattvataḥ || Gītā 6-21 ||
र्ं लब्ध्वा चापरं लाभं मन्र्ते नामधकं ततः ॥ गीता ६-२२ ॥
yaṁ labdhvā cāparaṁ lābhaṁ manyatē nādhikaṁ tataḥ | || Gītā 6-22 ||
If somebody asks, ‘Are you satisfied with this life? Have you made it?’ One way
is, what a life! And another way is, pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaṁ. And therefore,
the understanding is complete when this saṁsāra-bhāva or viparīta-bhāvanā
goes away. Therefore, the benefit is here and now. Whereas in karma-kāṇḍa,
svarga-anubhava is an eternal hope, it is not going to be attained here. After
doing karma, we have to keep our fingers crossed, exhaust the prārabdha and
wait for death because the first qualification for svarga is to die. So, therefore,
in karma-kāṇḍa the benefit is posthumous whereas in jñāna-kāṇḍa, the benefit
is here and now. Therefore, jñāna-kāṇḍam works or not, what is the proof? As
some of the students say, Svāmiji, whether mōkṣa is there or not after coming
to Vēdānta, I find there is less reaction at home. That is what: anubhava.
Previously if I shouted for five hours, now I have reduced to one hour.
Previously if I cried for five hours, now I cry for one hour. Previously if I shed
two liters of tears, now I shed only half a liter. These are all anubhavas only. So,
therefore, in Vēdānta, śruti-yukti-anubhava-pramāṇam is there. In Karma-
kāṇḍa, learn the procedure and do and wait, not much reasoning is involved
and the benefit is also often after death only. Therefore, what is the second-
point? The second point is tarka is not totally rejected.
So thus, we have got two extremes. See this picture very clearly. One is
Naiyāyika and the other is mīmāṁsaka, pūrva-mīmāṁsaka, karma-kāṇḍa. In
Naiyāyika, he gives too much importance to tarka and śruti is not given its
place. In pūrva-mīmāṁsaka śruti is important tarka is rejected. Whereas in
Vēdānta, śruti is also given importance, yukti is also given importance. Thus,
Vēdānta comes in between the two extremes of tarka and śruti. So thus, śruti
sammata tarka is established by Śaṅkarācārya through these two notes. So,
with this the Śaṅkarācārya commentary of the second sūtra is over.

Conclusion
Now I would like to give the conclusion of the second-sūtra. I said our
study is in three stages. First stage is general-analysis, second stage is word-
analysis, we have completed those two, now I am coming to the conclusion of
the second sūtra, wherein also we have to discuss lot of important points.
 The first-thing is the technical presentation of this adhikaraṇam, of this

topic. We should know about how to technically present. What is the technical
presentation of adhikaraṇam? You should remember the definition of
adhikaraṇam. Adhikaraṇam is technically presented in five factors –


The technical presentation of an adhikaraṇam should have five steps. The first-
step is subject matter; the second-step is the doubt, the third-step is the view of
the pūrva-pakṣi, the fourth-step is our conclusion and the fifth-step is the
connection between the previous and the present-topic.
 Now for the second topic, what is the viṣayaḥ, subject matter? The
subject-matter is Brahma-lakṣaṇam, the definition of Brahman. What is the
doubt? Asti vā or nāsti vā. Is there a definition for Brahman or is there no
definition? This is the doubt. What is the pūrva-pakṣi? He will always takes the
wrong thing. That’s why he called pūrva-pakṣi. If the pūrva-pakṣi takes the right
thing he will become siddhānti. Pūrva-pakṣi will invariably takes the wrong step.
He says there is no definition of Brahman. What is his reason? Not only pūrva-
pakṣi must hold a view, he must justify that view also. He says definition is given
only through a unique-feature of the defined-object. Therefore, the definition is
defined as unique-feature. Suppose, there are many people and if you want to
say, ‘Please call that person’ then you should give his unique-feature so as to
specify him. So we say jokulalry, in Tirupati if you say call that shaven-headed
person. The shaven head cannot become a unique-feature. Everybody has got

shaven-head. Now, pūrva-pakṣi says definition has to be through unique

feature, asādhāraṇa dharmaḥ lakṣaṇam, unique-feature is the definition and
you say Brahman is featureless. How can the featureless Brahman have a
unique-feature? Therefore, I cannot say the Big one is Brahman, because
bigness is a feature, smallness is a feature. Feature is a property, a
characteristic or anything. Not only that the upaniṣats themselves say, Brahman
is indefinable.
यतो िाचो निितनन्द्ते । अप्राप्य मिसा सह । ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् २-४-१ ॥

yatō vācō nivartantē | aprāpya manasā saha | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-4-1 ||
ि तत्र चक्षुगनच्छनत ि िाग्गच्छनत िो मिाः । ॥केिोपनिषत् १-३ ॥

na tatra cakṣurgacchati na vāggacchati nō manaḥ | ||kēnōpaniṣat 1-3 ||
प्रातभनजाधम मिसां िचसामगम्यं ॥ प्रात:स्मरणस्तोत्रम् ॥

prātarbhajāmi manasāṁ vacasāmagamyaṁ || prāta:smaraṇastōtram ||
So, manō vāk agōcaram etc. So, what does pūrva-pakṣi say, since Brahman is
featureless and because of śruti-pramāṇa, Brahman cannot be defined,
therefore, Brahma-lakṣaṇam-nāsti. This is pūrva-pakṣaḥ.
What is siddhānta? Siddhānta is Brahma lakṣaṇam asti. There is a definition of

Brahman. Then we have to justify. How can you define a featureless Brahman?
For that we answer even though Brahman is really featureless, we can define
Brahman through superimposed-features, through mithyā-features, we can
define Brahman. Brahman does not have real-features. But through
superimposed features, adhyasta-dharmasatvāt asādhāraṇa dharmavatvam
Brahmaṇaḥ. Just as defining the rope as the substratum of our-snake. Even
though rope is snakeless there is a superimposed feature of snake, through
that I can define rope as adhiṣṭhānam. Similarly, through superimposed
universe Brahman can be defined as jagat-kāraṇam. So therefore, lakṣaṇam
asti. This is the siddhānta.
The final and the fifth step is the connection between this topic and the
previous topic. What is the previous topic? The previous topic is one should
enquire into Brahman. Brahma vicāraḥ kartavyaḥ. This topic is Brahma

lakṣaṇam jagat-kāraṇam Brahmaṇaḥ kāraṇatvam. How do you give the

connection? The connection is supposed to be technically called ākṣēpa-
saṅgatiḥ.
What is ākṣēpa-saṅgatiḥ? Ākṣēpa-saṅgatiḥ is the first topic leads to an

objection and that is answered in the second topic. What is the objection in the
first topic? The first topic is, ‘You should enquire into Brahman.’ So, when
Vyāsācārya says, you should enquire into Brahman, then a person asks, you
have not proved the existence of Brahman itself, through lakṣaṇam and
pramāṇam. Because existence is proved through what? lakṣaṇa-
pramāṇābhyām-vastusiddhiḥ. Existence is proved through lakṣaṇam and
pramāṇam. Without proving the existence of Brahman, how can you talk about
the enquiry of Brahman? Therefore, in the second topic what do we do? We
prove the existence of Brahman by giving the lakṣaṇam. So, in the first topic,
the objection is Brahman’s existence is not proved, where is the question of
enquiry? In the second topic, through lakṣaṇam we prove the existence of
Brahman and therefore, Brahman enquiry should be done. This connection is
called ākṣēpa-saṅgatiḥ. Some more points we will have to discuss, which we will
do in the next class.


022 Sutrās 1.1.2, 1.1.3, Janmādhyadhikaraṇam
We are concluding the second-sūtra, which happens to be the second

adhikaraṇam or the second-topic also. I said this sūtra is a significant sūtra in
the entire text and it is a foundation sūtra of the entire Vēdānta-śāstram. So, I
would like to discuss some of the significances of this sūtra. We saw that this
sūtra is called Brahma-lakṣaṇa-sūtram, a sūtram which gives the definition of
Brahman. The definition is jagat-kāraṇam Brahma, Brahman is that which is the
material-cause of the creation. And we also saw that this particular definition is
called taṭastha-lakṣaṇam, indirect-definition and it is not svarūpa-lakṣaṇam or
direct-definition. I hope you remember the difference between taṭastha-
lakṣaṇam and svarūpa-lakṣaṇam. So when you define something in terms of its
own innate-features it is called svarūpa-lakṣaṇam. Like defining a house in
terms of its own height, its own color, its own area, etc. Because, height, area
etc., are the innate features of the house. But instead of doing that, because of
some reasons, there may be many houses with similar features or due to any
particular reason I don’t directly define the house but point out to the house,
through some extraneous features, which is not an integral-part of the house,
like the example I gave kākavat-grham Dēvadatta-grham – the house of
Dēvadatta is that one over which a crow is seated. Is the crow an innate-feature
of the house? If you take the crow as an innate-feature you will be in trouble,
because next time you come there may not be the crow. And Dēvadatta will
loose his house. So, here the house is defined through what? Through a crow
which is on the house but which is not the intrinsic-feature of the house. So, the
definition through intrinsic-feature is svarūpa-lakṣaṇam and the definition
through extrinsic-feature is taṭastha-lakṣaṇam. Now, for Brahman also we have
both svarūpa-lakṣaṇam and taṭastha-lakṣaṇam. The famous svarūpa-lakṣaṇam

of Brahman is satyam jñānaṁanantam Brahma as we see in the Taittirīya,

Brahmānandavallī –
ब्रह्मनिदाप्नोनत परम् । तदे षाऽभुक्ता । सत्यं ज्ञािमिन्द्तं ब्रह्म ।

॥ तैक्षिरीर्ोपननषत् २-१-१ ॥
Brahmavidāpnōti param | tadēṣā’bhuktā | satyaṁ jñānamanantaṁ Brahma |

|| Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-1-1 ||
So, when you define Brahman as satyam jñānaṁ-anantam, it is the definition

through the intrinsic-feature of Brahman, and therefore, it is called svarūpa-
lakṣaṇam. Whereas what is the taṭastha-lakṣaṇam of Brahman? That is
presented in the sūtra, jagat-kāraṇam Brahma, jagat-adhiṣṭhānam Brahma. In
this second-definition, Brahman is revealed through what; the universe or jagat.
So, you are taking the world feature as a feature to define Brahman. Is the
world an intrinsic-feature of Brahman or it is non-intrinsic? We know world is
not the intrinsic-nature of Brahman. If Brahman is like the house, world is like
the crow. So, we have reduced the whole world into a crow. That is what it is
doing; crowing! Why do you say it is like a crow? Just as a crow disappears, the
world also praḷaya-kālē naśyati, disappears. In fact, you need not go up to
praḷayam, suṣupti-kālē ēva; you just manage to dose in the class the world will
disappear. Just a half a second is enough to show that the world is an extrinsic-
feature. So, jagat-kāraṇam Brahma is taṭastha-lakṣaṇam, which is revealed
through the famous śruti-vākyam –
यतो िा इमानि भूतानि जायन्द्ते ।. .. ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् ३-१-१ ॥
yatō vā imāni bhūtāni jāyantē |... || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 3-1-1 ||
etc., we saw.
So, the question that may arise is why did Vyāsācārya choose taṭastha-lakṣaṇam
to define Brahman, why didn’t he choose svarūpa-lakṣaṇam to define Brahman?
When both are available, why did he vote for taṭastha-lakṣaṇam? He could have
said

सत्यं ज्ञािमिन्द्तं ब्रह्म ॥
satyaṁ jñānamanantaṁ Brahma ||
Or still simpler
सस्थच्चदािन्द्दम् ब्रह्म ॥ शास्त्रयोनित्िात् ॥

saccidānandam Brahma ||śāstrayōnitvāt ||
He could have done like that. The reason is this; in the case of Brahman, at least
initially, taṭastha-lakṣaṇam is easier to understand than svarūpa-lakṣaṇam.
Why? The reason is, in taṭastha-lakṣaṇam, we are taking the external-features,
which are clearly visible, available, perceptible, tangible, inter-actable. So,
through the known to the unknown. Through the known-world to the unknown-
Brahman is easier to understand. We know crow very well. Whereas when we
use svarūpa-lakṣaṇam, i.e., satyam jñānaṁ-anantam, we find the very intrinsic-
feature of satyam, the very intrinsic-feature of jñānam is not easily perceptible
or available. Because, jñānam means what? Pure Consciousness and not vrtti-
jñānam. So, when you say, satyam jñānam-anantam Brahma, the word jñānam
means svarūpa caitanyam, nirviśēṣa caitanyam and this jñānam itself is not
known to me. So, what is the problem? I wanted to know Brahman and to
define Brahman you use the word jñānam. And what is jñānam? Nirviśēṣa-
caitanyam, attributeless-Consciousness. But my problem is what? I don’t know
the attributeless-Consciousness itself? So therefore, one unknown-thing is
defined through another- unknown. Therefore, I ask what is Brahman? We say it
is jñānam. Then I have to ask another question, what is jñānam? It is like
looking into the dictionary, I have told you before. So, there is a word garrulous.
What is the meaning of the word garrulous, I didn’t know. Then I looked into
the dictionary, it gives the meaning loquacious. Then what is loquacious? Then
it was given as voluble. I got irritated and saw what is voluble. Garrulous. So,
now I have not enlightened, you have talked a lot, but at the end I am not
enlightened. So then, I take it means talkative-person. So, a lot of talkativeness
is involved to understand this thing. Similarly, what is Brahman? It is pure-
Consciousness. What is pure-Consciousness I don’t know. Therefore, the

definition of jñānam itself requires a taṭastha-lakṣaṇam. In fact, through vrtti-

jñānam alone I can define svarūpa-jñānam. Therefore, I find svarūpa-lakṣaṇam
requires another taṭastha-lakṣaṇam. Because, satyam is not visible, jñānam is
not experienceable, anantam of course, is not known to me. Therefore, satyam
jñānam-anantam is useful only after using taṭastha-lakṣaṇam. Therefore,
between these two definitions, which is better? Taṭastha-lakṣaṇam is better. In
the case of the house, svarūpa-lakṣaṇam is ok because, the color is visible, the
height is visible, the area is experienceable; therefore, svarūpa-lakṣaṇam will
easily work. But in the case of Brahman, satyam is itself is known, jñānam itself
is unknown, and anantam itself is unknown. And therefore, Vyāsācārya chose
taṭastha-lakṣaṇam, janmādyasya yataḥ. This is one point I wanted to mention.
Now, here Vyāsācārya has defined Brahman as the jagat-kāraṇam and

particularly jagat upādāna-kāraṇam, i.e., Brahman is the material-cause of the
universe. Now, a doubt may come. In the upaniṣats, often Brahman is said to be
the material-cause of the creation. But sometimes we find māyā or prakrti is
presented as the material-cause of the creation. So, sometimes Brahman is
presented as the material-cause of the creation. What is the example for this?
यतो िा इमानि भूतानि जायन्द्ते ।. .. ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् ३-१-१ ॥

yatō vā imāni bhūtāni jāyantē |... || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 3-1-1 ||
That statement is the example. But sometimes the upaniṣats point out māyā or
prakrti is the material-cause of the creation.
मार्ां तु प्रकृतति नवद्यान्मामर्नं च मरेश्वरम् ॥ श्वेताश्वतरोपननषत् ४-१० ॥
māyāṁ tu prakrtiṁ vidyā, māyinaṁ ca mahēśvaram | || Śvētāśvatarōpaniṣat 4-10 ||
In Śvētāśvatarōpaniṣat, it is said māyā is the prakrti, which is the material-cause.

And in another upaniṣat, it is
अजामेकां लोनरतिुक्लकृ्र्ां बह्वीं प्रजां जनर्न्तीँ सरूपाम् अजो ह्येको जुषमार्ोऽनुिेते जरात्र्ेनां भुक्तभोगामजोऽन्र्ः
॥ मरानारार्र्ोपननषत् १२-५ ॥
ajāmēkāṁ lōhitaśuklakrṣṇāṁ bahvīṁ prajāṁ janayantī sarūpām | ajō hyēkō

juṣamāṇō’nuśētē jahātyēnāṁ bhuktabhōgāmajō’nyaḥ || Mahānārāyaṇōpaniṣat 12-5 ||

In Mahānārāyaṇōpaniṣat this is a famous quotation. And this is going to be

elaborately analyzed later. This is an important mantra, we will analyze later.
Ajām ēkām. In this mantra also, prakrti is given as the material-cause of the
creation. And in the Bhagavadgītā, it was said –
प्रकृकतत पुरुषं चैि निद्ध्यिादी उभािनप ।

नवकारांश्च गुर्ांश्चैव नवद्धद्ध प्रकृनतसम्भवान् ॥ गीता १३-२० ॥
prakrtiṁ puruṣaṁ caiva viddhyanādī ubhāvapi |

vikārāṁśca guṇāṁścaiva viddhi prakrtisambhavān || Gītā 13-20 ||
In the thirteenth chapter the Gītā says, prakrti and puruṣa are two
beginningless-principles and creation has come out of prakrti. Vikārāṁśca
guṇāṁścaiva viddhi prakrti-sambhavān. Therefore, this Gītā ślōka also says
prakrti is the material-cause of creation. And if you go to Tattva-bōdha, which is
our basic text, how do we read the srṣṭi there.
ब्रह्माश्रया सत्िरजस्तमोगुणास्त्त्मका माया अस्स्त ॥ तत्त्िबोिाः ९-१ ॥

brahmāśrayā satvarajastamōguṇātmikā māyā asti || Tattva-bōdhaḥ 9-1 ||
So, there the author says there is māyā. And then he says,
तताः आकाशाः सम्भूताः । ॥ तत्त्िबोिाः ९-१-१ ॥

tataḥ ākāśaḥ sambhūtaḥ | || Tattva-bōdhaḥ 9-1-1 ||
We won’t think at all these, these are all subject to serious analysis. Tataḥ
means from that. What was introduced before? Brahmāśrayā satva-rajas-tamō-
guṇātmikā māyā was introduced and from that ākāśaḥ has come means from
māyā alone. Therefore, what is the material-cause? Prakrti. So, what I want to
say here is, sometimes the Upaniṣat says Brahman is the material-cause and
sometimes the Upaniṣat says prakrti is the material-cause, tell me which is the
material-cause? Brahma vā, prakrti vā? Or to use another expression puruṣaḥ
vā, prakrtiḥ vā?
And there is a big difference because, if you say Brahman is material-

cause it is cētanam and if you say prakrti is material-cause it is acētanam. So,
now the question is cētanam-kāraṇam vā acētanam-kāraṇam vā? And
Vyāsācārya has chosen Brahman as the material-cause here, he doesn’t

mention, prakrti as the material-cause. Cētanā-Brahma kāraṇatvam

Vyāsācāryēṇa uktam dvitīya sūtrē na tu acētana-prakrti-kāraṇatvam uktam. Can
you understand this? Cētana-Brahma-kāraṇatvam uktam na tu acētana-prakrti-
kāraṇatvam uktam. Cētanam-Brahma is the material-cause, he doesn’t take
acētana-prakrti as the material-cause.
This choice Vyāsācārya has got a lot of significance. Why did Vyāsācārya
choose this? Choice between what and what? Between cētanam-Brahma or
puruṣa and acētana-prakrti or māyā, he has chosen to present the cētanam-
Brahma as the material-cause, which has got a lot significance, lot of reasons. I
am going to give you five reasons for it, because of this alone this becomes a
key-sūtram.
 The first reason is that Vyāsācārya wants to clearly differentiate, separate

Vēdāntic-teaching from Sāṅkhya-philosophy. In fact, in most of the Brahma-
sūtra Vyāsācārya wants to criticize Sāṅkhya and separate himself from Sāṅkhya.
So, perhaps during Vyāsācārya’s time, Sāṅkhya was very very prevalent. And
there must have been lot of confusion also. Therefore, predominantly the
Vyāsācārya’s opponent is Sāṅkhya. It is like Kasparov v/s Karpov chess match. If
Vyāsācārya is Kasparov, the primary contender is Sāṅkhya, the Karpov, even we
use the word prathamā-malla Nyāya, which we will see later. And Vyāsācārya
has to differentiate from Sāṅkhya because many words are common in Sāṅkhya
and Vēdānta. They also talk about puruṣaḥ, the asaṅga-caitanyam, the ātmā.
So, in Sāṅkhya-philosophy also they use the word puruṣaḥ, which means
asaṅga-caitanya ātmā. In Vēdānta also we use the word puruṣaḥ. In the Gītā,
several times the word puruṣaḥ is used. In the entire thirteenth chapter very
often
प्रकृकतत पुरुषं चैि निद्ध्यिादी उभािनप । ॥ गीता १३-२० ॥

prakrtiṁ puruṣaṁ caiva viddhyanādī ubhāvapi | || Gītā 13-20 ||
And in Kaṭhōpaniṣat also
अव्यक्तािु पराः पुरुषो ॥ कठोपनिषत् २-३-८ ॥

avyaktāttu paraḥ puruṣō || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 2-3-8 ||

पुरुषान्न परं ककतसचत् ॥ कठोपनिषत् १-३-११ ॥

puruṣānna paraṁ kiṁcit || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-3-11 ||
So the puruṣaḥ is the common word in both and is defined as asaṅga-caitanya-

ātmā. And the word prakrti is also used by Sāṅkhya and Vēdānta. In both,
prakrti is acētanam, in both prakrti is triguṇātmikā, satva-rajas-tamō-guṇa, in
both prakrti is savikāra, changing, and not only that the very word Sāṅkhya is
used to indicate Vēdāntic-teaching. In the Gītā second chapter, the very title of
the chapter is Sāṅkhya-yōga. In Vēda also the word Sāṅkhya occurs. In
Bhāgavatam, Sāṅkhya-philosophy is given out by Kapila Rṣi, Kapila-Dēvahūti-
samvādaḥ. So thus, it appears Sāṅkhya and Vēdānta are one and the same.
Therefore, Vyāsācārya wants to show that Vēdānta is different from Sāṅkhya.
How to show the difference? Sāṅkhya says prakrti is the material-cause of the
universe and Vyāsācārya to differentiate it, he clearly says cētanam-Brahman is
the material-cause of the universe. So, Sāṅkhya says acētana-prakrti is the
material-cause, Vyāsācārya says cētanam-Brahma is the material-cause.
Therefore, this is the key sūtra in which he differentiates Vēdānta from Sāṅkhya.
This is the first reason.
ii. Let us come to the second-reason. In all the systems of philosophy, one
of the basic questions is about the material-cause of the universe, from where
did the universe originate. This is the natural question of any human intellect.
Even science is trying to arrive at the basic stuff, one single-stuff. They want
unified-field-theory. They want to unify everything. It is called ‘TOE’ is scientific
language. TOE means Theory Of Everything. So, they want to arrive at one basic
stuff or the matter. Even energy they are not able to accept because the
energies themselves are many. Gravitational-force, electro-magnetic force,
strong-nuclear-force, weak-nuclear-force etc. As long as there is plurality they
have not arrived at the basic stuff. The ultimate basic stuff should be what? Try
to arrive at the fundamental basic material-cause of the universe. And you find
most of the philosophies arrive at a basic material-cause and you find all of
them are acētana-material-cause. Most of the systems arrive at the basic
material-cause and that material-cause is some material-principle only.
Therefore, they all arrived at some kind of matter-principle or acētana-tattvam

as the basic material-cause. For example, for Sāṅkhya and yōga philosophy
what is the material-cause? Acētana-prakrtiḥ is the basic material-cause. They
say prakrtiḥ is the material-cause. And what is the nature of prakrtiḥ?
Acētanam. Therefore, thier theory is called acētana-kāraṇa-vādaḥ. So, Sāṅkhya
and yōga philosophy are acētana-kāraṇa-vādaḥ.
If you take Nyāya and Vaiśēṣika, they say the basic material-cause is atom,
atomic theory. It is called paramāṇu-vādaḥ, which is very close to our science.
They say during praḷayam, only atom were existing and gradually when the
appropriate time came the atoms joined together and formed molecules and
then molecules gradually built up and everything has come up. And this
paramāṇu is cētanam or acētanam? They say these paramāṇus are also
acētanam. Therefore, their theory is also acētana-kāraṇa-vādaḥ. This is with
regard to āstika-systems.
If we go to nāstika-systems also, most of them take to acētana-kāraṇa-

vādaḥ alone with different names. Pañca-skandhāḥ etc., we will be studying
later all of them, if we survive intellectually until then. So, they talk about pañca-
skandhāḥ in Buddhism, they talk about astikāyā in Jainism, different technical
words are used; but all are reduced to acētana-matter is the basic cause of the
creation. Therefore, most of the systems of philosophy talk about acētana-
kāraṇa-vādaḥ.
What about our modern science? The modern science also assumes matter
alone as fundamental. At the time of big bang there was a big explosion, no life
was there at that time, and after the big-explosion then various particles came
out and then they joined together, molecules and then DNAs and RNAs and
cells and unicellular organisms and then multi-cellular organisms and finally the
confused- human-being. They give the date also for big bang. And minus
hundredth of a second what happens, then minus fiftieth of a second …
gradually they come. And according to that big-bang theory, the life is only of
very recent origin. Recently only life has come. By life has come they mean
Consciousness has originated recently. Out of what? Out of what? Matter.

So thus, you find in most of the systems of philosophy matter is

fundamental; Consciousness is either a parallel-reality equal to the matter as in
Sāṅkhya and Yōga. Or they say Consciousness is product of matter. Either
Consciousness is equal to matter or It is secondary to matter. It either occupies
equal importance or lesser importance.
In all other systems of philosophy, therefore, they are called acētana-

kāraṇa-vādaḥ. And very interestingly in the Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika philosophy, again
you will see the details later, the very ātmā is one type of matter like what; any
other matter. So, he talks about nine types of matter, of the nine types of
matter (as we categorize animals, like that he categorizes nine types of matter)
one is ātmā. So, ātmā is cētanam or acētanam? If ātmā is matter, it is acētanam.
And what about Consciousness? It comes and goes in the ātmā. Consciousness
arrives in the ātmā. Then ātmā will become what? A sentient-being. Then what
happens? Consciousness disappears from ātmā, It will become what; insentient
matter.
So therefore, what I want to say is in all the systems what is the vāda?
acētana-kāraṇa-vādaḥ. Vēdānta is the most-unique-system or teaching, which
presents Cētana-kāraṇa-vādaḥ where the Spirit excels the matter. By Spirit is
not meant any other spirit, take it in the right spirit. So Vēdānta is the most
unique teaching, where Consciousness is neither equal to matter nor
subservient to matter but it is superior to the matter, the fundamental
substance. Therefore, what is the uniqueness of Vēdānta? Cētana-kāraṇa-
vādaḥ, which means Consciousness is the basic-cause.
And once you say it is the basic-cause, remember, it means It is the basic-
stuff or content. Isn’t it true? When I say gold is the material-cause of the
ornament, what do I mean? Gold is the stuff, the content, the pith behind all
ornaments. Wood is the material-cause means wood is the sāraḥ the pith of all
the furniture. Similarly, Cētana-kāraṇa-vādaḥ means Consciousness is the stuff
of the universe. So, if you crush the universe in a mixie, putting everything in
the Vēdāntic-mixie and crushing it thoroughly, the stuff, the rasaḥ, the sāraḥ; in
other systems of philosophy it will be matter; but in Vēdānta, the sāraḥ

presented is caitanyam. There is no matter other than caitanyam, because

matter-crushed is caitanyam and caitanyam diluted is matter.
And therefore, the second-sūtra presents cētanā-kāraṇa-vādaḥ through

which Vyāsācārya distinguishes Vēdānta from all other systems of philosophies.
What is first significance? I said it mainly differentiates from Sāṅkhya, because it
is very close to Vēdānta. The second significance is this sūtra distinguishes
Vēdānta from Sāṅkhya, Yōga, Nyāya, Vaiśēṣika, Bauddha, Jaina, Cārvāka,
modern sciences etc. What is the key sūtram for that? Janmādyasya-yataḥ. This
is the second reason that Vyāsācārya choses this definition.
iii. Then what is the third? The third reason is this. No doubt the upaniṣats
point out that Brahman as the material-cause of the creation and also prakrti as
the material-cause of the creation, both are presented. But predominantly
Brahman alone is presented as the material-cause. Only in few places prakrti as
the material-cause. In fact, that Vyāsācārya is going to show in the entire first
chapter. The entire first chapter through samanvayādhyāyaḥ, Vyāsācārya is
going to show that all the upaniṣats predominantly discuss Brahman as the
material-cause of the universe. Tattu-samanvayāt, he is going to establish that.
This is the unique teaching of the upaniṣats. Brahman as the material-cause is
the unique teaching. Therefore, if anybody asks what is the uniqueness of
Vēdānta, then you should say Cētana-kāraṇa-vādaḥ is the uniqueness of
Vēdāntic teaching.
So, therefore, what is the third-reason? Even though Brahman is also

presented as upādāna-kāraṇam, prakrti is also presented as upādāna-kāraṇam,
predominantly Brahman alone is given and therefore, Vyāsācārya choses
janmādyasya yataḥ tat Brahma. This is the third reason.
iv. Then the fourth reason is also very important. As I said upaniṣat presents
Brahman as the material-cause often, which is cētanā-kāraṇam. And I said in
certain places the upaniṣat presents acētana-prakrti as the material-cause. So,
now the question may come, how can the upaniṣat contradict itself? So, if one is
correct the other must be wrong. Isn’t it? If Brahman is upādāna-kāraṇam,

cētanam is upādāna-kāraṇam, and then it cannot say acētanam is kāraṇam.

Since it is acētanam i.e., upādāna-kāraṇam then it cannot be cētanam.
Therefore, if the upaniṣat presents both, then it means that upaniṣat is either
contradicting or it is misleading us or upaniṣat itself is confused.
So, the answer is (this answer is also equally important, many important
ideas are going to be derived out of this answer also). We say both statements
are correct. Brahman is also upādāna-kāraṇam and prakrti is upādāna-kāraṇam
is also correct. Puruṣa is upādāna-kāraṇam is also correct; prakrti is upādāna-
kāraṇam is also correct. How? Because, according to the upaniṣat, prakrti does
not exist independent of puruṣa, māyā does not exist independent of Brahman.
It is asvatantram, not svatantram. Or it is paratantram and not svatantram. So
therefore, since māyā is non-separate from Brahman, whatever is attributed to
māyā can be attributed to Brahman also, in the sense when you say prakrti is
the kāraṇam it is as good as saying Brahman is the kāraṇam, because prakrti is
based on Brahman. Prakrti borrows the very existence from Brahman. And that
is why technically we say in Vēdānta, prakrti is pariṇāmi-upādāna-kāraṇam and
Brahman is vivarta-upādāna-kāraṇam. What is the definition of vivarta-
upādāna-kāraṇam? The definition is that which lends existence to pariṇāmi-
upādāna-kāraṇam is vivarta upādāna-kāraṇam. In saṁskrta, pariṇāmi-upādāna
kāraṇa-adhiṣṭhānam, vivarta-upādānam. Therefore, upaniṣat does not
contradict because prakrti does not exist separate from puruṣa/Brahman.
This has to be very clearly noted because in Sāṅkhya philosophy prakrti is

independent of puruṣa – this is the basic difference between Sāṅkhya and
Vēdānta. What is the basic difference? We also talk of prakrti and puruṣa for
them prakrti is separate and puruṣa is separate, therefore, prakrti’s action
cannot be attributed to puruṣa. So, if prakrti is kāraṇam for Sāṅkhya, he can
only say prakrti is the kāraṇam and he cannot say puruṣa is kāraṇam. Why?
Because, he is somewhere else. Like certain husband and wife, not in terms, he
will be sitting somewhere else and she will be sitting elsewhere. So, Sāṅkhya
have got disharmonious attitude (nearer to divorce!, couple sitting in different
rooms). But Vēdānta they are in very good relation (Indian family!). Therefore, in

Sāṅkhya, when they say prakrti is the upādāna-kāraṇam, what does it mean?
Prakrtiḥ ēva upādāna-kāraṇam, na tu puruṣaḥ. In Vēdānta prakrti does not exist
separate from puruṣa, symbolized as Ardhanārīśvara in our culture. Pārvatī
cannot leave Śiva and go. Sarasvatī cannot leave Brahma and go. They cannot
have separation. So therefore, prakrti is asvatantram in Vēdānta, when we say
prakrti is the material-cause, it is indirectly Brahman. And therefore, Vyāsācārya
says janmādyasya yataḥ. The world has come out of prakrti for which the very
adhiṣṭhānam is Brahman and Brahman lends existence to prakrti and through
prakrti, It lends existence to the whole creation. This is the fourth reason.
v. The fifth and final reason is also very technically important reason. This is
based on an idea, which clearly comes in the Muṇḍakōpaniṣat and
Cāndōgyōpaniṣat. So there, one topic discussed is ēka-vijñānēna, sarva
vijñānam (|| Muṇḍakōpaniṣat 1-1-3 || and || cāndōgyōpaniṣat 6-15-3 ||). By
knowing one, one can know everything else. The upaniṣat explains that. What is
that one, by knowing which everything else is known? The upaniṣat says,
upādāna-kāraṇa-vijñānēna sarva-kārya-vijñānam bhavati. By knowing one
material-cause all the products are known. How? What is the reason? You know
the logic, because products do not exist separate from its material-cause. These
topics I am taking for granted, for if you have attended the upaniṣats classes
very well, then you will be very comfortable with this topic. Svarṇa-vijñānēna
sarva ābharaṇa-vijñānam, mrd-vijñānēna sarva-ghaṭādi vijñānam, tantu
vijñānēna vastra-vijñānam, jala-vijñānēna samudrādi vijñānam bhavati.
Therefore, ēka vijñānēna sarva vijñānam means ēka pādāna-kāraṇa-vijñānēna
sarva-kārya-vijñānam bhavati.
And naturally, the question will come, ‘What is that?’ And the upaniṣat
gives ‘Brahma-jñānam. ’ For giving sarva-vijñānam the upaniṣat gives Brahma-
jñānam as the means of sarva-vijñānam.
यज्ज्ञात्िा िेह भूयोऽन्द्यज्ज्ञातव्यमिसशष्यते ॥ गीता ७-२ ॥

yajjñātvā nēha bhūyō’nyajjñātavyamavaśiṣyatē || Gītā 7-2 ||
Suppose, if prakrti is the material-cause, then prakrti-vijñānēna sarva-vijñānam

will come. If Brahman is the material-cause then Brahma vijñānēna sarva-

vijñānam. Therefore, Brahman should be the material-cause. Details in the next

class.


023 Sūtra 1-1-3 Janmādhyadhikaraṇam
Through the second-sūtra i.e., Brahma-lakṣaṇa-sūtram, Vyāsācārya is

presenting Cētana-kāraṇa-vādaḥ. Cētana-kāraṇa-vādaḥ means a teaching in
which the Consciousness is the ultimate cause of everything. Cētana-kāraṇa-
vādaḥ, Brahma-kāraṇa-vādaḥ. By presenting this Cētana-kāraṇa-vādaḥ,
Vyāsācārya is accomplishing many things. I pointed out five important ideas.
i) Firstly, he is negating most of the other systems of philosophy,

which claim acētana-matter as the ultimate cause of the universe. So, anya-
sarva-darśana nirākaraṇam, because all the other systems claim paramāṇu,
pradhānam, skandhās etc., all of them are material in nature. They say matter is
the material-cause of the universe. The uniqueness of Vēdānta is that it
presents Consciousness as the very material-cause of the universe. Thus, the
first accomplishment is the negation of all other systems.
ii) The second-point to be noted is through this cētana-kāraṇa-vādaḥ,
Vyāsācārya mainly shows the difference between Sāṅkhya-philosophy and
Vēdānta, because Sāṅkhya is very close to Vēdānta. And therefore, Vyāsa wants
to show the difference. One of the primary differences is that Sāṅkhya is
acētana-kāraṇa-vādaḥ whereas Vēdānta is cētana-kāraṇa-vādaḥ. This is the
second point.
iii) Then the third-accomplishment is Vyāsācārya brings out the
primary teaching of the Vēdānta, the upaniṣat, wherein cētanam-Brahma is
repeatedly presented as jagat-kāraṇam.
iv) Then fourthly, there are cases where the upaniṣat presents
acētana- prakrti as upādāna-kāraṇam, the material-cause.

मायां तु प्रकृकतत निद्यात् । ॥ श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषत् ४-१० ॥

māyāṁ tu prakrtiṁ vidyāt | || śvētāśvatarōpaniṣat 4-10 ||
निकारांश्च गुणांश्चैि निद्धि प्रकृनतसम्भिाि् ॥ गीता १३-१९ ॥

vikārāṁśca guṇāṁścaiva viddhi prakrtisambhavān || Gītā 13-19 ||
etc. Vyāsācārya indicates that even in such cases, where prakrti is said to be the
material-cause it only means Brahman is the material-cause, because prakrti
does not exist separate from Brahman. This is another very important
difference between Sāṅkhya and Vēdānta. In Sāṅkhya system, when they say
prakrti is the material-cause, it means prakrti is the material-cause because
prakrti and puruṣa/Brahman are totally different in Sāṅkhya system. Therefore,
you cannot interchange the word prakrti and puruṣa. Whereas in Vēdānta
prakrti and puruṣa can be interchanged because, ultimately there is no
prakrti/māyā separate from puruṣa/Brahman. And therefore, even when there
is prakrti-kāraṇa-vādaḥ it is as good as Brahma-kāraṇa-vādaḥ. This is also
indicated by the second-sūtra.
v) Fifthly and finally, there is a technical idea also conveyed. When

Brahman is presented as the ultimate-kāraṇam, then we can say Brahma-
jñānēna sarva-jñānam bhavati in keeping with the law, which we have seen in
Cāndōgyōpaniṣat which we have seen in Muṇḍakōpaniṣat – kāraṇa-vijñānēna
kārya-vijñānam bhavati. Ēka kāraṇa-vijñānēna anēka kārya-vijñānam bhavati.
Ēkajñaḥ sarvajñaḥ bhavati. This is impossible in Sāṅkhya philosophy, because,
in Sāṅkhya philosophy, prakrti is the kāraṇam and prapañca is the kāryam. In
Sāṅkhya philosophy, ēka-kāraṇa-prakrti-vijñānēna anēka kārya-prapañca-
vijñānam bhavati, Brahma vijñānam naiva bhavati, because, puruṣa is neither
kāraṇam nor kāryam in Sāṅkhya philosophy. This we will analyze in detail later.
If you understand, well and good; if you don’t understand, need not worry. The
essence is ēka-vijñānēna sarva-vijñāna pratijñā will fit in only in Vēdānta
śāstram. In Sāṅkhya śāstram, ēka vijñānēna sarva vijñānam naiva bhavati. This
is going to be elaborately discussed later. This you will see the details.
Thus, the second-sūtra is a very significant sūtra, which presents cētana-

kāraṇa-vādaḥ, which is uniqueness of Vēdānta śāstram. It is not there in any of

the nāstika-darśanam and it is not there in any other āstika-darśanam also. It is

unique to Vēdānta. With this I am concluding the second sūtra.
Now we will enter into third sūtram.
Adhikaraṇa 003 Śāstrayōny-adhikaraṇam ||
००३ िास्त्र्ोननत्त्वात् ॥
003 śāstrayōnittvāt ||
Now this sūtram also happens to be one adhikaraṇam or one topic. I

have told you before that a topic can have either one sūtram or a topic can have
either many sūtrams also. Here the topic is called, in saṁskrta, adhikaraṇam.
But until now we have seen only adhikaraṇams having one one sūtra. First
adhikaraṇam one sūtra. What is the name of the adhikaraṇam?
jijñāsādhikaraṇam. What is the sūtra? Athātō Brahma-jijñāsā. What is the
second adhikaraṇam called? Janmādy-adhikaraṇam. What is the sūtra?
Janmādyasya yataḥ. And we have got the third adhikaraṇam having only one
sūtra. What is the name of the adhikaraṇam? Śāstrayōni adhikaraṇam. The
sūtra is śāstrayōnitvāt. Just one word. So, in first-sūtra three words were there,
in the second-sūtra three words were there, third sūtra only one word. Sūtra
definition –
अस्तोभमनवद्यञ्च सूत्ं सूत्नवदो नवदुः ॥ परािरोपपुरार्म् १८-१३-१४
astōbhamanavadyañca sūtraṁ sūtravidō viduḥ || Parāśarōpapurāṇam 18-13-14 ||
If you can by heart these definitions it will be excellent. Some four to five ślōkas
are there and before the completion of Brahma-sūtras if you can by heart it will
be excellent. Sūtra definition, adhikaraṇam definition. So, alpākṣara-sūtram is
important, sūtram must be with minimum words. And here, this sūtra is going
to be interpreted in two different ways. So, we are going to get two
interpretations for this sūtra. Therefore, we have to read this sūtra twice. First
we have read it and see the first interpretation, complete it, come back and

read the sūtra again and get another meaning. And if one sūtra can be
interpreted in different ways, it is supposed to be the glory of the sūtra.
Because, while defining sūtra, there is a word viśvatō-mukham, which means
having many faces, many faceted or many faced, the sūtras are. Having many
faced means what? Having many interpretations. So thus, certain sūtras have
got viśvatō-mukhatvam. And for viśvatō-mukhatvam what is the example?
Śāstrayōnitvāt sūtram, is the example for viśvatō-mukhatvam. Now, I will take
up the first interpretation for our study. And as I said I will go in three stages –
first is the general analysis, then we will do word analysis and then we will do
the conclusion. So, first I am taking up the general analysis of this sūtram.
General Analysis
What is the essence of this sūtram? This sūtra confirms the omniscience
of Brahman, which is indirectly revealed in the second-sūtra. Brahma
sarvajñatvam drḍhayati, confirms the omniscience of Brahman, which
omniscience has been already indicated in the second-sūtra. This is the essence
of first interpretation. Now, we have to see how the omniscience is indicated in
the second-sūtra. Now, let us go back to the second-sūtra. Brahman is the
jagat-kāraṇam. That means sarva-kāraṇam. That is the explicit-meaning of the
second-sūtra, which is the open direct-meaning of the second-sūtra. Brahman is
the jagat-kāraṇam or sarva-kāraṇam. From this direct-meaning we can derive
an indirect-meaning. What is that? yaḥ, yasya kartā, saḥ, tajñaḥ. We have seen.
Ghaṭasya-kartā ghaṭajñaḥ, paṭasya-kartā paṭajñaḥ, sarvasya-kartā sarvajñaḥ.
Brahma-sarvajñam sarva-kāraṇatvāt vyatirēkēṇa kulālavat. Brahman is
omniscient, because It is the creator or nimitta-kāraṇam of everything. So, to
derive the omniscience, we are taking which aspect of Brahman? Nimitta-
kāraṇa status or upādāna-kāraṇa status? We are not talking about the
knowledge of upādāna-kāraṇam, remember always knowledge belongs to the
nimitta-kāraṇam. Therefore, Brahma sarvajñam sarvēṣām nimitta-kāraṇatvāt
vyatirēkēṇa kulālavat. This omniscience is not directly said, it is only indirectly
said. And that omniscience is further confirmed in the third-sūtra.

And how does the Vyāsācārya confirm omniscience, through the third
sūtra? By pointing out that Brahman is the creator of the Vēdas also. So,
śāstrayōni means Vēda-kartā, the creator of the Vēdas. And always remember
kartā means nimitta-kāraṇam. So, in the previous sūtra, Brahman is the nimitta-
kāraṇam of the entire world and in this sūtra, Brahman is the nimitta-kāraṇam
of the entire Vēdas. In the previous sūtra, Brahman is the nimitta-kāraṇam of
ārtha-prapañca, and in this sūtra Brahman is the nimitta-kāraṇam of śabda-
prapañca. Vēda-śabdānām api kartā.
How does this statement / how does this idea, that Brahman being Vēda-
kartā, reveals the omniscience of Brahman? How do you reveal the omniscience
of Brahman by pointing out that Brahman is the author of Vēdas? Śaṅkarācārya
says Vēdas contain all knowledge. There is no branch of science, which is not in
the Vēdas. Vēda consists of parā-vidyā as well as aparā-vidyā. And therefore,
Vēda itself is considered to be sarvajñaḥ, Vēdaḥ sarvajñaḥ. What we are
studying is only a small-part of the Vēdas. And when we study Cāndōgya and
Brhadāraṇyaka and analyze the contents of those two upaniṣats themselves, we
find how many things are discussed. The interdependence of the world,
whether it is ecology, whether it is biology, any branch. And imagine you take all
the four – Rg-Vēda consisting of ten thousand and odd mantras, Yajur-Vēda
consisting a few thousand. And mind you the most important thing to note is
the Vēdas which are available now are only an insignificant-portion because
much of the are lost in time. They say Sāma-Vēda had thousand śākhās. Of
those thousand branches only two or three are exists, like various animals
becoming extinct many branches of Vēdas have become extinct now. Even
between Śaṅkarācārya’s time and now, a difference of just thousand two
hundreds or so we find many quotations that Śaṅkarācārya gives we are not
able to find in the Vēdas indicating that those portions have been lost. Even in
this available Vēdas, the mine of information is so great and therefore,
Śaṅkarācārya says, Vēdaḥ sarvajñaḥ, it has got all knowledge. And thereafter,
Śaṅkarācārya makes a logic. Because the whole thing is logical text you know.
He makes a beautiful vyāpti. What is that? The author of a grantha, a work
invariably, always knows more than the content of the work (very interesting

logic) because, you can never express everything that you know in verbal form.
Therefore, the expressed-portion is always lesser than the known-portion. Yaḥ
yasya granthasya kartā saḥ tatōpi adhika jñānavān. Yaḥ yasya granthasya kartā
– the one who is the author of a particular text, saḥ tatōpi adhika jñānavān – he
knows more than the content of that text. Śaṅkarācārya gives an example. He
has to give an author. This Śaṅkarācārya has to accept that author, he must be
so great. You know whom he gives as an example? Yathā Pāṇiniḥ. Pāṇini one of
the greatest grammarians. The Pāṇini sūtras are so famous and Pāṇini existed
much much before Śaṅkarācārya, hundreds of years before. The Pāṇini’s work
is so great that Patañjali wrote the main bhāṣyam for Pāṇini’s sūtras, which
consists of nine volumes each one is like a pillow size. And for this bhāṣyam
secondary commentaries, for the secondary commentaries tertiary
commentaries, then condensation, then vārtikams all those things you can have
books and books full of library, all based on four thousand sūtras, which can be
contained in a small booklet. And more you study the sūtras the more mind-
boggling it is. It is almost like a microchip; the more you study the more mind-
boggling it is. If Pāṇini has to write such a wonderful work, then what should be
the amount of knowledge he had. It must be much much more than the
content of the Pāṇini sūtras. And if that is so, if Bhagavān or Brahma is the
author of the entire Vēdas what must be the knowledge of Brahman, Vēda
jñānādapi adhika jñānavān. And therefore, Brahma sarvajñam. What should be
the inference? Brahma-sarvajñam sarvajña-kalpa Vēda-kartrtvāt, vyatirēkēṇa
asmadādivat. Unlike us. Now, the general analysis of the sūtra – Brahma
sarvajñam Vēda-kartrtvāt. In the previous sūtra – Brahma sarvajñam jagat-
kartrtvāt.
Now, here an incidental point has to be remembered for technical

reason. It is accepted by us, the Vēdāntins that Vēdas are anādi, apauruṣēyam,
not created by anyone. The question comes, if Vēdas are apauruṣēyam, not
created by any human intellect, how can you say Brahman has created these
Vēdas? Isn’t it a contradiction? Apauruṣēyatva bhaṅgaḥ syāt. For that we
answer, when we say Brahman created the Vēdas it does not mean Brahman
intellectually invented the Vēdas, it is not an intellectual production. Like Vālmīki

writing Rāmāyaṇam or Vyāsācārya writing Mahābhāratam, it is not a product

born out of the intellect. Then what does it mean? This knowledge was already
there in potential form. This vaidika-teaching was already was there in potential
form and Brahman only brought this teaching to manifestation. So, Brahman’s
creation of the Vēdas is only Brahman’s manifestation of the Vēdas exactly like
creation. When we say, Brahman created the world it means not that the world
was non-existent and it is not that from non-existent, Bhagavān created the
world. Then we will end up in asat-kārya-vādaḥ. We only say that world was
already-existent in potential-form. And what is the job of Brahman? Not
producing the world but only manifesting. Avyākrta prapañcasya, vyākaraṇam
srṣṭi. Similarly, Vēda-śāstram, the Vedic wisdom even Bhagavān did not create it
was anādi. And where was that Vēda? It was in Brahman itself. In what form?
Avyakta-rūpēṇa. And what did Brahman do? Avyakta vēdān vyaktikrtavān.
Avyākrta vēdān vyākrtavān. And therefore, Vēda is not the creation of any
intellect, including Bhagavān’s intellect. Bhagavān’s job is only manifesting. So
this point has to be remembered.
This is to be noted because, in Nyāya philosophy it is said that Bhagavān

created the Vēdas. In this aspect, Vēdānta is different form Nyāya system of
philosophy. In Nyāya, Bhagavān creates the Vēdas and in Vēdānta, Bhagavān
does not create but only manifests the already existent Vēdas. This is required
to answer many technical questions, those questions we will deal with in a later
context.
Then the next topic that we have to disuses in this general analysis is the
viṣaya-vākyam. Every sūtra is based on the Upaniṣadic statements. They are not
independent ideas of Vyāsācārya. That is why it is called Vēdānta-sūtrāṇi,
uttara-mīmāṁsā-sūtrāṇi. Therefore, everything is based on some statements.
And this sūtra is based on which statement? A well-known statement occurring
in Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat (2-4-10) known as Maitrēyī-Brāhmaṇam. In that
Maitrēyī Brāhmaṇam, Brahman is logically revealed as srṣṭi-sthiti-laya kāraṇam
by giving three examples.

 For srṣṭi-kāraṇam, the example given is agni. Just as from the fire the
smoke (sparks also we can take, but in Maitrēyī Brāhmaṇam dhūmaḥ, the
smoke) comes out. Agni drṣṭāntaḥ.
 For sthiti, Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat (2-4-7) the dundubhi drṣṭāntaḥ,
dundubhi means the drum. I am not going to elaborate, c/o your class study –
either memory or notes, whichever is stronger. If both are not there wish you
all the best.
 And for the laya, Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat (2-4-11) samudra-drṣṭāntaḥ is
given. Just as all the rivers merge into the ocean, likewise the whole-world
merges into the Brahman. Thus, through three examples Brahman is said to be
the srṣṭi-sthiti-laya kāraṇam. And there in the tenth mantra, srṣṭi-kāraṇam is
talked about – Brahman as the cause of the creation.
What is the uniqueness of that mantra? In fact, in several places Brahman

is presented as srṣṭi-kāraṇam. We ourselves have seen
यतो िा इमानि भूतानि जायन्द्ते । येि जातानि जीिनन्द्त । ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् ३-१-१ ॥

yatō vā imāni bhūtāni jāyantē | yēna jātāni jīvanti | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 3-1-1 ||
In almost every upaniṣat Brahman is srṣṭi-kāraṇam. Then what is the

uniqueness of 2-4-10. The uniqueness is in all other srṣṭi-statements, Brahman
is said to be the creator of the world, whereas in this unique mantra Brahman is
said to be the creator of the Vēdas also. Vēda-srṣṭi karaṇam is mentioned in this
mantra.
स यथाद्रै िाग्िेरभ्यानहतात्पृथग्िूमा निनिश्चरन्द्त्येिं िा अरेऽस्य महतो भूतस्य निश्वससतमेतद्यदृग्िेदो यजुिेदाः

सामिेदोऽथिाननङ्गरस इनतहासाः पुराणं निद्या उपनिषदाः श्लोकााः सूत्राण्यिुव्याख्यािानि व्याख्यािान्द्यस्यैिैतानि निश्वससतानि
॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् २-४-१० ॥
sa yathārdraidhāgnērabhyāhitātprthagdhūmā viniścarantyēvaṁ vā arē’sya mahatō bhūtasya

niśvasitamētadyadrgvēdō yajurVēdaḥ sāmavēdō’tharvāṅgirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇaṁ vidyā
upaniṣadaḥ ślōkāḥ sūtrāṇyanuvyākhyānāni vyākhyānānyasyaivaitāni niśvasitāni ||
स यथा आद्रै िाग्िेाः अभ्यानहतात् पृथग् िूमााः निनिश्चरनन्द्त –

sa yathā ārdraidhāgnēḥ abhyāhitāt prthag dhūmāḥ viniścaranti –

When there is wet fuel and you burn a wet fuel what happens? Dhūmāḥ
viniścaranti – the smoke comes out. ēvam vā arē, arē means addressing
Maitrēyī, asya mahatō bhūtasya niśvasitamētat – so all this is like the
niśvasitam, breathing of the Brahman. Why the breathing example is given? It is
called a Nyāya, niśvasita-Nyāyaḥ. Another word for this is līlā-Nyāyaḥ. So,
niśvasita-Nyāyaḥ or līlā-Nyāyaḥ means effortlessness. Therefore, Bhagavān
created these Vēdas effortlessly just as we breathe effortlessly. Now, we are
attending the class, you are listening to me, you are concentrating on my
words, I hope and also writing the notes but do you bother to think of your
breathing? No. But are you breathing or not? Is there any doubt? If you are not,
you are out. Now, for doing this breathing what effort you have? It is so
effortless that you are not even aware of the job going. Similarly, for Bhagavān,
both the creation of the universe as well as the creation of the Vēdas is what; an
effortless job. And that is the idea given. Niśvasitam, what is that? Rg-Vēdaḥ
Yajur-Vēdaḥ, Sāma-Vēdaḥ, atharvāṅgirasaḥ, itihāsaḥ purāṇaṁ vidyāḥ
upaniṣadaḥ ślōkāḥ sūtrāṇi anuvyākhyānāni vyākhyānāni.
In my Brhadāraṇyaka class I have explained every word, therefore, I

don’t want to go to the details. I only want to remind you one thing, here the
word itihāsaḥ purāṇaṁ etc., comes that should not be understood as
Rāmāyaṇaṁ, Bhāgavatam etc. Here the word itihāsaḥ means the story portions
of the Vēdas. Similarly, the Purāṇas refers to the other portions of the Vēdas
and not Rāmāyaṇa, Bhārata, Bhāgavatam etc. All these are born out of what?
Bhagavān, Bhagavān means Brahman. So, based on this 2-4-10 mantra
Vyāsācārya writes śāstrayōnitvāt. Brahma sarvajñam, Vēdasya nimitta-
kāraṇatvāt. This is the general analysis.
Word Analysis
Now, I will come to word analysis, it is simpler here. Here we have got
one compound word consisting of two simple words. The first word here is
śāstram and the second-word is yōni and joined together we have got one
compound word śāstrayōni. And śāstrayōnitvāt is because of being śāstrayōni.
What is the meaning of the word śāstram? Śāstram means Vēdaḥ. Entire Vēda

consisting of pūrva-bhāga as well as anta-bhāga, consisting of karma-kāṇḍa,

upāsana-kāṇḍa and jñāna-kāṇḍa is called śāstram. Why it is called śāstram?
Śāsanāt trāyatē iti śāstram. Śāsanam means what? Teaching and commanding –
both are the meanings. One is commandment. Where do we get the
commandment? In the pūrva-bhāga, we get commandment. satyam vada |
dharmam cara | svādhyāyān mā pramadaḥ | All are in imperative moods,
commandments. And not only it is commandment, for violation of
commandments, the punishment is also there. Therefore, śāsanam means
vidhi-niṣēdha. And in the Vēda -anta-bhāga there are no commandments, there
the śāsanam means revelation of a fact. What is the fact? You are already free,
Brahman. You need not work for one thing in life, for every other thing you
have to work. What is that? mōkṣam. All the life we have worked for what? All
the life we have prepared for mōkṣa and at the end the śāstra comes and tells,
for one thing you need not work and that is mōkṣa. And when I say, ‘You are
free’, what commandment is there? So therefore, śāsanam has two meanings –
in karma-kāṇḍa, śāsanam means commandment and in jñāna-kāṇḍa, śāsanam
means revelation of a fact. Through these two what does Vēda do? Trāyatē –
protects the people from saṁsāra. Trāyatē mahatō bhayāt || Gītā 2-40 || iti
śāstram. In short, Vēdaḥ. And what is the second word? Yōni. Yōni has got
several meanings. In this context, yōni means nimitta-kāraṇam, kartā, creator
or author. So, śāstrayōni means the author of the Vēdas. Therefore,
śāstrayōnitvāt means being the author of the Vēdas. With this, the word
analysis is also over.
Conclusion
Now I will come to the conclusion. In this conclusion, I would like to deal
with the five factors of adhikaraṇam. Because, this is an independent
adhikaraṇam called śāstrayōni adhikaraṇam. If it an adhikaraṇam, it should
consist of five factors. Do you remember?
निषयो संशयश्चैि पूिनपक्षस्तथोिरम् ।

सङ्गनतश्चेनत पञ्चाङ्गं िास्त्ेऽमधकरर्ं स्मृतम् ॥

viṣayō saṁśayaścaiva pūrva-pakṣastathōttaram |

saṅgatiścēti pañcāṅgaṁ śāstrē’dhikaraṇaṁ smrtam||
i) Viṣayaḥ is the subject matter. What is the subject matter? Brahman is the
subject matter.
ii) What is the doubt? Is Brahman the author of the Vēdas or not? Brahma
Vēdasya kartā vā na vā? Because, in the previous sūtra it is said sarvasya kartā,
Brahman is said to be the creator of all. Now, the question is, when you say
Brahman is the creator of all, does it include the Vēdas also. ‘Is Brahman the
author of the Vēdas also’ is the saṁśaya.
iii) What is the pūrva-pakṣaḥ? Pūrva-pakṣi will invariably takes the wrong
stance. He says na Vēdasya kartā. Brahman is not the creator of Vēdas. Why?
Vēdasya-anāditvāt; Vēdasya nityatvāt. Vēda being eternal and therefore, Vēda
being anādi it need not be created at all. What is created is nityam or anityam?
Very clear, whatever is created has got an ādi and therefore, jātasya hi dhruvō
mrtyuḥ and therefore, antaḥ also. Vēdasya nityatvāt.
अिाददनिििा नित्या िागुत्सृष्टा स्ियम्भुिा ॥ महाभारत १२-२२४-५५ ॥

anādinidhanā nityā vāgutsrṣṭā svayambhuvā || Mahābhārata 12-224-55 ||
Vēda is known as anādinidhanā. Anādinidhanā means anādi anantam. So, if

Vēda is nityam how can it said to be created? This is the pūrva-pakṣi’s view.
iv) And siddhānta says that even though Vēda is anādi we talk about the
beginning of the Vēdas, because it has the state of manifestation and
unmanifestation exactly like the world. That is why we say, the whole Vēda in
unmanifest state is considered to be ōṃkāra, ōṃ. That is why ōṃkāra is
supposed to be the essence.
यश्छन्द्दसामृषभो निश्वरूपाः । छन्द्दोभ्योऽध्यमृतात्सम्बभूि । स मेन्द्द्रो मेिया स्पृणोतु । ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् १-४-१ ॥

yaśchandasāmrṣabhō viśvarūpaḥ | chandōbhyō’dhyamrtātsambabhūva | sa mēndrō
mēdhayā sprṇōtu | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 1-4-1 ||
In Taittirīya śīkṣāvallī, there chandasām – by churning the Vēdas Brahmāji took

the butter, the essence and that essence is Ōṃkāraḥ. And that is why when
there is a crowd, where all the people are talking, sometimes it happens before
I come in the class, when you are not able to clearly hear who is talking what,

when all the words are in unmanifest form what do we say? ‘O, it is so much
noisy.’ Why not say, ‘A, it is so much noisy.’ ‘E, it is so much noisy.’ Why do we say
‘O’? Because, ‘ōṃ’. So, avyakta śabdaḥ is equal to ‘ōṃ’. This ōṃ was lying in
ākāśa. Because, śabda is ākāśa guṇaḥ. Therefore, Vēda was there in the form of
ōṃkāra, in the ākāśa and that ākāśa was in Brahman.
तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मि आकाशाः संभूताः । ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् २-१-१ ॥

tasmādvā ētasmādātmana ākāśaḥ saṁbhūtaḥ | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-1-1 ||
Along with ākāśa, ōṃkāra was also born and from ōṃkāra the whole prapañca
also was born. Therefore, there is nothing wrong, Vēda is eternal and still that
Vēda is authored by Brahman, not in the form of intellectual creation but in the
form of manifestation. This is the siddhānta.
v) What is the saṅgatiḥ, connection between the previous-adhikaraṇam and

this-adhikaraṇam? The connection is said to be ākṣēpa-saṅgatiḥ. Ākṣēpa-
saṅgatiḥ means this adhikaraṇam answers an objection, which is raised based
on the previous adhikaraṇam. So, when the previous topic creates an objection
and this topic answers that objection, the connection is supposed to be ākṣēpa-
saṅgatiḥ. In the previous sūtra/ adhikaraṇam, Brahman is said to be sarva-
kāraṇam and based on that an objection is raised. Objection means protest,
black-flag. What is the ākṣēpa? He says, I can accept Brahman is the kāraṇam of
everything but I won’t accept sarva-kāraṇam; I will say It is the kāraṇam of
everything except the Vēdas. So, the objection is Brahman is not sarva-
kāraṇam, because It is not the kāraṇam of the Vēdas. Who says? An objectionist
says. And why It is not Vēda-kāraṇam? Because, Vēda is anādi and therefore,
Brahman is not sarva-kāraṇam. And in this sūtra, what is the answer? Brahma
Vēdasya api kāraṇatvāt, Brahman continues to be sarva-kāraṇam, including
Vēdas. Therefore, Brahman is sarvajñam ēva. Thus, the omniscience of
Brahman is reinforced by negating the objection raised by pūrva-mīmāṁsaka.
Therefore, what is the sāram now? Brahman’s omniscience is reinforced by way
negating the objection raised by pūrva-mīmāṁsaka.


024 Sutra 1.1.3 Śāstrayōni adhikaraṇam
शास्त्रयोनित्िात् ॥
śāstrayōnitvāt ||
Now we are seeing the third sūtra, which happens to be the third
adhikaraṇam also and this adhikaraṇam is called śāstrayōnyadhikaraṇam. I said
in the last class that this sūtra is interpreted in two different ways by
Śaṅkarācārya. We have seen the first interpretation in the last class. And
through first interpretation, we showed that the jagat-kāraṇam-Brahma is
omniscient sarvajñam, because It happens to be śāstrayōni and we took the
meaning of śāstrayōni as śāstra-kartā Vēda-kartā, the author of the Vēdas. So
thus, the final anumānam is Brahma-sarvajñam śāstra-kartrtvāt; Brahman is
omniscient because It is the author of the Vēdas. Here we have assumed that
the author of the Vēdas must be omniscient, because Vēda deals with all the
topics under the Sun, Vēda is as good as sarvajñaṁ. Since, Vēda is as good as
sarvajñaṁ, the author of the Vēdas must know not only the contents of the
Vēdas but also much much more than the Vēdas. And therefore, Brahma or
Īśvaraḥ is sarvajñaḥ. This is the first interpretation we had seen in the last class.
Now, I am going to the second interpretation of the same sūtra, the same
adhikaraṇam. So, let us assume that we are reading the sūtra once again
afresh. Here also, I will go through three stages – first, general analysis, then
word analysis and then conclusion.
General Analysis
First, I will go through the general analysis. In the previous adhikaraṇam

i.e., in the second sūtra, Brahman was defined as jagat-kāraṇam, the cause of

the universe. We called it Brahma-lakṣaṇa-sūtram, a sūtram which gives the

definition of Brahman as jagat-kāraṇam. And we also saw that some people
have a misunderstanding regarding that sūtra. What is that misunderstanding?
They think that not only the second-sūtra provides the Brahma-lakṣaṇaṁ, the
second sūtra gives a pramāṇam for Brahman also. This I had discussed in the
previous sūtra and now I am only recollecting now that idea for continuity. And
they claim that the pramāṇam for Brahman is anumāna-pramāṇam. Since I had
discussed in the previous sūtra, I am just recollecting that idea for continuity.
So, some philosophers, like Naiyāyikas claim that Brahman or the jagat-
kāraṇam can be inferred from the world i.e., the effect, which inference they call
kārya-liṅgaka-anumānam; from seeing the effect, we can infer the cause.
Similarly, they claim by seeing the world-effect, Brahman, the cause, can be
inferred. And therefore, they claim anumānam is the pramāṇam for Brahman;
pramāṇam means a source of knowledge, means of knowledge. And
Vyāsācārya is worried about such an interpretation and he does not want to
accept anumānam as the pramāṇam for Brahman, because he is a vaidikaḥ, is
the follower of the Vēdas. The Vēda clearly says Brahman cannot be known
through tarka.

Brahman can never be known through tarka, through logic, through

anumānam i.e., through inference. And therefore, if anybody claims anumānam
as pramāṇa for Brahman, Vyāsācārya wants to refute that idea. And refuting
that idea, Vyāsācārya want to say that śāstram alone is the pramāṇam for
Brahman. Vēdānta-śāstram or Vēda-śāstram alone is the means of knowing
Brahman and not anumānam. This idea is conveyed through the third-sūtra. So,
what idea is conveyed through third-sūtra? Brahman cannot be known through
anumānam but it can be known through śāstram alone.
The running simple meaning of the sūtra is this. Word analysis I will do
later, the general meaning of the sūtra is the following. Śāstrayōnitvāt means
śāstra-viṣayatvāt. That means what; Brahman is the subject-matter of Vēdānta

alone and it cannot be the subject-matter of logic, It is beyond the scope of

logic. This is the running meaning of the sūtra. If you have to present in a
logical form, anumānam format, how should you write? Brahma na anumāna-
viṣayaḥ; śāstra-viṣayatvāt, dharmavat, like dharma. If you translate it this
anumāna-vākyam – Brahman cannot be the subject-matter of logic because it is
the subject-matter of śāstram alone, Vēda alone; apauruṣēyatvāt ityarthaḥ. It is
apauruṣēyam like dharmavat – like puṇyam. Dharma means puṇyam. Puṇyam
cannot be known through logic. There is no logical method of proving puṇyam.

puṇyam is also a subject-matter of śāstram alone and that is why it is called
alone adrṣṭa-viṣayaḥ, apauruṣēya-viṣayaḥ, apūrva- viṣayaḥ etc. Therefore, just
as dharma is adrṣṭam, apūrvam, apauruṣēyam; similarly, Brahman also is
adrṣṭam, apūrvam, apauruṣēyam; therefore, not available for logic.
Now can we compare the first-interpretation and second-interpretation and see

the difference? In the first-interpretation we said, Brahma sarvajñam śāstra
kartrtvāt and in the second interpretation, Brahma na anumāna-gamyam
śāstra-viṣayatvāt. In the first-interpretation, śāstrayōni means śāstra-kartā and
in the second-interpretation, śāstrayōni means śāstra-viṣayaḥ. What is the
difference in English? In the first-interpretation, śāstrayōni means the author of
the Vēdas and in the second-interpretation śāstrayōni means the subject-matter
of the Vēdas.
Now the question is what is the viṣaya-vākyam for this? When I say
viṣaya-vākyam, you must understand what do I mean. These are the jargons of
Brahmasūtra. You should familiarize with these jargons so that I can
comfortably use these words. What is the viṣaya-vākyam? viṣaya-vākyam means
that śruti statement based on which this sūtra or this topic is discussed by
Vyāsa. For the first interpretation, we gave one viṣaya-vākyam from
Brhadāraṇyaka 2.4.10.
अस्य महतो भूतस्य निश्वससतमेतद्यदृग्िेदो यजुिेदाः सामिेदाः … ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् २-४-१० ॥

asya mahatō bhūtasya niśvasitamētad yad rgvēdō yajurvēdaḥ sāmavēdaḥ … ||

That Brhadāraṇyaka vākyam is the basis for the first-interpretation. Now we

have to know the śruti vākyam for the second-interpretation. The viṣaya-vākyam
is from Brhadāraṇyaka 3.9.26.
तं तु औपनिषदं पुरुषं पृच्छाधम ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ३-९-२६ ॥

taṁ tu aupaniṣadaṁ puruṣaṁ prcchāmi || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 3-9-26 ||
This section is called Śākalya-Brāhmaṇam wherein we find a debate between

Yājñavalkya and Śākalya. If you remember, that Janaka arranged for a debate to
find out who is the greatest jñāni. And prize money is thousands of cows and
the horns of the cows are covered by gold. So many scholars had come,
Yājñavalkya also had come and even before the debate started Yājñavalkya
confidently asks his śiṣya, ‘Oh, śiṣya, drive away all the cows.’ And when all the
other scholars get wild, he says, ‘I don’t claim to be the greatest scholar, I
wanted the cows, therefore, I am taking home.’ Thereafterwards the scholars
challenged Yājñavalkya, ‘You have to prove your greatness to take away the
cows.’ And one by one they come and ask questions to Yājñavalkya. And one of
the challengers happens to be Śākalya. He asks questions about dēvatās and
especially Hiraṇyagarbha. Yājñavalkya successfully answers all the questions
and at the end Yājñavalkya puts a counter-question. So, I have answered your
question, now I have taken your service and now take my service. At that time
Yājñavalkya asks Śākalya, ‘taṁ tu aupaniṣadaṁ puruṣaṁ prcchāmi.’ Here the
word puruṣaḥ means Brahman. Hē Śākalya, you have asked me about the
Hiraṇyagarbha, now I am asking you about nirguṇam-Brahma, which is known
through
स एष िेनत िेत्यात्माऽगृह्यो ि नह गृह्यतेऽशीयो ि नह शीयनतेऽसङ्गो ि नह सज्यतेऽससतो ि व्यथते ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ३-

९-२६ ॥
sa ēṣa nēti nētyātmā’grhyō na hi grhyatē’śīryō na hi śīryatē’saṅgō na hi sajyatē’sitō na
vyathatē || brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 3-9-26 ||
Asaṅgō na hi sajyatē, aśīryō na hi śīryatē all those vākyams come there.

Beautiful portion. So, puruṣam, the nirguṇam Brahma I am asking about. And
while using that word puruṣa, Yājñavalkya uses an adjective to puruṣa, that
adjective is crucial to us. What is that adjective? Aupaniṣadam puruṣam. That
alone is required for us here. Aupaniṣadam means upaniṣat ēka vēdyam, that

which can be known only through upaniṣat and na pratyakṣēṇa, na

anumānēna, na arthāpatyā, na dhyānēna, na kuṇḍalinī raising karaṇēna. The
only way of knowing is
तनद्वज्ञािाथं स गुरुमेिाभभगच्छे त् सधमत्पाभणाः श्रोनत्रयं ब्रह्मनिष्ठम् ॥ मुण्डक उपनिषत् १-२-१२ ॥

tadvijñānārthaṁ sa gurumēvābhigacchēt samitpāṇiḥ śrōtriyaṁ Brahma niṣṭham || Muṇḍaka
upaniṣat 1-2-12 ||
Such unique Brahman do you know Śākalya? The rest of the upaniṣad, that
portion is a very disturbing-portion. Yājñavalkya even says if you don’t answer
your head will burst and Śākalya doesn’t answer and loses his head. Losing the
head meaning loosing the ego. Anyway, that is the Brhadāraṇyaka portion.
Here what is relevant to us? Aupaniṣadam-puruṣam indicates Brahman can be
known through śāstram alone. Therefore, śāstra-yōni. Aupaniṣadaḥ-puruṣaḥ
means śāstra-yōni-Brahma. Therefore, this is the viṣaya-vākyam. With this, I am
concluding the general analysis.
Word Analysis
Now I come to the word analysis. As I said before, the third-sūtra consists
of only one word, śāstra-yōnitvāt but this one word is a compound-word
consisting of two words śāstram and yōni. Here the word śāstram has the same
meaning as before, i.e., the first-interpretation. What is the meaning? Vēdaḥ. Or
to be precise Vēdāntaḥ. And the second-word is yōni, here alone we give a new-
meaning, a different-meaning. That meaning is pramāṇam. Pramāṇam means
source of knowledge, means of knowledge. What was the first meaning, do you
remember? Yōni means kartā, the author is the first-meaning. The second
meaning is pramāṇam. This is the first-difference.
There is a second-difference also which is purely-grammatical difference.

I have no escape from grammar now; I will have to briefly indicate that
grammatical difference. I will try my best to simplify it and you try your best to
understand it. And even if you are not able to get the complete significance,
finally, I will give you the essence and it is suffice if you can understand that
essence. The difference is in the first interpretation the compound is called
tatpuruṣa-samāsa and in the second-interpretation it is bahuvrīhi-samāsa. So, in

the first interpretation, we split it as śāstrasya-yōniḥ kartā Brahma – Brahman is

the author of the śāstram. This is tatpuruṣa-samāsa. In the second-
interpretation we have to split it as śāstram yōniḥ pramāṇam yasya – śāstram is
the means of knowledge for which Brahman, that Brahman.
So, to know the difference between tatpuruṣa-samāsa and bahuvrīhi samāsa, in

the tradition they tell a small story. So, one saṁskrta-poet, but a poor-person,
daridra-brāhmaṇaḥ but a scholar, paṇḍitaḥ, he went to a king, because they go
to the king and show their scholarship and the king will give some prize, money,
and with that they manage. This is the olden day’s method. This brāhmaṇaḥ
went to a king and said the following ślōka –
अहञ्च त्िञ्च राजेन्द्द्र लोकिाथािुभािनप ।

बहुव्रीनह समासोऽहं षष्ठी-तत्पुरुषो भिाि् ॥ var बहुव्रीनहरहं राजि्
ahañca tvañca rājēndra lōkanāthāvubhāvapi |
bahuvrīhi samāsō’haṁ ṣaṣṭhī-tatpuruṣō bhavān || var bahuvrīhirahaṁ rājan
So, brāhmaṇaḥ went and told to the king, hē Rājēndra – Oh! King, aham ca tvam
ca – both you and I are lōkanāthau ubhāvapi – both of us are lōkanāthas – the
masters of the world. A king cannot accept another person to become the
master and therefore, he immediately took the sword out and see who is the
original one. Then as even the king got angry that poet said, bahuvrīhi
samāsō’haṁ, both of us are lōkanāthas but in my case the word should be split
in bahuvrīhi-samāsa and in your case the word should be split in tatpuruṣa-
samāsa. Ok, what is the difference? If you take tatpuruṣa-samāsa, lōkanātha
means lōkasya-nāthaḥ – master of the world. So therefore, Oh! King you are the
master of the world. But, bahuvrīhi samāsō’haṁ, in my case the word should be
split as bahuvrīhi-samāsa, which means lōkaḥ nāthaḥ yasya – I am the one for
whom, the world is the master, that means I am a beggar who depends upon
the one rupee, five rupee, ten rupee notes put by the world. Therefore, I am the
slave of the world, I am the protected by the world and you are the protector of
the world. னலாகாத்துக்கு ஸ்வாமி; tatpuruṣa samāsa; னலாகத்வத ஸ்வாமியாக
பகாண்டாவன், bahuvrīhi-samāsa. In the same way, śāstra-yōni means
śāstrasya-kartā is the first interpretation and second-interpretation is śāstram-

pramāṇam-yasya, ஶாஸ்த்ரவத ப்ரமாணமாக பகாண்டது Brahman is that for

which śāstram is the pramāṇam.
Ok. If you are able to see the difference, wonderful. If you are not able to see it
very clearly I will simply for you. If you take bahuvrīhi samāsa, śāstra-yōni
means śāstra-pramāṇakam. Śāstra-pramāṇakam means śāstra-vēdyam and
śāstra-vēdyam means śāstra-viṣayaḥ. Therefore, if you take bahuvrīhi-samāsa,
the final derived meaning is śāstra-viṣayaḥ-Brahma, Brahman is the subject-
matter of śāstram. By saying that the Brahman is the subject-matter of śāstram,
what is the message that is conveyed by Vyāsa? The message is ‘Therefore, it is
not available for anumānam.’ Therefore, Brahma na anumāna viṣayaḥ, śāstra-
viṣayatvāt dharmavat. This is the word analysis of the third-sūtra.
Conclusion
Now I will come to the conclusion of this sūtra and this adhikaraṇam. I
would like to present this adhikaraṇam in that technical format, adhikaraṇam
format. What is the definition of adhikaraṇam? The adhikaraṇam format should
contain five stages.

ननर्यर्श्चेनत पञ्चाङ्गं िास्त्ेऽमधकरर्ं स्मृतम् ॥

So, adhikaraṇam format should consist of five stages.
i) The subject-matter of controversy, the bone of contention is viṣayaḥ.

What is the subject matter? Brahma. Which Brahma? Jagat-kāraṇam- Brahma,
cētanā-kāraṇa-Brahma is the viṣayaḥ, the subject matter.
ii) What is the saṁśayaḥ, doubt? So, doubt means vacillation; doubt means
always remember pendulum. Thus, always doubt will have either two opinions
or many options. So that is the condition for doubt. Doubt means it should have
condition. Suppose you have got only one route for your house. Will you have
any doubt regarding which route to take? ēkasmin viṣayē saṁśayaḥ ēva nāsti.

When do you get doubt? When there are more options. If I have got call from
several universities in America, then I have a problem. Which university I should
apply? More than one option is required for saṁśayaḥ. Dvi-kōṭikaḥ saṁśayaḥ;
athavā anēka-kōṭikaḥ-saṁśayaḥ.
And with regard to Brahman what is the doubt? Anumāna-gamyam or

anumāna-vēdyam vā na vā? Is Brahman knowable through anumānam or not?
Anumāna-viṣayaḥ vā na vā? Does Brahman fall within the scope of logic or
science? Remember logic means the entire field of science has come. Therefore,
the ultimate question is, ‘Can Consciousness (Brahman) be studied by any
material sciences (biology, neurology, quantum physics, cytology {cell-
science})?’ So many sciences are developing; can Consciousness be analyzed by
any of these sciences? All the scientists are doing that analysis, why? Because
they have the hope that Consciousness can be analyzed by those sciences. So,
now what is our doubt? Can Brahman fall within the scope of science? Can
Brahman be the subject-matter of science?
iii) What does pūrva-pakṣi say? He always says the wrong thing. Pūrva-pakṣi
will always say the wrong thing. Why? Because he is a pūrva-pakṣi. If he says
right thing, he will be called siddhānti. You should not, therefore, ask why
pūrva-pakṣi says the wrong thing. Pūrva-pakṣi means not a type of bird, very
careful! So, several types of pakṣis are there, so Brahma-sūtra deals with birds
also.. It is ornithology, the study of birds. All the Vēdāntins are ornithologists.
Why? Because they deal with a type of bird called pūrva-pakṣi. No, no, no.
pūrva-pakṣaḥ, the one who takes the first side. What does he say? Brahma
anumāna-viṣayaḥ. Brahman is within the scope of science. Jagat-kāraṇatvāt.
Because It is the cause of the universe. Ghaṭa-kāraṇa-bhūta mrdvat – like the
clay, which is cause of the pot. So, pūrva-pakṣi says Brahman can be logically
analyzed, because Brahman’s effect is available. We have got the trail of
Brahman and therefore, by doing some detective-job, we will be ultimately able
to catch hold of the śikhā (tuft) of Brahman. This is pūrva-pakṣi’s view. And that
Brahman is jagat-kāraṇam you yourself have accepted in the second sūtra. And

therefore, it is anumāna-gamyam - is the pūrva-pakṣi view. Brahma anumāna

gamyam jagat-kāraṇatvāt ghaṭa-kāraṇa-bhūta mrdvat.
iv) Now what is the siddhānta? Now, the siddhānti i.e., the Vyāsācārya
(always siddhānti is Vyāsācārya). And we also hold on to Vyāsācārya’s hand. We
also are siddhāntis. What does he say? Brahma na anumāna-viṣayaḥ. Brahman
is not the subject-matter of anumānam. Why? Śāstra-viṣayatvāt, because, It can
be known through śāstra alone. Like what? Dharmavat. Like dharma, Brahman
can be known through śāstram alone. That is why we have a definition of Vēda,
I have often quoted this before, this definition is given by Sāyaṇācārya in his
Vēda-bhāṣyam, which is a famous definition in the form of a verse –
प्रत्यक्षेणािुधमत्या िा यस्तूपायो ि निद्यते । var ि बुध्यते

एिं निदनन्द्त िेदेि तस्माद्वे दस्य िेदता ॥ ऋग्भाष्य भूधमकायां सायणाः ॥
pratyakṣēṇānumityā vā yastūpāyō na vidyatē | var na budhyatē

ēnaṁ vidanti vēdēna tasmādVēdasya Vēda tā ||
rgbhāṣya bhūmikāyāṁ sāyaṇaḥ ||
What is the very definition of Vēda? Vēda means that which gives the
knowledge of such a subject-matter, which is not available for any other means
of knowledge like pratyakṣa, anumāna, arthāpatti, anupalabdhi, upamāna etc.
We have dealt with the five other means of knowledge in our upaniṣat classes,
all those are to be taken here. This is the siddhānta.
v) Finally, saṅgatiḥ, which means connection between the second-

adhikaraṇam and third-adhikaraṇam (very careful). Janmādi-adhikaraṇam and
śāstrayōni-adhikaraṇam; tayōḥ adhikaraṇayōr-madhyē kā saṅgatiḥ? That
connection is technically called ēka-phalakatva-saṅgatiḥ, which means both
topics, adhikaraṇams have got a common goal, phalaṁ, benefit. What is the
common benefit? Brahma-siddhiḥ is the common benefit. What do you mean by
Brahma-siddhiḥ is the common benefit of both adhikaraṇams? You have to go
back to my previous class. The first-sūtra was athātō Brahma-jijñāsā, one should
enquire into Brahman. In that context I said, how can we enquire into Brahman
when the very existence of Brahman is not proved? You can enquire into
something which is existence. You cannot do PhD on my horn. Manuṣya-sṛngē
PhD. You can do PhD on something which is. Therefore, first Vyāsācārya has to

establish Brahman, Brahma-siddhi and then he can say that you please enquire
into that Brahman. How can Vyāsācārya prove the existence of Brahman? This
also I said before, only recollecting that; lakṣaṇa-pramāṇābhām vastu-siddhiḥ;
anything is established through two things; lakṣaṇam, the definition; and
pramāṇam, the means of knowledge. The example given was, suppose in the
night a person sees the stars, the planet, the moons etc. Suppose he does not
have the definition of moon – what is moon – what we have decided to call
moon if he does not have the definition, even if he sees the moon, he will not be
able to say whether there is moon or not, he has the pramāṇam but he doesn’t
have lakṣaṇam. And suppose there is a person who knows the definition of the
moon; that moon is the brightest luminary in the night sky and he is in the night
and knows the definition of the moon and it is paurṇamī day also; but still he
cannot talk about moon because he happens to be a blind-person. In the case
of a blind-person, lakṣaṇam is useless, even if pramāṇam is not there. So, if
lakṣaṇam is there, pramāṇam is not there; he cannot talk about moon and if
pramāṇam is there, lakṣaṇam is not there, he cannot talk about moon.
Therefore, he requires what? Both lakṣaṇam and pramāṇam. Similarly, if
Brahman has to be enquired into, you have to prove the existence of Brahman
and for that you require what? lakṣaṇam and pramāṇam. And both prove what?
Brahma-siddhiḥ. And in the second-sūtra, Brahma-lakṣaṇēna Brahma-siddhi
and in the third-sūtra, Brahma-pramāṇēna Brahma-siddhi. What is the
lakṣaṇam in the second-sūtra? Janmādyasya yataḥ or in our language jagat-
kāraṇam Brahma iti lakṣaṇēna Brahma siddhi and in the third-sūtra, śāstram
pramāṇam iti pramāṇēna Brahma siddhiḥ. Therefore, both adhikaraṇams do
one and the same job of Brahma-siddhiḥ. So, Brahma-siddhi rūpa ēka-
phalakatvam saṅgatiḥ. This is the connection. So, with this the third-sūtram is
over and the third adhikaraṇam is also over.
So, now what we have gathered until now? One should enquire into
Brahman and that Brahman is the cause of the universe and that Brahman can
be enquired into through Vēdānta-pramāṇam alone, śāstra-pramāṇam alone.
Therefore, jagat-kāraṇa Brahma jñānārtham Vēdānta-vicāraḥ-kartavyaḥ. That is

why in one of the śānti-pāṭhas, sarvaṁ Brahmōupaniṣadaṁ; that also can be

taken as viṣaya-vākyam. Not only Brhadāraṇyaka, this śānti-pāṭha –
सिं ब्रह्मौपनिषदं माहं ब्रह्मनिराकुयानम् । मा मा ब्रह्मनिराकरोदनिराकरणमस्तु । अनिराकरणं मेस्तु । तदात्मनि निरते य

उपनिषत्सु िमानस्ते मधय संतु । ॥ सामिेद - केि, छांदोग्य ॥
sarvaṁ Brahma upaniṣadaṁ māhaṁ Brahma nirākuryām | mā mā Brahma

nirākarōdanirākaraṇamastu | anirākaraṇaṁ mēstu | tadātmani niratē ya upaniṣatsu
dharmāstē mayi saṁtu | || SāmaVēda - Kēna, Cāndōgya ||
That is the first śānti-pāṭha that we are chanting. Because Brahman is not
available for science, let me not reject the Brahman, let me accept the śāstram
and through the śāstram, let me know Brahman. This is our development. Now,
we have to enter into the fourth-sūtra, which happens to be the fourth-topic
also, which we will do in the next class.


025 Sutra 1.1.4 Samanvāyadhikaraṇam
िास्त्र्ोननत्वात् ॥
We have seen the first three sūtras, which happens to be the first three
adhikaraṇams of Brahmasūtra. And through these three adhikaraṇams,
Vyāsācārya has pointed out that Brahman has to be enquired into for the sake
of knowledge and liberation by a competent-student. And he established the
Brahman by giving both Brahma-lakṣaṇam as well as Brahma-pramāṇam.
Brahma-lakṣaṇam being janmādyasya-yataḥ, which in other word is jagat-
kāraṇam. Brahman is defined as the cause of the universe and the cause
meaning abhinna-nimitta-upādāna-kāraṇam – both the intelligent and material-
cause. And this pramāṇam also has been indicated as śāstram, through the
third sūtra śāstrayōnitvāt. Brahman is knowable through Vēdānta-śāstra
pramāṇam indicating that it is not accessible to any other means of knowledge.
It is not available for any of the pauruṣēya pramāṇam. Pauruṣēya pramāṇa
agamyam apauruṣēya pramāṇa mātra gamyam. Up to this, we have seen in the
previous classes. With this background, we will enter into the fourth sūtra,
which happens to be the fourth adhikaraṇam.
Adhikaraṇa 004 Samanvayādhikaraṇam ||

००४ तिु समन्द्ियात् ॥
004 tattu samanvayāt ||
This is the fourth sūtra and the fourth-adhikaraṇam or topic and this
adhikaraṇam also has got only one sūtra. This adhikaraṇam is named as
Samanvayādhikaraṇam. Based on the name of the sūtra – tattu samanvayāt, this
is named as Samanvayādhikaraṇam. So, the first-adhikaraṇam is called

jijñāsādhikaraṇam, the second is janmādyadhikaraṇam, the third is

śāstrayōnyadhikaraṇam and the fourth is samanvayādhikaraṇam. Now we will
study this sūtra and this adhikaraṇam in the same pattern as we did before.
First, I will take up general analysis, and then we will go to word analysis and
then conclusion.
General Analysis
This sūtra is the key or the important-sūtra based on which the entire
first-chapter of Brahma-sūtra is developed. The first chapter has got totally 134
sūtras and this is the fourth-sūtra. The following 130 sūtras of first chapter is a
development, is an elaboration of this sūtra alone. And therefore, this is the key
sūtra. Based on this sūtra alone, the first chapter is named Samanvayādhyāyaḥ.
So thus, this sūtra is called samanvaya sūtram, this adhikaraṇam is called
Samanvaya-adhikaraṇam and this chapter is called Samanvaya-adhyāyaḥ. Thus,
we come to know the importance of this sūtra. We had seen before that the
second-sūtra i.e., Janmādyasya yataḥ is the foundation-sūtra on which the
entire Brahma-sūtra is resting. Janmādyasya yataḥ tadbrahma jagat-kāraṇam
Brahma is the foundation sūtra on which the entire Brahmasūtra, that means
all the four chapters are based on the second-sūtra and the entire first-chapter
is based on the fourth sūtra. So thus, the second-sūtra and the fourth-sūtra are
very important sūtras. Of these two which is more important? Very simple.
Second-sūtra is the foundation for all the four chapters and fourth-sūtra is the
foundation for all the first chapter. Therefore, the second sūtra is more
powerful than the fourth-sūtra, but fourth-sūtra is also very important. So thus,
we find in the first- four sūtras themselves we get two very important sūtras.
That is why in tradition, if a person cannot study the entire Brahma-sūtra, then
there is a convention of studying the first four-sūtras. If we cannot survive 555
sūtras, then we have got a compromised version – studying the first four sūtras.
And first four sūtras put together are famously known as catuḥsūtrī. There are
many books dealing with catuḥsūtrī alone. So thus, the second and fourth
sūtras are very important sūtras.

Now, what is the development that we have to find? In the third-sūtra,

Vyāsācārya has mentioned śāstrayōnitvāt. We saw two meanings for the word
śāstrayōni. The first meaning was śāstra-kāraṇatvāt and the second meaning
was śāstra-viṣayatvāt. Of those two meanings, we are going to take the second-
meaning now for further development. I am just reminding you the second
meaning where we saw the word yōni means pramāṇam and we took
bahuvrīhi-samāsa and if you take the meaning pramāṇam and the bahuvrīhi-
samāsa, śāstrayōnitvāt means śāstra pramāṇakatvāt and śāstra pramāṇakatvāt
means śāstra-pramēyatvāt and śāstra-pramēyatvāt means śāstra-viṣayatvāt.
Śāstra-viṣayatvāt means Brahman is the central-theme, central-topic of
Vēdānta-śāstram is the content of the third-sūtram.
Now, the question is, ‘How do you say Brahman is the central theme?’
Because in any śāstram, many themes / topics are discussed. And when many
topics are discussed in a śāstram, how do you know which is the central-theme,
central-topic is the question. Because, sometimes the central-theme will be very
evident and often the central-theme will not be very clear. For example, we will
take the well-known book that is the Bhagavadgītā. In the Bhagavadgītā several
topics are discussed. We have the topic of karma very elaborately discussed,
karma-yōga; and we have the topic of bhakti, from 7th chapter onwards it is full
of bhakti only. Krṣṇa goes to the extent of saying, bhakti alone is the most
important thing –
िाहं िेदैिन तपसा ि दािेि ि चेज्यया । ॥ ११-५३ ॥

nāhaṁ Vēdairna tapasā na dānēna na cējyayā | || 11-53 ||
So, Vēda is unimportant, tapas is unimportant, this is unimportant, that is

unimportant, bhaktyā ēva. We find bhakti topic highlighted in the Gītā very
much. What about jñānam? Of course, jñānam is also very elaborately discussed
in the 13th chapter, in the 14th chapter. So, everybody knows that there are the
themes of karma, bhakti, jñānaṁ, all discussed in the Gītā, but the problem is
what? What is the central-theme of the Gītā? And once you say a particular-
theme is the central-theme then the other topics will become what; secondary
or supporting-topics. Unfortunately, you cannot have many central-themes. As

Svāmiji was telling a joke in one of the talks, that one person wanted to buy a
car. And he was searching for the car, when the shopkeeper helped. He showed
a few cars then this person chose one particular car. I would prefer this car,
please give me a lesson. Then the shopkeeper took that car and saw what is
that. And it is written ‘I love you only.’ Did you understand? If you don’t grasp
the joke, then it becomes a big Joke! Joke becoming a joke. Non-understanding
becoming the worst joke. So, ‘I love you only’ car can be sent to how many
people? Similarly, a śāstram can have only one central-theme, if there are more
themes it is supposed to a defect and that is called in the mīmāṁsā-śāstram as
vākya-bhēda-dōṣaḥ, considered to be a serious defect.
And therefore, there is a big controversy with regard to the Gītā, ‘Is Gītā
teaching karma; is Gītā teaching bhakti; or is Gītā teaching jñānam?’ And there
are scholars and scholars, not ordinary people, who have studied all the śāstras
and some scholars arrive at the idea that karma alone is the central theme and
bhakti and jñānam are subservient.
Of course, we have got another set of scholars and mahātmās who claim
that bhakti alone is the central theme and karma and jñānam are subservient
and supporting.
Of course, we have got another set who claim that jñānam is the central
theme and karma and bhakti, or for that matter anything else is subservient.
Therefore, what I want to say is that there are controversies regarding the
central theme of the śāstra.
And therefore the question comes, how do you settle this controversy?
How do you prove that this is the central theme? If the author of the book is
available, is alive then the problem is solved to a great extent. And sometimes
the author himself writes a commentary. We have got some such works also.
There is one tarka-śāstra grantha; siddhānta muktāvali and kārikāvalī. The
author writes on tarka-śāstra and many verses are not clear so the author
himself has written a commentary on those verses. So then, which commentary

will be most authentic? The author’s commentary will be the most authentic
one. If that is available, the problem can be solved.
Suppose the author is not available and his commentary also is not
available the how do you know what is the central-theme? And if you analyze all
our śāstras, especially the Vēdas, the author is not available for transaction.
Who is the author of the Vēdas? Bhagavān is the author of the Vēdas.
Śāstrayōnitvāt we said and you cannot contact Bhagavān.
So, since the author is not available we have to use separate methods for
arriving at the central theme. And this has been studied by our traditional
ācaryas. And these ācaryas have pointed out that there is one text or one
method to arrive at the central theme. What is that? Whichever subject-matter
fulfills an important condition, that subject-matter is the central theme. They
have prescribed a condition, a proof, a clue. An acid test, a litmus test they have
provided. What is that important condition fulfilling which the subject-matter
will become the central theme. That condition is called samanvayaḥ. It is a
technical term, which I will analyze later when we get into word analysis but
here I will give you a simple meaning. Samanvaya means tātparya-viṣayatvam.
The nearest translation of the word samanvayaḥ is consistency. So whichever
subject-matter fulfills the condition of consistency is the central theme. I will
give another English word, which is nearer to that and that is importance, which
is a compromised-meaning, not exact-meaning, which I am giving you for
temporary satisfaction. Therefore, whichever theme enjoys importance that
theme is the central-theme of the śāstra.
Now, the problem is, ‘How do you know which theme enjoys importance?’
For that our traditional ācaryas have given a method of finding – ‘Whichever
theme has got six factors of proof, that theme enjoys importance.’ Those six
proving factors are called liṅgāni; ṣaḍliṅgāni are there to prove consistency, to
prove importance. And once you prove the importance through the ṣaḍliṅgās
then that becomes the central theme. Now, Vyāsācārya says that Brahman
enjoys importance, because it fulfills the six proving factors.

Now, based on this we will see the running meaning of this sūtra. What is
the simple meaning of the sūtra, we will see. Brahman is the central-theme of
Vēdānta-śāstram because It enjoys importance, It enjoys consistency, It enjoys
harmony, It enjoys samanvaya, It enjoys tātparya-viṣayatvam. This is the
general meaning.
Now, since this is the Nyāya-śāstram, Brahma-sūtra presents everything

in logical language, this idea also should be presented in the form of
anumānam or logic. So, what is the anumāna-vākyam involved here? Brahma
Vēdānta-śāstra viṣayaḥ, samanvayāt, dharmavat. This is the anumānam.
Brahman is the central-theme of Vēdānta-śāstra, hētu, samanvayāt – because it
enjoys importance like dharma, which is the central-theme of karma-kāṇḍam,
the pūrva-bhāga of the vēdas. With this I am concluding the general-analysis.
Now, one more point i.e., viṣaya-vākyam. Whatever sūtra Vyāsācārya

writes he has in mind the Vēdānta-śāstram, because this is not the independent
work based on Vyāsācārya thinking, but it is the analysis of the Vēdānta-
śāstram. So for athātō Brahma-jijñāsā, we saw viṣaya-vākyam ātmā vā arē
draṣṭavyaḥ śrōtavyō, for janmādyasya yataḥ we had the viṣaya-vākyam yatō vā
imāni bhūtāni jāyantē..., for śāstrayōnitvāt two viṣaya-vākyams asya mahatō
bhūtasya and taṁ tu aupaniṣadaṁ puruṣaṁ prcchāmi; all the sūtras were
based on the upaniṣad-vākyas, what is the upaniṣad-vākya based on which the
fourth sūtra is presented? All the upaniṣad-vākyas, the entire Vēdānta-śāstram
is the viṣaya-vākyam. Because we are talking about the central-theme of the
Vēdānta-śāstram. When we are dealing with the central-theme of the entire
Vēdānta-śāstram, which particular vākyam we can take? Therefore, the entire
Vēdānta-śāstram is the viṣaya-vākyam here. So, with this I am concluding this
general analysis.
Word Analysis
Now I will come to the word analysis. This sūtram consists of three words
tat, tu and samanvayāt. The first word is tat. Tat means that. It is a pronoun
which stands for a noun. And what noun? Whatever noun has been discussed in

the previous three sūtras that noun we have to bring it here. And we found that
Brahman has been discussed in all the previous three sūtras. In the first-sūtra,
Brahman was discussed as an object-of-enquiry. Thus it was vicāryam-Brahma,
which was discussed in the first-sūtra. And in the second-sūtra also, we
discussed Brahman. What type of Brahman we discussed in the second-sūtra?
jagat-kāraṇam-Brahma we discussed. And in the third-sūtra also, we discussed
Brahman. What was the topic there? The śāstra-kartā, śāstrasyāpi-kāraṇam,
Vēda kartr and therefore only sarvajñam-sarvaśakti-Brahma. So, we have got
five adjectives for Brahman. What are the five adjectives? Vicāryam-Brahma,
jagat-kāraṇam Brahma, Vēda-kartr-Brahma (the author of the Vēdas) and
therefore, only sarvajñam-sarva-śakti. Such a Brahman has been discussed in
the first three-sūtras. And that Brahman by the word tat. Therefore, what is the
meaning of the word tat? Vicāryam, jagat-kāraṇam, Vēda-kartr-sarvajñam,
sarva-śakti Brahma. We have to supply a word to complete the sūtra and that
word is śāstrayōni or śāstra-viṣayaḥ. Therefore, that Brahman is the subject-
matter of the Vēdānta-śāstram. Which Brahman? Vicāryam-Brahma, jagat-
kāraṇam Brahma, Vēda-kartr-Brahma sarvajñam-Brahma sarvaśakti-Brahma is
śāstra-viṣayaḥ, is the central-theme of the śāstra. That we have to supply, it is
not there in the sūtra. We have to supply from where? From the previous-sūtra
we have to bring that. This is called anuvrtti. In sūtra literature, they use the
method of anuvrtti to save words or to shorten the sentences. Suppose I say,
Rāma went to the temple. Then I say, Krṣṇa also. Now, ‘Krṣṇa also’ sentence is
incomplete. How do you complete? You know in the first sentence ‘Rāma went
to the temple’ and in the second sentence ‘Krṣṇa also’ I have put, you bring
‘went to the temple’ from the previous sentence and say Krṣṇa also went to the
temple. This method of pulling words from the previous-sentence is called
anuvrtti-method and the advantage of anuvrtti is that you save words. The
second-sentence has been shortened by swallowing ‘temple’, ‘went’ etc. And in
the entire-sūtra literature, all the authors use this method called anuvrtti-
method. For example, in the first-sūtra, athātō Brahma-jijñāsā is mentioned. In
the second-sūtra, janmādyasya yataḥ jagat-kāraṇam alone is mentioned. Now
what do we do? We add another word by the method of anuvrtti and that word
is Brahma. jagat-kāraṇam Brahma. How do you get it? Through anuvrtti.

Similarly, śāstrayōnitvāt Brahma na anumāna-gamyam. Again, Brahma you get

through anuvrtti. Thus, the word Brahma is used only in the first-sūtra and in
the latter sūtras, the world Brahman continues through the method of anuvrtti.
And we borrow the word śāstrayōni from the third-sūtra by the same anuvrtti-
method. With this we have seen the meaning of the word tat. Therefore, tat
Brahma śāstrayōni – that Brahman is the central theme of śāstram. So with this,
we have seen the meaning of the word tat.
Then the next word is tu, which we will see later for the sake of
communication.
Then the third world is samanvayāt. Because Brahman enjoys

consistency, because Brahman enjoys importance.
Now, the next question is what? How do you prove that Brahman enjoys
importance? It can be proved only by one method i.e., the six-liṅgas, factors,
clues are supporting Brahman alone. This Vyāsācārya has to show. Therefore,
now Vyāsācārya has an important task by using six liṅgas he has to show that
Brahman is the central theme and that method of proving by using the six
liṅgas is called mīmāṁsā or analysis. Mīmāṁsā or analysis means proving that
the Brahman is a central theme my making use of six liṅgas. Ṣaḍliṅgaiḥ
tātparya-nirṇayaḥ mīmāṁsā. And Vyāsācārya is going to do that alone from
sūtra number 5 onwards up to sūtra number 134. Proving samanvaya is
Vyāsācārya’s task. That means, it requires a lot patience for us. Because it is
proved by 130 sūtras. You should have patience until you complete the 134 th
sūtra. Since it is asking for too much patience, the Śaṅkarācārya’s commentary
and other sub-commentators briefly prove this particular point. Just to avoid
suspense the commentator and the sub-commentators briefly establish that
Brahman is the central theme by using ṣaḍliṅgāni. So based on commentary
and sub-commentaries we will also do a brief analysis. Our aim, our task is to
establish that Brahman is the central theme by showing the six-liṅgas or six-
factors.

Now the question is, what are those six liṅgas? Here liṅgam means not
the dvādaśa-jyōtirliṅga, here the word liṅgam has nothing to do with
śivaliṅgam. Here liṅgam is a technical word, which means indicator, mark, clue,
proof, sign, etc. I am very freely and comfortably using this word because I have
discussed six-liṅgas in my upaniṣat classes. Anyway, I will just give the gist of it.
What are the ṣaḍliṅgas?
उपक्रमोपसंहारौ अभ्यासोऽपूिनता फलम् ।

अथयवादोपपिी च शलङ्गं तात्पर्यननर्यर्े ॥
upakramōpasaṁhārau abhyāsō’pūrvatā phalaṁ |

arthavādōpapattī ca liṅgaṁ tātparyanirṇayē ||
To establish the importance of a certain topic we use six indicators which are
enumerated.
i) The first is called upakramōpasaṁhārau, which means the identity or

oneness of the beginning and the end must be the central theme.
ii) The second-one is abhyāsaḥ, repetition. Whatever is repeated is the
central theme. Earlier it was whatever is in the beginning and end is the central-
theme.
iii) The third-one is apūrvatā. Apūrvatā means whatever is a new topic,
whatever enjoys newness. Because whatever is already known is not important,
whatever is newly taught must be important.
iv) The fourth-one is phalaṁ, fruitfulness or benefit. Whatever is fruitful,
whatever enjoys benefit, that is important. Whatever is fruitless, nobody gives
importance.
v) Then the fifth-one is ārtha-vādaḥ means stuti, stōtram, and glorification.
Whatever is glorified enjoys importance.
vi) Then finally, upapattiḥ means reason or logic. So, whatever fulfils reason
or logic is important. Whatever is illogical, whatever is unreasonable, whatever
is irrational cannot be the central theme.
These are the six-factors using which we have to prove this or that is the
central theme. And in tradition, the commentators take one example for study.

The standard example taken is the sixth chapter of Cāndōgyōpaniṣat. It is called

model-chapter, in vēdānta. It is called tattvamasi-prakaraṇam.
Now, when we take that chapter we find that all the six factors indicate that the
Brahman is the central-theme. How? Let us take one by one.
a) The first one is the beginning and end. If you take tattvamasi-
prakaraṇam, this chapter, this section begins with Brahman and ends with
Brahman.
सदे ि सोम्येदमग्र आसीदे कमेिानद्वतीयम् । ॥ छान्द्दोग्योपनिषत् ६-२-१ ॥

sadēva sōmyēdamagra āsīdēkamēvādvitīyam | || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 6-2-1 ||
That is the beginning revealing Brahma. And the end is
ऐतदात्म्यधमदँ सिं तत्सत्यम् स आत्मा तत्त्िमसस श्वेतकेतो ॥ छान्द्दोग्योपनिषत् ६-११-३ ॥

aitadātmyamida̐ sarvaṁ tat satyam sa ātmā, tattvamasi śvētakētō || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 6-11-
3 ||
From this, it is very clear that Brahman is the central theme. I have often given
you the example of the radio news or television news. When you switch on the
news, the first four or five statements indicate the central-theme. The rest of
the news will be the narration of the first few sentences. And when they
conclude the news what do they say? ‘ To end the news the main points once
again. ’ Upakramōpasaṁhāra, beginning with sadēva sōmyēdamagra āsīt and
ending with tatsatyam (tatsatyam indicates everything else is mithyā). So,
upakramōpasaṁhāra proves Brahman is the theme.
b) The second-one is abhyāsaḥ, repetition. In the sixth chapter several

sections are there, you find in all the sections, one statement is repeated.
aitadātmyamida sarvaṁ tatsatyam sa ātmā tattvamasi śvētakētō. So, it is
repeated nine times. Very few sentences are repeated so many times. This is
repeated indicating, you repeat something for what? to stress it. Therefore,
abhyāsaḥ, repetition also favours.
c) The third thing is apūrvatā. Vēdānta-śāstram wants to reveal Brahman
only because it is a new topic, a new entity, it is not knowable through any other
pramāṇam. So, how do you define new? New is defined as pramāṇāntara

avēdyam, apūrvatvam. Avēdyam means not known through. Not known

through what? Pramāṇāntara, all the other instruments of knowledge. From
pratyakṣa you cannot know, anumānam, arthāpatti, upalabdhi from all these
you cannot know. Even karma-kāṇḍam does not reveal Brahman. Karma-
kāṇḍam reveals karma and not Brahman. And therefore, Brahman alone has to
be revealed by Vēdānta. If any other thing is revealed it is carrying ’useless
labour’ piṣṭa-pēṣaṇam. And therefore, Vēdānta’s central theme is Brahman
alone and not anything else.


026 Sūtra 1.1.4 Samanvayādhikaraṇam
तिु समन्वर्ात् ॥
tattu samanvayāt ||
In the fourth sūtra, which happens to be the fourth-adhikaraṇam, we are

seeing the meaning of the word samanvayāt. And I said in the last class that the
word samanvayāt means consistency or harmony or concordance or
importance. So, through this sūtra, Vyāsācārya says that Brahman has
importance in the entire Vēdānta-śāstram and all other topics are subservient,
supporting, secondary-topics only; Brahman alone enjoys the importance in
Vēdānta-śāstram.
And how do you know this fact? How do you know that Brahman enjoys
the importance? Does Vyāsācārya underline Brahman all over or does
Vyāsācārya write the word Brahman in italic? How do you know Brahman gets
importance in Vēdānta-śāstra? You can know it only through a technical
analysis, with the help of ṣaḍliṅgāni, which method of analysis has been
provided by the pūrva-mīmāṁsā-śāstram. So, this method of analysis to arrive
at the importance of a subject matter, to arrive at the tātparyam of a subject-
matter has been designed by pūrva-mīmāṁsā-śāstram and this method of
analysis is adopted by the uttara-mīmāṁsā, the Vēdānta-śāstram also. We are
seeing the ṣaḍliṅgas and we are seeing how the ṣaḍliṅgas reveal the
importance of Brahman in Vēdānta-śāstram. And as a model we have taken the
sixth-chapter of Cāndōgyōpaniṣat and we are seeing how each liṅgam or each
indicator revealed Brahman as the tātparyam.

The first liṅgam we saw in the last class is the upakramōpasaṁhāra-

liṅgam. We find that the upakrama i.e., the beginning of Vēdānta and
upasaṁhāra, the end of Vēdānta, stresses Brahman. Sadēva sōmyēdamagra
āsīt, there the Brahman is talked about. Then, tatsatyam sa ātmā tattvamasi
śvētakētō also talks about Brahman. Thus, upakrama-upasaṁhāra is this
Brahman.
And the second indicator is abhyāsaḥ or repetition and we find the

statement tat tvam asi is repeated nine times, indicating that it is not a casual
remark but is a committed-remark. Thus, abhyāsaḥ is also Brahma-liṅgam.
Upakramōpasaṁhāra is Brahma-liṅgam, abhyāsaḥ is Brahma-liṅgam.
Then the next one is apūrvatā. Apūrvatā means that which is unique,
which cannot be known by other pramāṇas or means of knowledge. In
saṁskrta, it is said pramāṇāntara-agamyam, avēdyam. What cannot be known
through by other pramāṇas alone is the subject-matter of the Vēda. Vēda need
not come and tell me something that I can know by myself, then Vēda is
wasting its time and energy. For example, it need not tell, that whenever you
are hungry you should eat. Vēda need not come and advice me to eat to
remove my hunger because I already know. And if you are all coming to attend
this class what am I supposed to teach you? Something which you do not know.
I need come and teach you the multiplication table. So, therefore, any
pramāṇam has got a subject matter, which is not available for other
pramāṇams. So now, Brahman is not available for any other pramāṇam.
ि तत्र चक्षुगनच्छनत ि िाग्गच्छनत िो मिाः । ॥ केिोपनिषत् १-३ ॥

na tatra cakṣurgacchati na vāggacchati nō manaḥ | || Kēnōpaniṣat 1-3 ||
And Brahman is not known through the pūrva-bhāga or the karma-kāṇḍa

of the Vēdas. Karma-kāṇḍam deals with rituals, karma-kāṇḍam deals with
puṇyam and pāpam, karma-kāṇḍam deals with parā-lōkas but karma-kāṇḍam
never deals with Brahman. And since Brahman is apūrva-viṣayaḥ, never known
before. And since Brahman is apūrvam, Vēdānta chooses to talk about the new
subject-matter called Brahman.

And this apūrvatā is also indicated in sixth-chapter of Cāndōgya; so there

the teacher asks the student to bring a lump of salt and asks the student to
dissolve the salt in a cup of water. And then he asks the student to bring the
salt-water and the teacher asks the student to taste the water – to taste from
the top, to taste from the middle and to taste from the bottom. And then the
student says the water is salty. Then the teacher asks the question to the
student, ‘My dear student can you see the salt in water?’ The student says, ‘No, I
cannot see.’ I know that there is salt in the water, because I can feel the taste
but even though I know the salt, I am not able to perceive it. So therefore, the
water is pervaded by something other than water, here salt, but which is
imperceptible. Having given this example the teacher says that ‘Student, in the
same way, you know that the body is a bundle of matter and this table or a
statue is also matter. A statue is pāñca-bhautikam and the physical body is also
is pāñca-bhautikam but you know, you live, you experience the body to be a
sentient one, just as we have salt in the water, we have got a sentient-body.
That means just as the water is pervaded by something other than water; the
body also is pervaded by something other than the body. That ‘extra’-something
makes the water saltish and that ‘extra’-something makes the body alive and
sentient. I know that there is something extra, but I am not able to feel it. I see
this statue, it has got form and color and I see the body which has also got a
form and color. I know it is pervaded by something, but I do not see that. And
what is that invisible-thing which pervades the body, enlivens the body? The
teacher says,
सदे ि सोम्येदमग्र आसीदे कमेिानद्वतीयम् । ॥ छान्द्दोग्योपनिषत् ६-२-१ ॥

sadēva sōmyēdamagra āsīd ēkamēvādvitīyam | || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 6-2-1 ||
That Brahman is the salt of life. So, where is Brahman? It is in the body.
अत्र िाि नकल तत् ॥ छान्द्दोग्योपनिषत् ६-१३-२ ॥

atraiva kila tat || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 6-13-2 ||
So, don’t run after Brahman. Atrai vā kila tat sōmya, Oh! dear student, are you
listening, are you sleepy in the early morning, atraiva kila tat sōmya. But what is
it? Na nibhālayatē. Na nibhālayatē means na paśyati, you do not see Brahman

but it is. By this example, the teacher says, Brahman is pratyakṣa agōcaram and
therefore, pramāṇāntara-agamyam and therefore, apūrvam-Brahma. So,
through this Brahmaṇaḥ apūrvatā is established. This is the third-liṅgam.
From this, we have to derive an important-corollary. Now, Brahman is the

subject-matter of Vēdānta. In saṁskrta, subject-matter is called viṣayaḥ or
another word is pramēyaḥ or another word is pratipādyaḥ; all are synonymous.
So, Brahman is the viṣayaḥ, Brahman is the pramēyam of Vēdānta. And not only
that we said Brahman is the unique subject-matter of Vēdānta. That means
Brahman is known through Vēdānta alone and not by any other pramāṇam.
That means if you reverse it, we can also say Vēdānta is the unique-pramāṇam
for Brahman. So thus, Vēdānta-pramāṇam and Brahma-pramēyam are made-
for-each-other-couple. So therefore, Vēdānta is the unique-pramāṇam, which
alone can reveal Brahman. Brahman is the unique-pramēyam, which is revealed
by Vēdānta alone. When you say Brahman is the unique-pramēyam, it is
expressed by the sūtra ‘tat tu samanvayāt’ and when you say Vēdānta is the
unique pramāṇam, it is expressed by ‘śāstrayōnitvāt’. So, if you reverse
‘śāstrayōnitvāt’ it is ‘tat tu samanvayāt’. Śāstrayōnitvāt says that Vēdānta is the
unique-pramāṇam for Brahma. Tat tu samanvayāt says Brahman is the unique-

pramēyam of Vēdānta. Therefore, fourth-sūtra corroborates, establishes the
third-sūtra. So, this is the corollary of apūrvatā to be noted.
d) Then what is the fourth-liṅgam? Wherever phalaṁ or prayōjanam,

benefit, utility is mentioned, that alone must get primary-importance. Wherever
phalaṁ is not mentioned it is only a subsidiary, auxiliary, secondary alone. In
the upaniṣat we find –
ब्रह्मनिदाप्नोनत परम् ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् २-१-१ ॥

Brahmavid āpnōti param || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-1-1 ||
If you know Brahman, you will get mōkṣa it is said. Therefore, the importance is
given to Brahma-jñānam. And therefore, Brahmaṇi tātparyam asti. If you go to
the sixth chapter of Cāndōgya, our model chapter, there is a statement –
तस्र् तावदे व शचरं, र्ावन्न नवमोर्क्ष्र्ेऽथ सम्पत्स्र् इनत ॥ छान्दोग्र्ोपननषत् ६-१४-२ ॥

tasya tāvadēva ciraṁ yāvanna vimōkṣyē’tha sampatsya iti || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 6-14-2 ||
This statement is a very important statement, often quoted statement. The

essence of this statement is that Brahma jñāni will get jīvan-mukti and at the
time of death, he will get vidēha-mukti also. So thus, jīvan-mukti phalaṁ and
vidēha-mukti phalaṁ both are mentioned for Brahma-jñānam. And because of
that also Brahman is important. Whereas nowhere, annamaya-kōśa-jñānam
phalaṁ is not given. Whoever knows annamaya-kōśa he will get plenty of food!.
So even though so many other topics are discussed, the śāstra does not give
phalaṁ for any other jñānam, for this alone phalaṁ is mentioned. This is called
phalaṁ, which is also Brahma-liṅgam.
e) What is the next one? Ārtha-vādaḥ. Ārtha-vādaḥ means glorification. In

the upaniṣat, the advaita-jñānam is glorified by pointing out that ēka-vijñānēna
sarva-vijñānam bhavati. Brahma-jñāni will become sarva-jñāni. Of course, sarva-
jñāni should be understood properly. You should not ask that will he
immediately know Chinese language also, French language also. So, here sarva-
jñānam means sarva ātma-jñānam. He gets the knowledge of the essence of
everything, which is as good as knowing everything. So thus, by glorifying
Brahma-jñāni as sarvajñaḥ, the sixth chapter indirectly glorifies Brahman only.
Because, when Brahma-jñāni is glorified the glory goes to Brahman only. So,
this is called ārtha-vādaḥ, another word is stutiḥ, stōtram. And not only
Brahma-jñānam is glorified, in some other upaniṣats it condemns all other
branches of knowledge also by saying that they are all useless, they cannot give
mōkṣa. In Kaṭhōpaniṣat it is said –
मृत्योाः स मृत्युमाप्नोनत य इह िािेि पश्यनत ॥ कठोपनिषत् २-१-१० ॥

mrtyōḥ sa mrtyumāpnōti ya iha nānēva paśyati || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 2-1-10 ||
The one who is in duality he will travel from death to death. And the one who
dies without gaining Brahma-jñānam, he is an unfortunate person,
स कृपणाः ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ३-८-१० ॥

sa krpaṇaḥ || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 3-8-10 ||

Whereas the one who dies after Brahma-jñānam, he alone is brāhmaṇaḥ. So,
indirectly what does it say? All the ajñānis are not brāhmaṇas. Then why are
they called brāhmaṇas? They are all fake brāhmaṇas, they are brāhmaṇa-
abhāsaḥ only, and none of them deserves the status of brāhmaṇas. This is not
my statement, upaniṣat is declaring.
स ब्राह्मणाः ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ३-८-१० ॥

sa brāhmaṇaḥ || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 3-8-10 ||
Thus, Brahma -jñānam is glorified, anya-jñānam is criticized, both are called

ārtha-vādaḥ. Brahma stuti is also ārtha-vādaḥ and anya-nindā is also ārtha-
vādaḥ. Through both of them, the upaniṣat points out that Brahman is
important. This is called ārtha-vādaḥ.
f) And finally, upapattiḥ. Upapattiḥ means logic. The upaniṣat wants to

show that it is not illogical, that it is not dogmatic, that it is not irrational, that it
is not blind belief; it has got support of logic also. So, the upaniṣat says Brahma-
satyam jagan-mithyā. Brahman is satyam, jagat is mithyā. It does not blindly
assert that but, it gives the logical support also. How does it give logical
support? The upaniṣat reveals Brahman as kāraṇam and the upaniṣat reveals
the world as kāryam and it logically shows that kāraṇam alone can be satyam
because it has independent-existence. Whereas any kāryam, i.e., a product, has
got no independent-existence. Therefore, the upaniṣat makes an anumāna-
vākyam, Brahma satyam; kāraṇatvāt, jagat mithyā; kāryatvāt. What more you
need? Brahman is satyam because, janmādyasya yataḥ; kāraṇatvāt, jagat
mithyā; kāryatvāt. If this is not understood, for mandaḥ upaniṣat gives an
example also.
िाचारम्भणं निकारो िामिेयं मृभिकेत्येि सत्यम् ॥ छान्द्दोग्योपनिषत् ६-१-४ ॥

vācārambhaṇaṁ vikārō nāmadhēyaṁ mrttikētyēva satyam || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 6-1-4 ||
When there is an earthen product, i.e., a pot, we clearly know that clay alone is
satyam and there is no such substance called pot. Pot is mere nāma and rūpa.
There we have to note the upaniṣat uses the word at it says mrttikā ēva satyam,
clay alone is satyam. By using the word alone, suppose there are two people
and I show one person and say ‘This person is intelligent.’ It is not that much

insult. But still worse is suppose I say ‘This person alone is intelligent.’ What is
understood? The other person is other-wise. In the same way, the upaniṣat says
‘mrttikā ēva satyam,’ which means mrttikā-vikāraḥ, product is vācārambhaṇaṁ
nāmadhēyaṁ they have got nāma-mātra sattā. nām kē vāstē sattā. So, by mrt
and ghaṭa example the upaniṣat logically shows kāraṇa satyatvam and kārya
mithyātvam and through that the upaniṣat reveals Brahma satyatvam jagan-
mithyātvam. That is called upapattiḥ, logic, which is the sixth Brahma liṅgam.
So thus,
उपक्रमोपसंहारौ अभ्यासोऽपूिनता फलम् ।

अथनिादोपपिी च सलङ्गं तात्पयननिणनये ॥
upakramōpasaṁhārau abhyāsō’pūrvatā phalaṁ |
arthavādōpapattī ca liṅgaṁ tātparyanirṇayē ||
By taking the sixth chapter as model we clearly established that all the liṅgams
reveal Brahman alone and therefore, Brahmaṇi-samanvayaḥ. So, samanvayaḥ
means importance. The conclusion is tat – that Brahman is śāstra-pramēyam;
Brahman is the subject-matter of śāstram, samanvayāt, because of consistency.
If you reverse it, what you get? Therefore only Vēdānta is Brahma-pramāṇam, is
the pramāṇam for Brahman. With this we are concluding the analysis of the
word samanvayāt. Of the three words, we have seen tat pada and samanvayāt.
Now we are going to analyze ‘tu‘, (not any other language ‘tu‘) which is a
most important word of this sūtra. In fact, maximum commentary of
Śaṅkarācārya is for this one shortest word tu. So, tu analysis. Now in this
context the word tu means avadhāraṇārthē, emphasis. In English, it is alone,
only. So, we had said Brahman is the subject-matter of Vēdānta, of śāstram. By
adding tu, Vyāsācārya says Brahman alone is the subject-matter of Vēdānta.
That is called avadhāraṇam, emphasis. When he says Brahman alone is the
subject-matter, indirectly he means nothing else is the subject-matter. So, Rāma
alone visited my house means nobody-else has visited. Therefore, anytime you
emphasize, indirectly you are negating something. Every emphasis involves
negation. Rāma alone visited temple means nobody else visited. Rāma visited
the temple only means he has visited temple only, not any other place. Thus,

negation of other things is called vyāvrttiḥ. So thus, every avadhāraṇam implies

a vyāvrttiḥ. Every emphasis of ‘x’ implies the negation of ‘non-x’. Therefore,
Śaṅkarācārya says tu is pūrva-pakṣaḥ vyāvrttyartham.
By using the word tu, Vyāsācārya is negating all other interpretations, all
other pūrva-pakṣis. Who are those pūrva-pakṣis? All those pūrva-pakṣis who
claim that the subject-matter is not Brahman but the subject-matter is
something else. So, he is negating all other pūrva-pakṣas who claim that the
subject-matter of śāstram is not Brahman, and the subject-matter of śāstram is
something else.
Now, who are those pūrva-pakṣas? So therefore, tu is used for pūrva-

pakṣaḥ-nirākaraṇam; therefore, we should know who are those pūrva-pakṣas.
Now, certainly the pūrva-pakṣas are those who analyze the śāstram. The
nāstikas do not come to the picture at all, because what are we discussing here?
‘The subject-matter of śāstram is Brahman or not’ is our discussion. And
therefore, here we are not considering nāstika-pūrva-pakṣas, who are not
bothered about the śāstram. Whether the śāstram deals with Brahman or the
śāstram deals with some other subject matter, whether upakramādi liṅgams
are supporting or not – they are all relevant for whom? Āstikas alone have to
come to that, they are not the nāstikas. Therefore, in this context, we are
discussing āstika pūrva-pakṣas. Discussing means negating āstika pūrva-
pakṣas. What do I mean by āstikas? Those people who accept Vēda-pramāṇam
(Not God. We are not talking about God) are called āstikas. In my introductory
talk, once upon a time, long before, I said there are six āstika-dārśanams
Sāṅkhya, Yōga, Nyāya, Vaiśēṣika, Pūrva-mīmāṁsā, Uttara-mīmāmsā, otherwise
called Vēdānta. Who are the Vēdāntins? We are the sixth āstika-darśanam. And
there are five pūrva-pakṣas in āstika darśanam, uttara-mīmāmsā darśanam,
Vēdānta darśanam. Now, how many pūrva-pakṣas are possible? Five – Sāṅkhya,
yōga, Nyāya, Vaiśēṣika, Pūrva-mīmāṁsā. Now, these five pūrva-pakṣas we
reduce to three pūrva-pakṣas. Because, the Sāṅkhya and Yōga have got a
common philosophy. They are practically the same. Therefore, generally we say
Sāṅkhya-yōga system. Yōga of Patañjali is teaching the same as the Sāṅkhya of

Kapila Muni. Then why did you have a new system at all, you should not ask.
Yōga concentrates on the discipline of aṣṭāṅga-yōga, the Sāṅkhya concentrates
on the theory, Yōga concentrates on the practice, aṣṭāṅga-yōga. Therefore,
Patañjali does not add much to the Sāṅkhya-philosophy. Therefore, Sāṅkhya-
Yōga together is one pūrva-pakṣaḥ. That’s why you will find later in Brahma-
sūtras itself, Vyāsācārya elaborately negates the Sāṅkhya philosophy in so many
sūtras. In the first chapter, 130 sūtras are meant for Sāṅkhya-nirākaraṇam only.
Then at the end, he uses just one sūtra and says by negating Sāṅkhya-
philosophy, Yōga-philosophy is also negated.
एतेि योगाः प्रत्युक्ताः ॥ १३७ ॥

ētēna yōgaḥ pratyuktaḥ || 137 ||
By negating Sāṅkhya, yōga is also negated means both are one and the same.
Therefore, the first two together is one. In the same way, Nyāya and Vaiśēṣika
are almost the same, essentially the same. They do have several differences but
in essential features they are the same. Therefore, we say Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika
system. So, even when there is a book called Tarka-saṅgrahaḥ, which gives you
the essence of Nyāya system but in that book they take ideas from both Nyāya
and Vaiśēṣika, therefore, Tarka-saṅgrahaḥ is a compendium of Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika
system, it contains the subject-matter of both. So thus, we have got the second
pūrva-pakṣaḥ.
Now what is the fifth one left out? Pūrva-mīmāṁsā. Pūrva-mīmāṁsā is

another pūrva-pakṣaḥ.
Therefore, now how many pūrva-pakṣas we have?
 Sāṅkhya-yōga,
 Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika and
 Pūrva-mīmāṁsā
These three pūrva-pakṣas are negated by the word tu. Does it mean Tu you get
out?. But it is not enough that Vyāsācārya dismisses by statement, he has to
prove that. Now of these three pūrva-pakṣas, Vyāsācārya looks upon Sāṅkhya-
yōga as the most powerful pūrva-pakṣaḥ. And at least in his date, i.e., during

Vyāsācārya’s time, Sāṅkhya-yōga must have been extremely powerful,

therefore, he spends the rest of the first chapter to negate the Sāṅkhya-yōga
pūrva-pakṣaḥ. Thus, from the 5th sūtra, onwards up to 134th sūtra, the entire
first chapter Vyāsācārya has got only two tasks
 establishing Vēdānta, i.e., Brahma samanvaya and

 also negating Sāṅkhya -yōga pūrva-pakṣaḥ.
It is indicated by tu of this sūtra. Therefore, from sūtra number 5, up to sūtra

number 134 is a commentary on tu, tu-vyākhyānam.
Not only that Vyāsācārya is still not satisfied even in the second chapter
he goes on refuting Sāṅkhya. He continues to refute the Sāṅkhya in the second
chapter also. Vyāsācārya doesn’t look upon Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika as that powerful.
He looks upon it as only a weak pūrva-pakṣaḥ. Atomic-theory is considered
weak in Vēdānta-śāstram. Even though the modern science is claiming Atomic-
theory as very great but we don’t consider, give it even a pūrva-pakṣaḥ status,
leave alone siddhānta status. And therefore, in the second chapter Vyāsācārya
deals with Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika briefly and not elaborately. In one sūtra he says,
अपररग्रहाच् चात्यन्द्तम् अिपेक्षा ॥२-२-१६ ॥

aparigrahāc cātyantam anapēkṣā ||2-2-16 ||
It is not at all relevant. So, there we will see the details. Then what is left out?
pūrva-mīmāṁsā is left out.
Now this we have to understand very carefully. pūrva-mīmāṁsā is the

analysis of the pūrva-bhāga of the Vēda, the ritualist-section of the Vēda. And it
is analyzed by Jaimini Maharṣi, who is supposed to be a disciple of Vyāsācārya
himself. Jaimini Maharṣi has written pūrva-mīmāṁsā-sūtrāṇi and through this
sūtras, he analysis the ritualist-portion of the Vēdas. Therefore, pūrva-mīmāṁsā
means rituals. Rituals, rituals, rituals. For this pūrva-mīmāṁsā-sūtram, there is a
bhāṣyam also, just as there is Śāṅkara-bhāṣyam for uttara-mimāmsā-sūtram,
there is a very famous bhāṣyam written by one Śabarasvāmi and this bhāṣyam
is called Śābara-bhāṣyam. Really speaking we do not consider pūrva-mīmāṁsā

of Jaimini and the Śābarabhāṣyam of Śabarasvāmi as pūrva-pakṣaḥ at all; really

speaking respect pūrva-mīmāṁsā.
Not only it is useful for dharma-artha-kāma, it is useful for gaining citta-

śuddhi also. That is why it is called dharma-śāstram, and dharma-śāstram alone
gives sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti. Therefore, pūrva-mīmāṁsā is useful for
material benefit also; pūrva-mīmāṁsā is useful for the spiritual benefit of
sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti. Therefore, you should remember pūrva-mīmāṁsā
is really not a pūrva-pakṣaḥ. But we emphasize one thing - pūrva-mīmāṁsā
cannot give mōkṣa. Pūrva-mīmāṁsā gives dharma-artha-kāma, pūrva-
mīmāṁsā gives sādhana-catuṣṭaya-saṁpatti, but pūrva-mīmāṁsā cannot give
mōkṣa. With respect we say, Śabarasvāmi also accepts this fact – pūrva-
mīmāṁsā is meant for dharmārthakāma and sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti, it
cannot give mōkṣa.
But later what happened, for this Śābara-bhāṣyam, some other people
wrote sub-commentaries. These commentators started creating problem. They
presented pūrva-mīmāṁsā as a means of mōkṣa. Not only that, later their
audacity became so much pronounced that they started saying pūrva-mīmāṁsā
alone gives mōkṣa. And later their arrogance increased further and they started
saying uttara-mimāmsā is utterly useless, Vēdānta is useless. They are like a
barren land in a country. Vēda is like a land where Vēdānta is like desert, barren
portion, Vēdōṣarāḥ Vēdāntaḥ – the barren, unproductive portion of the Vēda is
uttara-mimāmsā. Therefore, pūrva-mīmāṁsā as presented by those people
becomes our pūrva-pakṣaḥ. Thus, there are three pūrva-pakṣas, all are negated
by tu. Details in the next class.


027 Sūtra -1-1-4 Samanvayādhikaraṇam
तिु समन्द्ियात् ॥
Now we are seeing the fourth-sūtra, which happens to be the fourth-

adhikaraṇam known as samanvayādhikaraṇam. In this sūtra, three words are
there tat tu samanvayāt. And we have to supply a fourth word for the
completion of the statement and that fourth-word is śāstrayōni. Therefore, the
complete sūtra is tat tu śāstrayōni samanvayāt. The meaning will be that
Brahman is the subject-matter of Vēdānta because it has importance. We have
analyzed the word tat and samanvayāt, now we have entered into the word tu. I
said in the last class that the word tu gives emphasis, which means Brahman
alone is the subject-matter of Vēdānta-śāstram. By saying Brahman alone is the
subject matter; Vyāsācārya is indirectly negating all other systems of
philosophies who claim that the subject-matter is something other than
Brahman. So, tuśabdaḥ pūrva-pakṣaḥ vyāvrttyarthaḥ. Śaṅkarācārya writes in his
commentary tuśabdaḥ pūrva-pakṣa-vyāvrttyarthaḥ. The word tu is to negate all
other systems of philosophy, which claim that anything other than Brahman is
the subject-matter. I said that pūrva-pakṣis can be broadly classified into three –
 Sāṅkhya-yōga pūrva-pakṣaḥ,
 Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika pūrva-pakṣaḥ and
 Pūrva-mīmāṁsā pūrva-pakṣaḥ.
But here you should not have a doubt, ‘Svāmiji, you are talking about Sāṅkhya
pūrva-pakṣaḥ, Nyāya-pūrva-pakṣaḥ etc., how come you don’t talk about
Viśiṣṭādvaita-pūrva-pakṣaḥ and dvaita-pūrva-pakṣaḥ. So, you should carefully
remember Viśiṣṭādvaitam and Dvaitam are two types of commentaries on

Brahmasūtram and they cannot become pūrva-pakṣaḥ of Brahmasūtram. What

is a commentary, that cannot become a pūrva-pakṣi. Therefore, all of them are
the followers of Brahmasūtra, they all have a common parentage that is Vyāsa.
So, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita and Advaita they are all children of Vyāsa as it were.
That is why they have got a common surname Dvaita-Vēdānta, Viśiṣṭādvaita-
Vēdānta, Advaita-Vēdānta, all the three are one and the same Vēdānta-
dārśanam only; because, they have the common source of Brahmasūtra.
Therefore, all the three are Vēdāntins.
And while studying Brahmasūtra, which is otherwise called Vēdānta-sūtrāṇi,

the aim of Vēdāntins together are dealing with the non-Vēdāntin-Sāṅkhya, non-
Vēdāntin-Yōga and non-Vēdāntin Nyāya; we are dealing with non-Vēdāntins.
And who are we? We, the Vēdāntins put together which will include
Viśiṣṭādvaita-Vēdānta and Dvaita-Vēdānta. Therefore, the dispute between
Viśiṣṭādvaitam and advaitam is an internal dispute within Vēdānta, which is not
our subject-matter. We are not dealing with the internal-dispute but we are
dealing with, Vēdānta-as-a-whole is dealing with Sāṅkhya, Yōga, Nyāya,
Vaiśēṣika. So, when we are dealing with a neighbouring country and we are
enumerating those enemies, will you include Karṇāṭaka along with that? No,
because karṇāṭaka does not come under a neighbouring country. So, we don’t
deal with neighbouring countries as a Tamilians but we are now Indians, as
Indians we are dealing with neighbouring countries. After dealing with them,
Kāverī water is for you or for me we dispute. In saṁskrta, it is called Yādavīya-
kalahaḥ. Yādavīya-kalahaḥ means internal-conflict. So, Viśiṣṭādvaita and Advaita
is an internal conflict, which we are not specializing in Brahma-sūtra study. In
Brahma-sūtra study the conflict is between Vēdānta and non-Vēdānta. That is
why, when I am talking about Brahma-sūtra pūrva-pakṣaḥ, I am talking about
Vēdānta-pūrva-pakṣaḥ there we will not include or talk about Viśiṣṭādvaitam.
That is why I said we have three main pūrva-pakṣis, non-Vēdāntins. What are
they?
 Sāṅkhya -yōga
 Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika

 Pūrva-mīmāṁsā
They are all āstika pūrva-pakṣas, i.e., pūrva-pakṣaḥ believing in Vēda -

pramāṇam. Nāstika pūrva-pakṣas are seperate that we are not enumerating
here.
Of these three-pūrva-pakṣas, Vyāsācārya deals with Sāṅkhya-yōga pūrva-

pakṣaḥ very elaborately. Because he considers the Sāṅkhya philosophy is the
main challenger for Vēdāntic teachings. Therefore, right from the 5th sūtram up
to 134th sūtram, the entire first-chapter dismisses Sāṅkhya and Yōga. And not
satisfied with that Vyāsācārya continues that in the second chapter also still
elaborately refuting Sāṅkhya. So, Vyāsācārya deals with Sāṅkhya-yōga.
Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya need not separately do that job, Vyāsa does it. And as
far as Nyāya-Vaiśēṣika pūrva-pakṣaḥ is concerned, Śaṅkarācārya deals with
reasonably elaborately in the second chapter. Even though it is not as elaborate
as Sāṅkhya-niṣēdha, he does reasonably well in the second- chapter. That also
Śaṅkarācārya need not separately bother, as he is commenting, they will be
dealt with. But there is only one pūrva-pakṣaḥ that Vyāsācārya does not deal
with. And that is pūrva-mīmāṁsā pūrva-pakṣaḥ. Therefore, he takes this
opportunity of tu and comments upon tu as pūrva-mīmāṁsā niṣēdhārthaḥ-tu.
He writes a very elaborate commentary on the samanvaya sūtram and the
entire commentary is to negate the pūrva-mīmāṁsā. What is that? First we will
understand the pūrva-pakṣaḥ then we will see how Śaṅkarācārya negates.
As I said the main source of pūrva-mīmāṁsā-śāstram is the sūtras of Jaimini,

which is considered to be the oldest sūtras compared to all other – Nyāya,
Vaiśēṣika, Brahmasūtra, compared to all the sūtras pūrva-mīmāṁsā-sūtras is
supposed to be the oldest, and Jaimini is the author and he is considered to be
a contemporary of Vyāsa and also a disciple of Vyāsa. He has written a very
elaborate pūrva-mīmāṁsā-sūtras consisting of 12 chapters with more than
2000 sūtras whereas Brahma-sūtra is only one-fourth. For that itself you
wonder, ‘Svāmiji, 555 sūtras you are going to teach? Will we survive so long?’
Don’t worry all the sūtras are not as elaborate. So therefore, pūrva-mīmāṁsā
has got 12 adhyāyas whereas Brahma-sūtra has got only 4 chapters, pūrva-

mīmāṁsā has got more than 2000 sūtras and Brahma-sūtra has got only 555.
So elaborately he has written. And for these sūtras there is a famous standard
commentary, which I said in the last class, written by Śabarasvāmi which
commentary is admired and accepted by Śaṅkarācārya himself. That
commentary is known as Śābara-bhāṣyam, which Śaṅkarācārya quotes often
(not very often)
As I said in the last class this original Jaimini-sūtrams and the Śābara-
bhāṣyam, Vēdānta accepts and pūrva-mīmāṁsā according to sūtras and
according to Śābara-bhāṣyam, we don’t consider as a pūrva-pakṣaḥ at all. We
consider the pūrva-mīmāṁsā-sūtram plus Śābara-bhāṣyam as complementary
to Vēdānta-śāstram. Because pūrva-mīmāṁsā-sūtram begins with athātō
dharma-jijñāsā. And dharma is a foundation for our life and dharma alone gives
sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti and only stepping over the dharma-śāstram we
can go to Brahma-śāstram. In fact, the very atha we commented upon as
sādhana-catuṣṭaya-saṁpatti-anantaram and for this sādhana-catuṣṭaya-
sampatti we require karma-kāṇḍam. Therefore, pūrva-mīmāṁsā as presented
by Jaimini-sūtrams and as presented by Śābara-bhāṣyam we don’t negate, we
accept. But when did it become pūrva-pakṣaḥ? To this Śābara-bhāṣyam two
great people wrote commentary. Not to the original-sūtras. Those two
commentators are known as Kumārila-bhaṭṭaḥ and Prabhākaraḥ. Both of them
wrote commentaries with slight differences among them. And Kumārila-
Bhaṭṭaḥ’s commentary is in the form of vārtikam or in the form of verses, they
are very famous known, as Bhaṭṭa-vārtikams and he presents a pūrva-mīmāṁsā
system through his commentary, which is called Bhāṭṭa-matam. Bhaṭṭēṇa krtam
bhāṭṭam. So thus, Bhāṭṭa-matam gives a version of pūrva-mīmāṁsā. Similarly,
Prabhākara also through his commentary, a voluminous prose commentary
called Brhati, through that Brhati commentary he presents another version of
pūrva-mīmāṁsā, which is called Prābhākara-matam. Thus, we have got two
types of pūrva-mīmāṁsā–bhāṭṭa-matam or Bhāṭṭa-mīmāṁsā and Prābhākara-
mīmāṁsā. what we say is the version of pūrva-mīmāṁsā given by these two
people we do not agree. So thus, Bhāṭṭa-pūrva-mīmāṁsā becomes our pūrva-
pakṣaḥ and Prābhākara-pūrva-mīmāṁsā becomes our pūrva-pakṣaḥ.

Śaṅkarācārya in his commentary is negating the Bhāṭṭa-matam and the

Prābhākara-matam of pūrva-mīmāṁsā.
What are their matams, their views? Because without knowing the pūrva-
pakṣaḥ, we cannot negate. And sometimes we may even wonder, ’since we do
not know the pūrva-pakṣaḥ, why should you introduce that and negate?’
As somebody said, they go on giving the advertisement of a medicine for

headache. Hearing that advertisement again and again we will get headache.
So thus, they create the headache by repeatedly blasting the advertisement and
once the headache has come they come with the tablet. Like that, we do not
know the pūrva-mīmāṁsā, we are happily, blissfully, ignorant of pūrva-
mīmāṁsā, why do you introduce the headache and try to become the doctor.
That is why I said Brahma-sūtra classes are not compulsory for all. Those who
want to know more of about the pūrva-pakṣa and those who want to know how
Vēdānta refutes those pūrva-pakṣa and has got intellectual-itching, they alone
need come to Brahmasῡtras. Those who are ignorant and are happy with the
ignorance, for them Gīta classes and Upaniṣat classes are more than sufficient.
Therefore, here we introduce the pūrva-pakṣaḥ and negate. First I will

talk about the basic views of pūrva-mīmāṁsā, which are common to both
matams. Thereafterwards, we will see how they differ. Now, what is my topic?
The common views of bhāṭṭa-matam and prābhākara-matam.
i) What do they say? They say, the entire Vēda or vaidika statements
can be broadly classified into two types. What are they? They are (a) siddha-
bōdhaka-vākyāni and (b) kārya-bōdhaka-vākyāni.
Bōdhaka-vākyāni is common to both. What do they mean? Siddha-

bōdhaka-vākyāni means those statements, which talk about facts, statements
of facts, statements which talk about things as they are. They are called siddha-
bōdhaka-vākyāni. They just give you the knowledge of things as they are.
Whereas kārya-bōdhaka-vākyāni are statements of commandments, which are
injunctions forcing or persuading the people to do actions. They goad people

into action. They are popularly known as vidhi-niṣēdha-vākyas, statements of

commandment asking you to do various things. So, there will be statements,
technically speaking, statements containing full of imperative-moods and
potential-moods. Kuryāt, kartavyaḥ, na hantavyaḥ all statements of injunctions.
They are commonly known as kārya-bōdhaka-vākyāni. Through statements of
facts, we will get only knowledge; whereas statements of action or
commandments will lead to action. One leads to jñānam and the other leads to
action.
A) Continuing further, they say, since siddha-bōdhaka-vākyam gives

only knowledge, they do not give any benefit to us. Because, jñānam does not
help you in accomplishing anything. Jñānam is knowledge, you know things,
knowing itself is not accomplishment. Since, knowing itself is not an
accomplishment, so jñānam is useless. And so, jñānam does not give any
puruṣārtha therefore it is utterly useless. For example, if I know there is a
heaven. I am informed now. By knowing there is a heaven what benefit do I
get? In fact, it makes me more miserable because, I have something to compare
now, like people talking about America after coming here. I feel more miserable
only, there the roads are wide and clean with no potholes, no break-inspectors
(buffaloes), no cycle-rickshaw and auto-rickshaw suddenly turning round. Now,
after knowing about America, I have become only more miserable. Therefore,
knowledge does not give you any benefit. Or again you take another example;
you go to a doctor because, you have got some ailment; (God forbid!); The
doctor diagnoses and says this is the disease. I have got a clear knowledge of
the disease now. Previously I use to say only stomach pain. Now I know the
medical name of the disease. Tell me now, how does that blessed knowledge
help me in my release from the pain. It is a knowledge, it doesn’t give sukha-
prāptiḥ nor is there duḥkha-nivrttiḥ. Therefore, knowledge will not give any
puruṣārtha; puruṣārtha is either sukha-prāpti or duḥkha-nivrtti or both. Jñānam
does not give any benefit. Therefore, siddha-bōdhaka-vākyāni aprayōjanāni,
good for nothing. Who is telling? Pūrva-mīmāṁsā pūrva-pakṣaḥ. We also feel
often this way; we are also studying for decades, what has we achieved?
Because, we may also feel on and off that what I say seems to be correct. We

are also studying, what we gained, what we cherished. That is what their
argument is. What benefit did you get by saying aham Brahmāsmi, aham
Brahmāsmi? Did your headache go? If there is no water in your house, did that
problem get solved? If you wanted to buy another house, could you get a
house? Did you solve family-problems? Did you solve national-problems? Did
you solve international-problems? What did you get out of any knowledge
including the Vēdānta-jñānam? Therefore, he asserts that siddha-bōdhaka-
vākyāni is useless-vākyāni, aprayōjanāni. Whereas kārya-bōdhaka-vākyāni
makes you do something and by doing alone we get some puruṣārtha or the
other. Either we get puruṣārtha in the form of sukha-prāpti or in the form of
duḥkha-nivrtti. Medicine knowledge did not give benefit on the other hand
medicine consumption, which is an action of consuming medicine that gives me
relief. Similarly, the knowledge of svarga did not give any benefit.
स्िगे लोके ि भयं ककतचिास्स्त

ि तत्र त्िं ि जरया नबभेनत ।
उभे तीत्िानऽशिायानपपासे
शोकानतगो मोदते स्िगनलोके ॥ कठोपनिषत् १-१-१२ ॥
svargē lōkē na bhayaṁ kiṁcanāsti
na tatra tvaṁ na jarayā bibhēti |
ubhē tīrtvā’śanāyāpipāsē
śōkātigō mōdatē svargalōkē || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-1-12 ||
This is a statement occurring in Kaṭhōpaniṣat. It is kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam or

siddha-bōdhaka-vākyam? It is a clean description of svarga, therefore, it comes
under siddha-bōdhaka-vākyam, it says svarga is wonderful, there is no hunger,
no thirst, always dance and music, can have a long life.
स्िगनलोका अमृतत्िं भजन्द्त ॥ कठोपनिषत् १-१-१३ ॥

svargalōkā amrtatvaṁ bhajante || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-1-13 ||
By knowing that what do I get? On the other hand if I do a ritual, jyōtiṣṭōma-

yāgaḥ based on the kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam –
ज्योनतष्टोमेि स्िगनकामो यजेत ॥ आपस्तम्बश्रौतसूत्र १०-२-१ ॥

jyōtiṣṭōmēna svargakāmō yajēta || āpastambaśrautasūtra 10-2-1 ||

It is a kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam which asks you to do jyōtiṣṭōma yāga out of which

you get puruṣārtha of svarga. Therefore, he asserts that all kārya-bōdhaka-
vākyam will lead to action which will lead to either sukha-prāpti or duḥkha-
nivrtti. Therefore, kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams are all saprayōjanāni. They are all
useful. So, what is the second point to be noted through all this analysis?
Siddha-bōdhaka-vākyāni aprayōjanāni and kārya-bōdhaka-vākyāni
saprayōjanāni.
The second point is this. We also argue that that is why any amount of
Vēdāntic study let it take place, students always ask the question, ‘Svāmiji, what
should I do hereafter?’ Why they want to do something? ‘Svāmiji, give me a
practical-lifestyle so that I can do, give me a daily routine so that I can do.’ So,
every student asks for doing something because he feels that he has benefited
much out of this study. Always he wants to do something. ‘I have completed the
study, now tell me what should I practice? Should I practice meditation (which is
a type of kārya), should I do japa?’ So, all the people ask for doing something,
that itself indirectly points out that kāryād-ēva prayōjanam jñānāt na
prayōjanam. If they had got benefit from jñānam why should they ask for doing
something? Therefore, what is his conclusion? Siddha-bōdhaka-vākyāni
aprayōjanāni and kārya-bōdhaka-vākyāni saprayōjanāni. This is both bhāṭṭa and
Prābhākāra-matam agree with these steps. I will point out later where do they
differ.
Now the third-point is this. The pūrva-mīmāṁsaka also agree with other
āstikas that Vēda is a pramāṇam. Unlike Bauddhas, they accept Vēda as a
pramāṇam. In fact, it is said that if Bauddhas are driven out of India the credit
goes to Pūrva-mīmāṁsakas. Many people think Śaṅkarācārya has driven away
Buddhism but really speaking it is pūrva-mīmāṁsakas who have driven away by
establishing the supremacy of Vēdas. Śaṅkarācārya deals with pūrva-
mīmāṁsakas, pūrva-mīmāṁsakas has already dealt with the Buddhists.
Therefore, pūrva-mīmāṁsakas accept Vēda-pramāṇam. So, the question comes,
what do you mean by pramāṇam? How do you define pramāṇam when you say
Vēda is a pramāṇam? There is a popular definition – anadhigata-abādhita-ārtha-

bōdhakam pramāṇam. Pramāṇam reveals something. Artha means a

pramēyam, a viṣaya; bōdhakam means reveal. So, pramāṇam is a revealer of
something. What is that something? Two conditions – anadhigatam –
something which is not revealed by other pramāṇams, and it should be a new
thing which is not revealed by eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin and not
revealed by logic, mathematics, and not even revealed by science. If Vēda
reveals whatever is revealed by science then Vēda becomes apramāṇam. To
enjoy the pramāṇa status, Vēda should reveal something which is beyond the
scope of even science. Why? Because the condition is anadhigatam.
Anadhigatam means which is beyond the scope of all other. So, an unrevealed-
thing.
The second-condition, which is also very important is – abādhitam –

something, which is not contradicted by the other pramāṇams. That means
Vēda should not reveal something which contradicts our pratyakṣa-pramāṇam.
If Vēda tells fire is cold that statement will be rejected by us because, it is
bādhitam, contradicted. It should not contradict logic also, it should not make
illogical statements, it should be something beyond logic but it should not be
illogical. That is why somebody nicely said, it is alogical; it is neither logical nor
illogical, it is alogical. And it should not contradict science also. It should not
contradict anything. At the same time it should reveal something which is not
available for science, not available for logic. So, in simple words we can say un-
contradicted. So, pramāṇam reveals something, which is un-revealed and un-
contradicted by anything, by other pramāṇams. Vēda is a pramāṇam because, it
reveals something, which is unrevealed and un-contradicted by other
pramāṇams. In this definition, the pūrva-mīmāṁsaka adds one more clause,
condition. And Vēdāntins does not use that condition but Vēdāntins accept that
condition, he is not very particular about the third-condition; but for pūrva-
mīmāṁsaka that third condition is very important. He says that anadhigata-
abādhita-phalavat ārtha-bōdhakam. Phalavat is the third-condition. Phalavat
means saprayōjanam, it has got utility, it is useful. So, when these three
conditions are fulfilled, it becomes a pramāṇam. So, now the definition of

pramāṇam is that which reveals something, which is useful and which is

unrevealed and un-contradicted by other pramāṇams.
B) Now the Vēda-pramāṇa-lakṣaṇam we have kept ready that we

have apply. We have said that siddha-bōdhaka-vākyāni aprayōjanāni and kārya-
bōdhaka-vākyāni saprayōjanāni, statements of facts are useless and statements
of actions or commandments are useful. Now, bringing that idea we come to
the conclusion that siddha-bōdhaka-vākyāni apramāṇāni. Why? Because to be a
pramāṇam - what is the third condition? - it should be useful, since siddha-
bōdhaka-vākyams are useless, it doesn’t fulfil the third condition of pramāṇam,
i.e., phalavat ārtha-bōdhakam. Phalavatvam nāsti. Whereas kārya-bōdhaka-
vākyams are useful, therefore, they fulfil the third condition of pramāṇam, i.e.,
utility and therefore, kārya-bōdhaka-vākyāni pramāṇāni. This is the third point.
So, we have discussed only three points.
 Vēda-vākyāni vividhāni – siddha-bōdhaka-vākyāni and kārya-bōdhaka-

vākyāni,
 Tayōr madhyē siddha-bōdhaka-vākyāni aprayōjanāni and kārya-bōdhaka-
vākyāni saprayōjanāni,
 siddha-bōdhaka-vākyāni aprayōjanatvāt apramāṇāni and kārya-bōdhaka-
vākyāni saprayōjanatvāt pramāṇāni.
So, statements of facts are apramāṇam because they are useless.

Statements of commandments are pramāṇam because they are useful. And
they claim all these ideas have been revealed in one important Jaimini sūtram,
which is the key-sūtram for them; just as tattu samanvayāt is the key-sūtram for
us, for those people there is a key sūtram. That is –
आम्िायस्य नक्रयाथनत्िाद् आिथनक्प्यम् अतदथानिाम् ॥ धममांसासूत्राभण १-२-१ ॥

āmnāyasya kriyārthatvād ānarthakyam atadarthānām || Mimāṁsā-sūtrāṇi 1-2-1 ||
What does it mean? Āmnāyasya is equal to Vēdasya, and in Vēda what is very
important? Kriyārthatvāt – kārya-bōdhakatvāt, statements of injunctions being
important, because they alone are useful, it can accomplice something.

ānarthakyam – all other statements are apramāṇam, useless and invalid. They
cannot be counted. What are they? Asadarthānām means siddha-bōdhakānām.
All other statements are facts are invalid. In simple language the essence of
sūtra is, statement of commandments alone are valid and statements are facts
are invalid. More in the next class.


028 Sūtra - 1-1-4 Samanvāyadhikaraṇam
In the fourth sūtra known as the samanvaya sūtra, we are seeing the meaning
of the word tu, tat tu samanvayāt. And Śaṅkarācārya points out that the word tu
indicates pūrva-pakṣa-vyāvrttyarthaḥ – the negation of all the pūrva-pakṣas. We
have established that Brahman is the subject-matter of Vēdānta. And anybody
against this view is called a pūrva-pakṣi or pūrva-pakṣaḥ. And accordingly all
other āstika-dārśanams are our pūrva-pakṣas only. Among those pūrva-pakṣas,
Śaṅkarācārya in his commentary takes up pūrva-mīmāṁsā pūrva-pakṣaḥ. We
are seeing the views of pūrva-mīmāṁsā. And in the last class, we discussed
some of the points.
i) The first-point we saw was that all the Vēda-vākyas can be divided into
two types siddha-bōdhaka-vākyāni and kārya-bōdhaka-vākyāni, statements
revealing facts and statements of commandments.
ii) Then the second-point we saw was that they consider that all siddha-
bōdhaka-vākyams are niṣprayōjanāni, they are useless; whereas all kārya-
bōdhaka-vākyams are saprayōjanāni, they are useful. Useful means puruṣārtha-
pradhāni. Because they say all these siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams only give us
knowledge of facts. And any knowledge is not going to be directly useful.
Knowing that there is a heaven does not give me any benefit. On the other
hand, if I do some ritual I may get heaven. Similarly, knowing that there is a
ritual does not get me anywhere. The performance of ritual will take me
somewhere. Similarly, knowing that there is a disease; that knowledge itself
does not give any puruṣārtha. On the other hand, if I do something to remove
the disease there is puruṣārtha. Similarly, knowing that there is a course of
medicine is unless, if I implement the course of medicine it is useful. Thus,
everywhere, we find that Knowledge by itself is of no use, just as science itself is
of no use without the corresponding technology. Pure science does not benefit
the humanity only if science is put into action, when there is application of
scientific knowledge, when there is implementation of scientific knowledge,
when it is converted into technology, we get all the benefit. Therefore, kēvala-

jñānaṁ, niṣprayōjanam. Whereas kārya-bōdhaka-vākyas talk about the actions,

they command to do actions. So, kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams persuade a person to
do something or the other and by doing something either we get something or
we get rid of something. Either sukha-prāptiḥ or duḥkha-nivrttiḥ. Therefore,
kārya-bōdhaka-vākyas are saprayōjanāni. This is the second-point we saw.
iii) Then the third-point we saw was that since, siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams are
aprayōjanam, they are useless, they are considered to be apramāṇāni.
Apramāṇāni means invalid. What is the reason? Because pūrva-mīmāṁsaka
says, a pramāṇam is a pramāṇam only when it reveals something useful.
Anadhigata abādhita prayōjanavat artha jñāna-janakam or bōdhakam. What is
the crucial word? Arthavat or Prayōjanavat. Since siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams are
aprayōjana-vākyams they are apramāṇa-vākyāni. Whereas all kārya-bōdhaka-
vākyāni reveal something useful by making us do something and therefore,
those statements are sapramāṇāni or pramāṇa-vākyāni. So these are the three
points we have seen in the last class.
 siddha-bōdhaka-vākyāni and kārya-bōdhaka-vākyāni,
 siddha-bōdhaka-vākyāni aprayōjanāni and kārya-bōdhaka-vākyāni
saprayōjanāni,
 siddha-bōdhaka-vākyāni apramāṇāni and kārya-bōdhaka-vākyāni
pramāṇāni.
Up to this we have seen.
Now I am going to continue further. You are supposed to have come

prepared; yet I thought I will recapitulate. Now he says that the entire jñāna-
kāṇḍam is only dealing with siddha-vastu and it talks about Brahman, it talks
about srṣṭi, it talks about ātmā but it doesn’t talk about any karma to be
performed. You yourself accept that it is jñāna-kāṇḍam; the very word jñāna-
kāṇḍam indicates that it only gives us knowledge and we have already told that
kēvala-jñānam is aprayōjanam if it is not put into action. So, since jñāna-
kāṇḍam produces jñānam only and since kēvala-jñānam is of no use, therefore,
we conclude that the entire jñāna-kāṇḍam is apramāṇam; siddha-bōdhaka-
vākyatvāt. What benefit do I get by knowing Brahman is satyam jñānam

anantam? What benefit do I get by knowing that the five elements were
created? Whether five or six, what is that to me? What benefit do I get by
knowing there are pañca-kōśas in me? Whether five or six, what is that to me?
So, by merely knowing that there are pañca-kōśas, by merely knowing that
there is a srṣṭi, by merely knowing the nature of Brahman, by all these I don’t
get any benefit, because siddha-bōdhaka-vākyāni niṣprayōjanāni;
niṣprayōjanatvāt apramāṇāni. Therefore, entire jñāna-kāṇḍam is useless. It is
like a barren land in a country, Vēdōṣarāḥ Vēdāntaḥ, whereas the entire Vēda is
greenery with lot of vegetables and trees, fruits, all of them and as a drṣṭi-
parihāram in one portion of Vēda is completely desert land, good for nothing.
And what is that small useless land? Vēdānta-portion. Whereas the entire
karma-kāṇḍa is green with benefits, the entire upāsana-kāṇḍa is also wonderful
with vegetations. Vēda ūṣarāḥ Vēdāntaḥ, ūṣarāḥ means desert.
Now, they face a new problem. So throughout I am discussing pūrva-

mīmāṁsā, I will let you know when I take up the Vēdāntin’s view. Till that you
can understand that these are all pūrva-mīmāṁsaka’s views only. When I switch
over, I will clearly tell you. So, the pūrva-mīmāṁsaka faces a problem. Before
that I would like to add one more thing. All these ideas Jaimini presents in one
important sūtra, which also I told in the last class.

āmnāyasya kriyārthatvād ānarthakyam atadarthānām || mimāṁsa-sūtrāṇi 1-2-1 ||
Āmnāyasya means Vēdasya, kriyārthatvād means kārya-bōdhakatvāt, they are

all meant for teaching kāryam, ānarthakyam – all other vākyams are ānartham,
apramāṇam. What is apramāṇam? Asadarthānām. Asadarthānām means
siddha-bōdhaka-vākyānām. Therefore, the final meaning of the sūtra is this,
since kārya-bōdhaka-vākyas alone are useful, all siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams are
apramāṇam. This is the essence of the sūtra. And the siddha-bōdhaka-vākyas
he terms by another terminology also and that is arthavāda-vākyāni. All siddha-
bōdhaka-vākyams he terms as arthavādam. Arthavādam means useless,
apramāṇam, niṣprayōjanam. Ok. I said that he is facing a new problem now.
Now, the pūrva-mīmāṁsaka accepts the whole Vēda as pramāṇam. He says it is

apauruṣēyam, it is not created by human intellect and therefore, it doesn’t have

any defect of the human intellect and therefore it is nirduṣṭa-pramāṇam, defect-
free-pramāṇam. The only difference is, we also say Vēda is apauruṣēyam,
pūrva-mīmāṁsaka also says Vēda is apauruṣēyam; but the difference is, we
accept God as the revealer of Vēdas; whereas pūrva-mīmāṁsaka does not
accept God as the revealer of Vēdas. So, we respect Vēdas and we respect God
as the revealer of Vēdas, whereas pūrva-mīmāṁsaka accepts the Vēda as the
ultimate. He doesn’t have even a God to reveal the Vēda. Therefore, for pūrva-
mīmāṁsakas, Vēda enjoys the status of God. If you ask him, if God did not
reveal the Vēda, then how did Vēda come? For that he says Vēda never came, it
is anādiḥ. And therefore, this anādi-Vēda, the apauruṣēya-Vēda he accepts as
pramāṇam. Now, here what he has done? Through this sūtram, āmnāyasya
kriyārthatvād sūtram he has divided the Vēdas into two, i.e., siddha-bōdhaka-
vākyams and kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams and he says siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams
are apramāṇam. So now, what will be the problem? A part of the Vēda has
become apramāṇam. Which part of the Vēda? Siddha-bōdhaka part of the Vēda
has become apramāṇam. So therefore, a problem comes. When you accept the
whole-Vēda as pramāṇam, how can you reject a part of the Vēda as
apramāṇam? This is the question being faced by pūrva-mīmāṁsaka. If you are
accepting the whole-Vēda as pramāṇam, how can you reject a part of the Vēda
as apramāṇam? For that he answers, ‘No, no, no. When I say siddha-bōdhaka-
vākyams are apramāṇam, what I mean is siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams are
apramāṇam directly, directly they are not pramāṇam. That means directly they
are not useful. That means what? Once I say directly they are not useless, not
pramāṇam, what do I say? Indirectly they are useful. Just as science may not be
directly useful but it is indirectly useful by providing the technology. Because
any technical advancement is based on science only. Therefore, even though
science is directly useless, it becomes indirectly useful when it becomes applied
science, when it is converted into technology. Similarly, he says, siddha-
bōdhaka-vākyams are directly apramāṇam but they are indirectly-useful. How?
Very simple. You must be getting the idea now. All the siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams
will help in the implementation of, application of kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams. I will
give you an example. When the Vēda is glorifying svarga, svarga is wonderful,

we can live long, all these glorification takes place, naturally what do we get by
reading that? Āśā. Desire. At least for a weekend if I can go and come. We may
not settle there. As somebody said,
sūrām pītvā tu svargārtham svargalōka nivāsinaḥ

bhūlōkē janma vāñchanti coffee pānāya kēvalam,
written for the glory of coffee. There in svarga drinking the sūrā all the time,
they felt that it is nothing like our bhūlōka coffee. Therefore, what do the
dēvatās pray regularly? Bhūlōkē janma vāñchanti. For what purpose? Coffee
pānāya kēvalam. Like that we may not plan to settle there permanently,
because there is no coffee or cricket. So, we get a desire to go to svarga. Once
the desire comes, then the Vedic statement
ज्योनतष्टोमेि स्िगनकामो यजेत ॥ आपस्तम्बश्रौतसूत्र १०-२-१ ॥

jyōtiṣṭōmēna svargakāmō yajēta || Āpastambaśrautasūtra 10-2-1 ||
A desirer-of-svarga should do the ritual. So that statement is kārya-bōdhakam

or siddha-bōdhakam? Jyōtiṣṭōmēna svargakāmō yajēta, one who is desirer of
svarga should do the ritual of jyōtiṣṭōma is a kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam. To do that
ritual what is required? A desire for svarga is required. And how do we get the
desire? When we read the siddha-bōdhaka-vākyam, i.e., the glorification of
svarga. So, svarga-glorification helps in the implementation of jyōtiṣṭōma yāga.
Therefore, what should we do? All svarga-varṇana-vākyam should be linked to
what? The kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam. What is the kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam?
Jyōtiṣṭōmēna svargakāmō yajēta. And when you link with this kārya-bōdhaka-
vākyam, the siddha-bōdhaka-vākyam has become what? Pramāṇam, useful.
Similarly, there is another statement which glorifies Vāyu dēvatā.
िायुिै क्षेनपष्ठा दे िता ॥ तैभिरीय संनहता २-१-१-१ ॥

Vāyurvai kṣēpiṣṭhā dēvatā || Taittirīya saṁhitā 2-1-1-1 ||
There is a statement. Vāyu dēvatā is a great dēvatā because, he does everything

quickly. Kṣēpiṣṭhā means kṣipragāmi, who does everything quickly. By that
knowledge what do we get? No benefit. Vāyurvai kṣēpiṣṭhā dēvatā; Is it siddha-
bōdhaka-vākyam or kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam? It is a clean siddha-bōdhaka-

vākyam and I don’t get any benefit out of it. But after the siddha-bōdhaka-
vākyam, Vēda gives another statement
िायिे नियुत्ित आ लभेत ॥ तैभिरीय संनहता २-१-१-१ ॥

Vāyavyam svētam ālabhēta || Taittirīya saṁhitā 2-1-1-1 ||
One should do the ritual offering oblations to vāyu dēvatā. The second
statement is kāryabōdhakavākyam or siddhabōdhakavākyam? Vāyavyam
svētam ālabhētaː ālabhēta means you should offer. It is a
kāryabōdhakavākyam, which is useful. And when we read the previous
statement – vāyu does everything quickly – we will get interested in this ritual.
Because if I do the ritual today vāyu will not give the benefit after many years,
because by saying vāyurvai kṣēpiṣṭhā dēvatā, he will give the results through
flight courier. Therefore, the kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams is supported by what?
Siddha-bōdhaka-vākyam. If siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams are independently taken,
they are useless. When they are connected to kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams, they
become useful. It is just like various compartments in a train. Are they useful or
useless? If they are useful by themselves without engine then we will get into
them and sit permanently there. At the same time, can you say all these
compartments are useless. You cannot say it is useless also. Then what should
we say? Every compartment is useful when it is connected to the engine. And
what is the engine? Kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam. What are the compartments?
Siddha-bōdhaka-vākyam. The compartment siddha-bōdhaka-vākyam will
become saprayōjanam, therefore, pramāṇam by joining kārya-bōdhaka-
vākyam. Therefore, the whole Vēda is pramāṇam or not? Now, the whole Vēda
is pramāṇam, one is directly and another is indirectly. Kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams
are direct pramāṇam and siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams are indirect-pramāṇam.
How? By joining kārya-bōdhaka-vākyas and encouraging us in performing the
rituals. This is conveyed through another pūrva-mīmāṁsā sūtram, whether you
remember the sūtram or not, you can remember the idea –
निधििा तु एकिाक्प्यत्िात् स्तुत्यथेि नििीिां स्युाः ॥ धममांसासूत्राभण १-२-७ ॥

vidhinā tu ēkavākyatvāt stutyarthēna vidhīnāṁ syuḥ || Mimāṁsā-sūtrāṇi 1-2-7 ||

Vidhinā means kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam. Ēkavākyatvāt means sambandhavatvāt

– by linking. So, vidhinā tu ēkavākyatvāt means by linking with kārya-bōdhaka-
vākyams stutyarthēna vidhīnām, by assisting the kārya-bōdhaka-vākyas they
become pramāṇam. So, by connecting itself with kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams and
by assisting the implementation of kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams they become
useful, they become indirect pramāṇam. Therefore, they use two technical
words the siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams are śēṣa and kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams are
śēṣi. śēṣa-śēṣi-sambandhaḥ, mukhya-amukhya-sambandhaḥ. What is śēṣi? The
engine is śēṣi and all the compartments are śēṣa. Engine is mukhyam and all
the compartments are amukhyam. Similarly, kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams are śēṣi
and siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams are śēṣa. This joining together the entire Vēda
becomes pramāṇam.
Now extending this sūtra, this law, the pūrva-mīmāṁsaka says, the entire
jñāna-kāṇḍam consisting of siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams also is independently
useless. Therefore, what should we do? All the Vēdānta-vākyas should be linked
with one kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam or another kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam and
Vēdānta should be made indirectly useful and not directly. Because of the sūtra
vidhinā tu ēkavākyatvāt stutyarthēna vidhīnāṁ syuḥ. So, what about Brahman
and all? No prayōjanam at all, you have to connect to one or the other karma.
You either connect to karma-phalaṁ, or connect to some dēvatā or connect to
some kartā, something or the other. It should be associated with what? Some
action or the other. That is why people always say Vēdānta should be put into
practice, applied-Vēdānta. Applied Vēdānta is the opinion of pūrva-
mīmāṁsakas. So, Vēdānta should be put into practice, into application. That
means it should be connected to some karma. Then what about Brahman
revealed in the Vēdānta?
सत्यम् ज्ञािम् आिन्द्दम् ब्रह्म ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषदत् २-१-१ ॥

satyam jñānam ānandam Brahma || Taittirīyōpaniṣadat 2-1-1 ||
यिदद्रे श्यमग्राह्यमगोत्रमिणनमचक्षुाःश्रोत्रं तदपाभणपादम् । ॥ मुण्डकोपनिषत् १-१-६ ॥

yattadadrēśyamagrāhyamagōtramavarṇamacakṣuḥśrōtraṁ tadapāṇipādam | ||
Muṇḍakōpaniṣat 1-1-6 ||

अशब्दम् अस्पशनम् अरूपम् अव्ययम् ॥ कठोपनिषत् १-३-१५ ॥

aśabdam asparśam arūpam avyayam || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-3-15 ||
िान्द्ताःप्रज्ञं ि बनहष्प्रज्ञं ॥ माण्डू क्प्योपनिषत् ७ ॥

nāntaḥprajñaṁ na bahiṣprajñaṁ || Māṇḍūkyōpaniṣat 7 ||
अस्थूलमिणु अिस्िमदीघनम् ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ३-८-८ ॥

asthūlamanaṇu ahrasvamadīrgham || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 3-8-8 ||
In all the upaniṣats Brahman is revealed, what about that Brahman? pūrva-
mīmāṁsaka says, ‘Take it from me, there is no such thing called Brahman at all.
It is only a bhramā.’ Therefore, according to the pūrva-mīmāṁsaka Brahma
nāsti. Which matam? In both bhāṭṭa and prābhākara matams, there is no such
thing called Brahman. Why do they say Brahman is not there? It is Bhatta
mataṁ also and prābhākara mataṁ, both Prābhākara and Bhatta-mataṁ, there
is no such thing called Brahman. Why are you saying like this, I am feeling bad.
We have studied about Brahman for so many years, and we get so much upset,
when you say that there is no such thing as Brahman. And all the time our
teachers have been talking about Brahman. Why do you say Brahman is not
there. He says Vēda will not reveal Brahman because Brahman is utterly
useless; totally useless. We have already told that a pramāṇa should reveal
anadigatam abādhita saprayōjana arthabōdhakam, it should reveal something
which is prayōjanavat, tell me what is the benefit of Brahman; tell me one use, I
will accept.
Now, the upaniṣats very clearly say Brahman is neither attainable nor knowable,
adrēśyam agrāhyam. Two words are enough. Adrēśyam means It cannot be
perceived or known and agrāhyam means It cannot be grasped. So, it is very
clear that there is no chance of getting Brahman and therefore, in what way
Vēda should introduce Brahman, because Vēda is meant to give us some
benefit or the other. Therefore, Brahman is not directly a puruṣārtha, because It
is unattainable. Who is saying all this? We are still going along with pūrva-
mīmāṁsaka. Remember that.
Then he says, there are certain things which are not directly useful but they can
be used as an instrument for attaining something else. At least can I use

Brahman as an instrument for attaining something? Pūrva-mīmāṁsaka says,

that also not possible. Brahman is directly not an end. At least can I use
Brahman as a means for some other end? He says, Brahman is avyavahāryam.
You yourself are saying this very clearly.
िान्द्ताःप्रज्ञं ि बनहष्प्रज्ञं िोभयताःप्रज्ञं ि प्रज्ञािघिं ि प्रज्ञं िाप्रज्ञं । अदृष्टमव्यिहायनम् ॥ माण्डू क्प्योपनिषत् ७ ॥

nāntaḥprajñaṁ na bahiṣprajñaṁ nōbhayataḥprajñaṁ na prajñānaghanaṁ na prajñaṁ
nāprajñaṁ | adrṣṭam avyavahāryam || Māṇḍūkyōpaniṣat 7 ||
Avyavahāryam means It is not available for any transaction. That means it

cannot be a subject, an object, an instrument, a locus. These are all various
accessories used for transactions, Brahman is not a kartā, not a karma, not a
karaṇam, not a sampradānam, not apādānam. This you yourself say It is kriyā-
kāraka-phala-vilakṣaṇam; it means It is neither an end nor a means to attain an
end. If It is neither an end nor a means to attain an end why the heaven should
the Vēda reveal such a Brahman. Therefore, Brahma nāsti. Then, what about
ātma-jñānam? Self-knowledge that is talked about in the Vēdānta? Ok, Brahman
is useless, therefore, Brahman is not there. What about Self-knowledge or
ātma-jñānam? For that pūrva-mīmāṁsaka says, that also I cannot accept
because Self is something which is intimately known to everyone. You yourself
accept it as Self-evident, ever-evident. Therefore, It is intimately known to
everyone why should Vēda reveal something which is already siddham? Svataḥ-
siddhasya ātmanaḥ Vēda-vēdyatvam katham bhavati? Because what is the
definition of pramāṇam? A pramāṇam should reveal something which is not
known otherwise. Since ātmā is already known, since I am already evident, why
should Vēda reveal something which is already evident. And therefore, there is
no way to say that Vēda gives ātma-jñānam or Vēda gives Brahma-jñānaṁ.
Then what is the use of Vēdānta? Then what is the use of Vēdānta you tell me?
He says, I will tell you carefully listen. Whenever ātmā is talked about in the
Vēdānta you should take it as just encouraging statement, glorifying statement,
glorifying the yajamāna of the ritual. All ātma-bōdhaka-vākyams are just the
glorification of the individual. Why should he be glorified? So that he will be so
happy to perform the ritual. Just like a mother to feed the child will tell stories,
all those stories are of no use they are all meant for the child to eat food.

Similarly, you are satyam, you are nityam, you are śuddham, you are buddham,
you are muktam, these are all just to make a person feel happy so that he can
go to office with a light mind and work with enthusiasm. So, all ātma-bōdhaka-
vākyams should be taken as kartr-stuti vākyams, yajamāna-stuti vākyam; they
are to be taken as the glorification of the yajamāna. Wherever Brahman is
talked about, what should we understand? It is not that there is such thing
called Brahman but they are all to be taken as glorification of yāga-dēvatās so
that you will be encouraged to do or to offer oblations to those dēvatās. So,
Brahman is not a fact, but It is a glorification of the dēvatās and dēvatā-stuti
para-vākyāni. So in short, all the jñāna-kāṇḍa vākyams, siddha-bōdhaka-
vākyams should be connected with kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams.
Last one more point. Last one more point. Now, once you decide that all
Vēdānta vākyams should be connected to kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam, some action
or the other, the question comes which kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam you will
connect. Is it just optional? Or is there some rule of connection? Now, with
regard to this technical point, the two matams – Bhāṭṭa-matam and
Prābhākara-matam disagree. Up to this, they travel together. Kārya-bōdhakams
are pramāṇam, siddha-bōdhakams are apramāṇam, siddha-bōdhakams are to
be connected to kārya-bōdhakam, Brahman is non-existent; up to this they
come as friend. But how should you connect that they have a disagreement.
So, here I will have to differentiate the Bhāṭṭa-matam and Prābhākara-

matam. What is bhāṭṭa matam? He says all the jñāna-kāṇḍa vākyam should be
connected to karma-kāṇḍa vidhi-vākyam, ritual-vākyam. Vidhi vākyam means
kriyā vākyāni. So, either you glorify the yajamāna or you glorify the dēvatā, it
has to be connected to karma-kāṇḍa kriyā vākyāni. This is the opinion of
Kumārila-bhaṭṭaḥ. Now this Prabhākara comes and says I don’t agree with that.
He says, there are so many siddha-vākyas and so many kārya-vākyas. You
cannot connect any siddha-vākya with any kārya-vākya, it will become a messy-
thing. Therefore, you should observe some rule. What is that rule? Any siddha-
vākyas should be connected to the nearest kārya-vākyam. Therefore, he says
Kumārila-bhaṭṭaḥ is wrong because he is connecting jñāna-kāṇḍa vākyam

(which occurs at the end) to karma-kāṇḍa vākyam where there is a very big
distance. He calls it prakaraṇa-bhēdaḥ; prakaraṇa-bhēdaḥ means they are
totally away. Therefore, how can you connect the siddha-vākyas of jñāna-
kāṇḍam to the kārya-vākyas of karma-kāṇḍam, which are so away. Therefore,
he says. I will suggest an alternative solution. He says, in the jñāna-kāṇḍam
itself there are many upāsana-vākyams. And upāsanas are kārya-bōdhaka-
vākyam or siddha-bōdhaka-vākyam? Upāsanas also are kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam
because upāsana is something to be implemented, done, practiced, it is
mānasam-karma. Therefore, he says, instead of connecting the siddha-vākyams
of jñāna-kāṇḍa to kārya-vākyams of karma-kāṇḍa the better way is to connect
the siddha-vākyams of jñāna-kāṇḍa to the upāsana-vākyams existing within
jñāna-kāṇḍa itself. You need not go out of jñāna-kānḍa itself. Therefore, he says
that all the Brahma bōdhaka-vākyams should be connected to the upāsanas
prescribed in the Vēdānta. For example,
आत्मेत्येिोपासीत ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् १-४-७ ॥

ātmētyēvōpāsīta || brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 1-4-7 ||
आत्म उपासिम् कुरु.

ātma upāsanam kuru.
Brahmavidvāpnōti param | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-1-1 ||
Brahmavit means Brahma upāsakaḥ
स यो ह िै तत् परमं ब्रह्म िेद ब्रह्मैि भिनत ॥ मुण्डकोपनिषत् ३-२-९ ॥

sa yō ha vai tat paramaṁ Brahma Vēda Brahmaiva bhavati || Muṇḍakōpaniṣat 3-2-9 ||
Therefore, what should you do? Aham Brahma asmi iti upāsanam kartavyaḥ.
What should you practice? Day in and day out aham Brahma asmi aham
Brahma asmi. Is there something called Brahman? All that is not there, you
have to auto suggestion, brain washing. Aham nitya-śuddhaḥ, aham nitya-
buddhaḥ. Even though I am buddhu (simpleton) I know, instead of saying I am
nitya-buddhu I say nitya-śuddhaḥ. This upāsana you practice. This is how
siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams should be validated. More in the next class.


029 Sūtra -1-1-4 Samanvāyadhikaraṇam
In the fourth sūtra, we are seeing the significance of the word tu, in tattu
samanvayāt and Śaṅkarācārya points out that the word tu is for the negation of
all pūrva-pakṣas. And in his commentary, Śaṅkarācārya uses this opportunity to
negate pūrva-mīmāṁsaka pūrva-pakṣaḥ. We were seeing the salient features of
pūrva-mīmāṁsaka.
 First they divide all the Vēda -vākyas into two types – siddha-bōdhaka-
vākyam and kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam.
 Then they point out that siddha-bōdhaka-vākyam lead to knowledge
alone, which is of no use. Whereas kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams lead to
action, which are useful.
 Then they point out, since siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams are useless, they are
invalid, whereas kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams are useful, therefore, they are
valid.
 And finally they point out that since, siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams are invalid
by themselves they have to join kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams to get validity.
These are the four general points regarding pūrva-mīmāṁsā.
These ideas are conveyed by two important sūtras –

āmnāyasya kriyārthatvād ānarthakyam atadarthānām || mimāṁsā-sūtrāṇi 1-2-1 ||

vidhinā tu ēkavākyatvāt stutyarthēna vidhīnāṁ syuḥ || mimāṁsā-sūtrāṇi 1-2-7 ||
When based on this general standard, general norm, they analyze the Vēdānta-
vākyams also. And first and main point with regard to Vēdānta is that they say
Brahman is non-existent, because it is utterly useless, Brahman is neither a goal
which can be attained nor can Brahman serve as a means to attain something.
It is neither sādhyam nor sādhanam, tasmāt it is useless, Vēda will not reveal
something useless, therefore, Brahman is non-existent.
Then secondly, they say all Vēdānta vākyams are siddha-bōdhaka-

vākyams, they only make statements of facts. And by mere statements of facts
we do not get any benefit. Therefore, what should we do? All the Vēdānta-
vākyams, which are siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams must be connected to kārya-
bōdhaka-vākyam. Otherwise Vēdānta-vākyams will be invalid. So, Vēdānta-
vākyāni apramāṇāni siddha-bōdhaka-vākyatvāt vāyurvai kṣēpiṣṭhā dēvatā iti
vākyavat. So, Vēdānta vākyams being siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams they have to
join kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam to be pramāṇam.
Then the next question is which kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams they should

join? Here alone Bhāṭṭa-matam and Prābhākara-matam disagree. The bhāṭṭa
matam says that all Vēdānta vākyams should join karma-kāṇḍa vākyams. Why
should they join? Because, after studying Vēdānta a person feels very happy
because Vēdānta has glorified him as saccidānanda-svarūpaḥ, Brahma
svarūpaḥ, though it is false according to him even then it is nice to hear aham
brahmāsmi, aham vrkṣasya rērivā, mayi ēva sakalam jātam mayi sarvam
pratiṣṭhitam, all these are pleasant to hear. And after hearing that this person
feels light just as you say you feel light after attending the class similarly, you
will feel light. With that light mood, with that enthusiastic spirit what should you
do? jyōtiṣṭōma-yāgam kuryāt. Thus, Vēdānta inspires the kartā to perform
vaidika karmas. Yajamāna stutī-rupēṇa karma-kāṇḍasya upayōgi bhavati
Vēdānta-bhāgaḥ. Who says this? Bhāṭṭa matam or Kumārila-bhaṭṭaḥ. The rule is
the same. Siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams should join kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam existing
in karma-kāṇḍa.

Whereas says this. Prābhākara-matam says that Vēdānta-vākyams should

join the kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams only but not in karma-kāṇḍa but occurring in
Vēdānta itself. Don’t go outside Vēdānta, don’t go up to karma-kāṇḍa, within
Vēdānta itself kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams are there. That kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams
you should join. What are those kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams? All the upāsana
vākyams like aham Brahmāsmi. It is not knowledge. According to him, aham
Brahmāsmi is not knowledge because Brahman is non-existent. What is aham
Brahmāsmi? It is an upāsana to be regularly practiced. It is not a fact, because
upāsana is defined as atasmin tad buddhiḥ, seeing something upon something
else is upāsana. Like us upon a flag you see a country, upon a stone you see a
Lord, similarly upon a jīvaḥ you have to imagine Brahman. So, this aham
brahmāsmi upāsana is kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam. Therefore, all the other siddha-
bōdhaka-vākyams should be connected to the upāsana-vākyams of Vēdānta.
Because of this kāryam, action, a person will get puruṣārtha. This is the aim of
the Vēda. Therefore, the final result is no use in jñānam, you have to do
something, whether that something is karma, i.e., the ritual or whether that
something is upāsana, meditation, we don’t care. Either you have to do karma
or upāsana - the action is the result of the Vēda. This is the pūrva-mīmāṁsaka
pūrva-pakṣaḥ.
Now we have to see what is our answer, siddhāntaḥ kaḥ?
So, now I am entering siddhānta. Until now I have discussed the pūrva-
mīmāṁsaka pūrva-pakṣaḥ consisting of both Bhāṭṭa-matam and Prābhākara-
matam. Now I am entering siddhānta, our refutation of this matam. Let us go
point by point.
i) What is the first point he said? All siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams can lead to

knowledge alone, which is useless. I do not want to use English words, because
I want you to be familiar with these words before the end of a few months’-
listening to Brahma Sūtra. I do not want to train you in English; my aim is to
train you in Sānskrīt, at least for Brahma Sūtra. One last concession; siddha-
bōdhaka-vākyam is statement of fact; kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam is statement of
action. Now he said, all siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams give knowledge alone and

knowledge is of no use. Karma alone can produce a result either in the form of
sukha-prāpti or karma alone can produce a result either in the form of duḥkha-
nivrtti. Now Śaṅkarācārya says, you are right. But you should remember this is
only a general rule, it is only utsargaḥ but there are many exceptions to the
rule. Normally we find knowledge does not give me any benefit. By knowing
that Gaṅgōtrī is wonderful I don’t get any benefit. When do I get benefit? When
I do the action of travelling and reaching. By knowing yōgāsanas I don’t get any
benefit. I have to implement that knowledge, only the action will produce the
benefit. Therefore, the general rule is kēvala jñānam na puruṣārtha sādhakam,
karma ēva puruṣārtha sādhakam. What is the exception? The exception is: there
are several cases where kēvala-jñānam alone gives the benefit. Kēvala-jñānam
means by mere-knowledge without requiring any action we get the benefits.
What is that occasion? What is that exceptional situation? Very simple. Wherever
there is a problem caused by ignorance in that case mere knowledge alone can
solve the problem. Yatra yatra ajñānāt duḥkham vā kāryam vā bhavati tatra
tatra jñānāt prayōjanam bhavati. In the case of Gaṅgōtrī, I don’t get the benefit
because the problem is not because of the ignorance, Gaṅgōtrī is really away
from me; therefore, action is required. In the case of disease, the problem is not
the caused by ignorance and therefore, you require an action to remove the
disease. But when there are problems caused by sheer-ignorance, knowledge
alone will remove the problem. Like what? Like rajju-sarpavat, exactly like our
rope-snake. This person is frightened and he wants to run and in fact, he has
even fallen down. Because of falling further problems have come. All these
problems of palpitation, bhaya-kampādikam sarvam caused by the simple
problem of rajju-ajñānam. If that fear has to go away what hōma he should
perform? Should he perform jyōtiṣṭōmam or should he perform agniṣṭōmam,
what upāsana he has to practice? No karma is required, no upāsana is required,
in fact, karma and upāsana will not solve the problem. What is required is rajju-
jñānāt rajju-ajñāna-nivrttiḥ | rajju-ajñāna-nivrttyā sarpa-adhyāsa-nivrttiḥ |
(remember, adhyāsa-bhāṣyam). sarpa adhyāsa nivrttyā bhaya-kampādi nivrttiḥ.
Therefore, what action did you do? Kēvala jñāna mātrēṇa puruṣārtha siddhiḥ.
Though this is the standard example, you may think that this is the only
example we have. If you want another example, I will give you some current

example. During our camp several students had joined and given their names
and this name-list is given to some volunteers. The students should buy their
own tickets and go the volunteer and inform that they have joined the group.
Then what happens? One student came and told me, ‘Svāmiji, my name is
missing in the list.’ Naturally, there will be some amount of fear because if the
name is not there in the list means all the preparations for the camp and
expectations everything will go away. There is some kind of a panic. Being a
Vēdāntic-student he may not be panicked, at least some disturbance will be
there. Then I asked what is your name. He said, G.V. Sāstri. The moment he said
I understood what the problem is. I said, you get into the train, no problem. I
will enquire with that person and find the list, your name will be there. Then I
asked the volunteer, you please find out whether Viśwanath Sāstri is there in
the list. He said, yes, his name is there in the list. Now, you know where the
problem was? What has happened is I remembered that his name is G.
Viśwanath Sāstri. And he doesn’t use the full name Viśwanath Sāstri all the time.
Therefore, he says G.V. Sāstri. Now in the application form he has given the G.
Viśwanath Sāstri. And therefore, in the alphabetical list his name will come in ‘V’
only. He has gone and asked for G.V. Sāstri. The volunteer has searched in ‘S’
and found no such name there. Now neither the volunteer has committed the
mistake and not the student has exactly committed the mistake. But the
problem was caused by what? It is not because of any reason, because of the
simple ignorance on the part of the student that he has given the name
Viśwanath Sāstri and as far as the volunteer is concerned he is ignorant of the
fact that the Sāstri is Sāstri. This is called ajñānāt-problem. The solution is jñāna-
mātrēṇa. Another person came without ticket itself. There was some
communication gap. He thought that ticket also - it is not his mistake - we get
the ticket also and he came without ticket. His name also was not in the list. But
here it was not ajñāna-mātra problem, he was lacking the ticket then he has to
rush to the counter and got the unreserved ticket in the last moment and
somehow travels. So, where the lack of ticket is the problem, what is the
solution? Karma is the solution. When the lack of the knowledge is the problem,
knowledge alone is the solution. Therefore, we say there are many cases where
ajñānam is the sole cause of problem. In all such cases jñāna-mātrēṇa

prayōjanam. Therefore, we say siddha-bōdhaka-vākyāni pramāṇāni

saprayōjanatvāt nāyam sarpaḥ iti vākyavat. He said, siddha-bōdhaka-vākyāni
apramāṇāni, niṣprayōjanatvāt vāyurvai kṣēpiṣṭhā iti vākyavat. Therefore, the
first important point is siddha-bōdhaka-vākyam produce knowledge, which will
give puruṣārtha often. Therefore, where siddha-bōdhaka-vākyas do not give
prayōjanam, in all such cases you have to join them with kārya-bōdhaka-
vākyams. Where siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams give prayōjanam, in all such cases
you need not connect it with kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams. So, ‘joining’ will come
under general rule, ‘need not join’ will come under exceptional cases.
Now the question is Vēdānta vākyams come under which category? Whether
they are exceptional category, wherein siddha-bōdhaka-vākyams give benefit
directly or whether they have to join kārya-bōdhaka-vākyams. We say all
Vēdānta vākyams come under the exceptional cases. What is the exceptional
case? Directly they give prayōjanam. Jñāna-mātrēṇa prayōjanam bhavati.
Karma-sambandhaḥ na apēkṣitaḥ. How do you say that? Because it is
convenient for you or you are lazy to do action, Vēdānta is ideal for lazy people
also. We say Vēdānta itself is the pramāṇam for that. Vēdānta makes it very
clear that jñāna-mātrēṇa mōkṣa-phalaṁ bhavati. You need not join this
knowledge with any kārya-bōdhaka-vākya, jñāna-mātrēṇa puruṣārtha siddhiḥ.
Where is it said? In every upaniṣat it is said. Let us take Īśāvāsyōpaniṣat –
यस्स्म॒न्द्सिान ा॑भण भूतान्द्

॒ या॒त्मैिाभूना॑ द्वजाि॒ताः ।
तत्॒ को मोरः॒ कः िोक॑ एक॒ त्वम॑नप
ु श्र्॑तः ॥ ईिावास्र्ोपननषत् ७ ॥
yasminsarvāṇi bhūtānyātmaivābhūdvijānataḥ |
tatra kō mōhaḥ kaḥ śōka ēkatvamanupaśyataḥ || Īśāvāsyōpaniṣat 7 ||
When a person clearly knows the ātmā, which is the substratum of everything
after that mere knowledge kaḥ mōhaḥ kaḥ śōka, there is no śōka, śōka means
grief, there is no mōha. Jñāna-mātrēṇa śōka-mōha-nivrttiḥ saṁsāra-nivrttiḥ
mōkṣa-prāptiḥ. In Kēnōpaniṣat –
प्रनतबोिनिददतं मतममृतत्िं नह निन्द्दते ।

आत्मना नवन्दते वीर्ं नवद्यर्ा नवन्दतेऽमृतम् ॥ केनोपननषत् २-४ ॥

pratibōdhaviditaṁ matamamrtatvaṁ hi vindatē |

ātmanā vindatē vīryaṁ vidyayā vindatē’mrtam || Kēnōpaniṣat 2-4 ||
vidyayā, kēvala jñāna-mātrēṇa, not an iota of action, through mere knowledge

amrtam vindatē – a person attains immortality. In Kaṭhōpaniṣat –
एको िशी सिनभूतान्द्तरात्मा

एकं रूपं बहुिा याः करोनत ।
तमात्मस्थं येऽिुपश्यनन्द्त िीरााः
तेषां सुखं शाश्वतं िेतरेषाम् ॥ कठोपनिषत् २-२-१२ ॥
ēkō vaśī sarvabhūtāntarātmā

ēkaṁ rūpaṁ bahudhā yaḥ karōti |
tamātmasthaṁ yē’nupaśyanti dhīrāḥ
tēṣāṁ sukhaṁ śāśvataṁ nētarēṣām || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 2-2-12 ||
The one who clearly recognizes Brahman as the very ātman, yē anupaśyanti
dhīrāḥ tēṣāṁ śāśvataṁ sukhaṁ na itarēṣām. For those who do karma and
upāsana will not get mōkṣa. In Praśnōpaniṣat at the end it is said –
स एषोऽकलोऽमृतो भिनत ॥ प्रश्नोपनिषत् ६-५ ॥

sa ēṣō’kalō’mrtō bhavati || Praśnōpaniṣat 6-5 ||
The one who knows attains immortality. In Muṇḍakōpaniṣat –
स यो ह िै तत् परमं ब्रह्म िेद

ब्रह्मैि भिनत िास्याब्रह्मनित्कुले भिनत ।
तरनत शोकं तरनत पाप्मािं गुहाग्रस्त्न्थभ्यो
निमुक्तोऽमृतो भिनत ॥ मुण्डकोपनिषत् ३-२-९ ॥
sa yō ha vai tat paramaṁ Brahma Vēda

Brahma iva bhavati nāsyābrahma vitkulē bhavati |
tarati śōkaṁ tarati pāpmānaṁ guhāgranthibhyō
vimuktō’mrtō bhavati || Muṇḍakōpaniṣat 3-2-9 ||
The one who knows Brahman, by that mere knowledge becomes one with
Brahman. tarati śōkaṁ tarati pāpmānaṁ, everything he crosses over. In
Māṇḍūkyōpaniṣat –
संनिशत्यात्मिाऽऽत्मािं य एिं िेद ॥ माण्डू क्प्योपनिषत् १२ ॥

saṁviśatyātmanā’’tmānaṁ ya ēvaṁ Vēda || Māṇḍūkyōpaniṣat 12 ||

The one who knows the ātmā saḥ ātmānam ātmanā saṁviśati, jīvātmā
paramātmānam saṁviśati, by what? Not by karma or upāsana; yaḥ ēvaṁ Vēd.
In Taittirīyōpaniṣat –
यो िेदा॑ निनतहत
ा॑ ं॒ गुहाा॑यां पर॒मे व्योम
ा॑ ि् । सोा॑ऽश्नुते॒ सिान॒ि् कामाा॑न्द्स॒ह । ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषदत् २-१-१ ॥
yō vēda nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ paramē vyōman | sō’śnutē sarvān kāmānsaha | ||
taittirīyōpaniṣadat 2-1-1 ||
Yaḥ. Vēda nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ – the one who knows Brahman as the ātmā in the
heart he fulfills all the puruṣārthas. Then Aitarēyōpaniṣat –
प्रज्ञािं ब्रह्म ॥ ऐतरेयोपनिषत् ३-३ ॥

Prajñānaṁ Brahma || Aitarēyōpaniṣat 3-3 ||
Mahāvākya itself is there. Then Cāndōgyōpaniṣat –

Taratiśōkam ātmavit || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 7-1-3 ||
The knower of ātmā crosses over all the sorrows, he need not do any action. In
brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat –
आत्मािं चेनद्वजािीयादयमस्मीनत पूरुषाः । नकधमच्छन्द्कस्य कामाय शरीरमिुसञ्ज्िरेत् ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ४-४-१२ ॥

ātmānaṁ cēdvijānīyādayamasmīti pūruṣaḥ | kimicchankasya kāmāya śarīramanusañjvarēt
|| Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 4-4-12 ||
The one who has known the ātmā thereafterwards what desire he has, what
action he has, what suffering he has in life. In Kaivalyōpaniṣat –
सिनभूतस्थमात्मािं सिनभूतानि चात्मनि । संपश्यि् ब्रह्म परमं यानत िान्द्येि हेतुिा ॥ कैिल्योपनिषत् १-१० ॥
sarvabhūtasthamātmānaṁ sarvabhūtāni cātmani | saṁpaśyan Brahma paramaṁ yāti
nānyēna hētunā || Kaivalyōpaniṣat 1-10 ||
By merely knowing Brahman he attains mōkṣa. In Puruṣa-sūkta
िेदा॒हमे॒तं पुरुा॑षं म॒हान्द्तम्᳚ा॑ । आ॒दद॒त्यिा॑णं॒ तमा॑सस्तु॒ पा॒रे ।

सिान ा॑भण रू॒ पाभतण ा॑ नि॒सचत्य॒ िीराःा॑ । ॥ पुरुषसूक्तम् १६ ॥
तमे॒वं नव॒द्वान॒मृत॑ इ॒र भ॑वनत नान्र्ः पन्था॒ अर्॑नार् नवद्यते ॥ पुरुषसूक्तम् १७ ॥
vēdāhamētaṁ puruṣaṁ mahāntam | ādityavarṇaṁ tamasastu pārē |

sarvāṇi rūpāṇi vicitya dhīraḥ | || Puruṣa-sūktam 16 ||

tamēvaṁ vidvānamrta iha bhavati | nānyaḥ panthā ayanāya vidyatē | || puruṣa-sūktam 17

||
Don’t think these are the only statements. I have only taken one-one statement
from each upaniṣat but you can find more statements. That is your homework.
If upaniṣats are not sufficient, if you believe only in Gītā –
अज्ञािेिािृतं ज्ञािं तेि मुह्यनन्द्त जन्द्तिाः ॥ गीता ५-१५ ॥

ajñānēnāvrtaṁ jñānaṁ tēna muhyanti jantavaḥ || Gītā 5-15 ||
ज्ञािेि तु तदज्ञािं येषां िासशतमात्मिाः ।

तेषामाददत्यिज्ज्ञािं प्रकाशयनत तत्परम् ॥ गीता ५-१६ ॥
jñānēna tu tadajñānaṁ yēṣāṁ nāśitamātmanaḥ |
tēṣāmādityavajjñānaṁ prakāśayati tatparam || Gītā 5-16 ||
All the problems are caused by ignorance and therefore, what you require is
only jñānam. Thus śruti, smrti, itihāsa, purāṇa, prakaraṇa granthas; you take all
of them say what we require is jñānam. So, Vēdānta is siddha-bōdhaka-vākyam
and it produces knowledge and by that mere knowledge we get puruṣārtha and
therefore, Vēdānta-vākyāni pramāṇa-bhūtāni.
Then the next point is, he said after studying Vēdānta we have to use that
knowledge to perform action, why because mere knowledge is useless, so to
get any benefit, we have to use that knowledge into some karma according to
Bhāṭṭa-matam or some upāsana according to Prābhākara-matam. Śaṅkarācārya
says there is nothing more ridiculous than that. To say Vēdānta-jñānam should
be applied into karma or upāsana is impossible. Vēdānta-jñānam has to be
connected to karma or upāsana for validity is impossible. Earlier we said it need
not be connected because the knowledge itself will give benefit. Now we say,
Vēdānta-jñānam cannot be connected with karma or upāsana. What are the
reasons? Śaṅkarācārya says,
a) The first reason is Vēdānta-jñānam eliminates duality, which is the

basis for karma and upāsana.
तत्केि कं पश्येत् ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् २ ,१४-४-४- ५-१५ ॥

Tat kēna kaṁ paśyēt || brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 2-4-14, 4- 5-15 ||
िेह िािास्स्त नकञ्चि ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ४-४-१९, कठोपनिषत् २-१-११ ॥

nēha nānāsti kiñcana || brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 4-4-19, Kaṭhōpaniṣat 2-1-11 ||
यस्स्मन्द्सिानभण भूतानि आत्मैिाभूत् ॥ ईशािास्योपनिषत् ७ ॥

yasminsarvāṇi bhūtāni ātmaivābhūt || Īśāvāsyōpaniṣat 7 ||
So, upāsana also requires upāsya-upāsaka-bhēda, karma also requires kartr-

karaṇādi-bhēda and Vēdānta knocks off all the duality. After the knowledge of
advaitam, how can advaita-jñānam be applied in the field of dvaitam. So, if any
person says, I am applying advaita-jñānam in the field of dvaitam it is like
saying
അഞ്ജനം എന്നത് ഞാനറിയ ം മഞ്ഞളുപ ാലെ ലെളുത്തിരിക് ം
(añjanam ēnnatu ñānariyum mañjalupōlē vēḷuttērikum)
‘I know what is the collyrium; it is white like turmeric powder.’ That means he
doesn’t know all the three, not one. Similarly, I apply advaita-jñānam in karma is
a contradiction in terms.
b) In Vēdānta-jñānaṁ, Vēdānta negates the kartrtvam and

varṇāśrama status of a person, which are essential for karma. All karmas
require two basic qualifications – (i) aham kartā and (ii) varṇa like whether I am
a brāhmaṇaḥ, because brāhmaṇa alone is qualified for certain action.
(ब्राह्मणाः) िाजपेयेिेष्ट्िा बृहस्पनतसिेि यजेत ॥ शाबरभाष्यम् मीमाम्सासूत्राभण ४-३-२९ and ब्रह्मसूत्रशाङ् करभाष्यम्
३-३-२५ ॥
(brāhmaṇaḥ) vājapēyēnēṣṭvā brhaspatisavēna yajēta || Śābarabhāṣyam mīmāmsāsūtrāṇi
4-3-29 and Brahma sūtraśāṅkarabhāṣyam 3-3-25 ||
One yāga by name brhaspatisavam is there. That brhaspatisava yāga can be

performed by brāhmaṇa only and not a kṣatriya.
राजा राजसूर्ेन स्वाराज्र्कामो र्जेत ॥ िाबरभा्र्म् मीमाम्सासूत्ाक्षर् २-३-३ ॥
rājā rājasūyēna svārājyakāmō yajēta || Śābarabhāṣyam mīmāsā-sūtrāṇi 2-3-3 ||
Rājasūya-yāga can be performed by Rāja alone. Therefore, before performing I

should ask a question ‘Am I brāhmaṇa? Am I kṣatriya?’ Not only varṇa status I
have to retain, I have to retain also āśrama status. What Brahmacāri can do
grhastha cannot do. What grhastha can do Brahmacāri should not do.

ि िणान ि िणानश्रमाचारिमान
ि मे िारणाध्याियोगादयोऽनप ।
अिात्माश्रयाहंममाध्यासहािात्
तदे कोऽिसशष्टाः सशिाः केिलोऽहम् ॥ दशश्लोकी २ ॥
na varṇā na varṇāśramācāradharmā
na mē dhāraṇādhyānayōgādayō’pi |
anātmāśrayāhaṁmamādhyāsahānāt
tadēkō’vaśiṣṭaḥ śivaḥ kēvalō’ham || Daśaślōkī 2 ||
And therefore, Vēdānta negates kartrtvam and varṇāśrama status. And having
negated that how can it be combined with karma and upāsana, which requires
kartrtvam. This is the second-argument.
c) The third argument is, Vēdānta positively condemns karma and

upāsana as bandha-hētu. Vēdānta positively criticizes, strongly criticizes karma
and upāsana as bandha-hētu.
प्लिा ह्येते अदृढा यज्ञरूपा अष्टादशोक्तमिरं येषु कमन । एतच्छ्रे यो येऽभभिन्द्दनन्द्त मूढा जरामृत्युं ते पुिरेिानप यनन्द्त ॥
मुण्डकोपनिषत् १-२-७ ॥
plavā hyētē adrḍhā yajñarūpā aṣṭādaśōktamavaraṁ yēṣu karma | ētacchrēyō
yē’bhinandanti mūḍhā jarāmrtyuṁ tē punarēvāpi yanti || Muṇḍakōpaniṣat 1-2-7 ||
Those who hold on to karma hoping that it will take them across the ocean of
saṁsāra, they are all mūḍhāḥ, they will go to svargalōka and again come back
and again svargalōka and again come back and therefore, after Vēdānta-
jñānam a person will loose puruṣārtha pravrtti in karma, therefore, how is it
possible to connect Vēdānta-jñānam to karma. Similarly, upāsana also.
ि कमनणा ि प्रजया ििेि त्यागेिक

ै े अमृतत्िमािशुाः । ॥ कैिल्योपनिषत् १-३ ॥
na karmaṇā na prajayā dhanēna tyāgēnaikē amrtatvamānaśuḥ | || Kaivalyōpaniṣat 1-3 ||
After saying karma cannot give mōkṣa, can you say therefore perform karma?
वेदान्तनवज्ञानसुननक्षश्चताथायः संन्र्ासर्ोगात् र्तर्ः िुद्धसत्त्वाः ॥ मुण्डकोपननषत् ३-२-६ ॥
Vēdānta vijñānasuniścitārthāḥ saṁnyāsayōgāt yatayaḥ śuddhasattvāḥ || Muṇḍakōpaniṣat

3-2-6 ||
In the Gītā –

सिनिमानन्द्पररत्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज । ॥ गीता १८-६६ ॥

Sarvadharmān parityajya māmēkaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja| || Gītā 18-66 ||
Therefore, what is the third reason? The third reason is Vēdānta-jñānam is

contradictory to karma, therefore it can never be combined with karma.
Therefore, you cannot say Vēdānta-jñānam is siddha-bōdhaka-vākyam, which
has to be connected to and it has to be connected to kārya-bōdhaka-vākyam
you cannot say. In the karma-kāṇḍa we can connect the statements like
vāyurvai kṣēpiṣṭhā dēvatā. But don’t bring Vēdānta into that category.
Then the next part. The pūrva-mīmāṁsaka said Brahman is not at all
there. Brahma-nāsti. Just see his arrogance! In fact, Śaṅkarācārya uses the word
atōbhūtavastuparō Vēda-bhāgō nāstīti vacanaṁ sāhasa-mātram || sāhasa-
mātram means arrogance, haughtiness. He says Brahman is not real. We say
Brahman is revealed by Vēdānta. Therefore, Brahma asti. What are the
arguments in its favor?
i) Firstly, he says, to find out what is revealed by the śāstra you yourself
have given a norm of ṣaḍliṅga. By the method of ṣaḍliṅga-analysis whatever is
revealed that you have to accept, because it is a norm given by you, the pūrva-
mīmāṁsaka. And I, in Vēdānta-śāstra, have applied the upakramādi-ṣaḍliṅga,
which is called samanvayāt and by applying the ṣaḍliṅga, I have clearly shown
that Brahman is revealed by the śāstram. Do you remember, in the beginning
of tat tu samanvayāt, I told upakramōpasaṁhārau, abhyāsaḥ etc., through all
these six liṅgas, tat Brahma śāstrasya-viṣayaḥ samanvayāt, upakramādi
ṣaḍliṅgaiḥ nirṇayaḥ. When I have clearly shown that Brahman is revealed by
Vēdānta, how can you say that Brahman is non-existent? If you don’t believe in
Brahman or accept Brahman revealed by Vēda, then you will have to reject
svarga also. Because svarga is revealed by what? Vēda only. So, what is revealed
by Vēda you have to accept as existent. You are accepting svarga not because
you have seen it, even science has not proved svarga, and pratyakṣa has not
proved, anumāna has not proved, arthāpatti has not proved but because Vēda
tells you say Brahman is existent; in the same way when Brahman is revealed by

śāstram, how dare you say Brahman is non-existent? This is the first argument –
Brahma asti Vēdānta-tātparya-viṣayatvāt.
ii) Then the second-argument. You say Brahman is not there because it is
neither useful as an end nor is it useful as a means, because Vēdānta says
Brahman is not a sādhyam, goal nor it is even a sādhanam, means. Sādhya-
sādhana-vilakṣaṇam Brahma. Therefore, you are saying that Brahman is not
there. Because everything in the creation is either a goal or at least it is useful
as a means. If Brahman is neither a sādhyam nor sādhanam such a Brahman
cannot exist. This is your argument. We say, ‘Idiot, if Brahman is neither a
sādhyam nor sādhanam it means what? Brahman is something different from
your goal and your means, it is the very sādhaka. If It is neither sādhanam nor
sādhyam, it is very clear that Brahman is the very sādhaka. Therefore, by
negating sādhana-sādhya status, the upaniṣat says ‘You, the sādhaka, are
Brahman. ’ If you say Brahman is non-existent that means
असन्नेि स भिनत । असद्ब्रह्मेनत िेद चेत् । ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् २-६-१ ॥

asannēva sa bhavati | asadbrahmēti Vēda cēt | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-6-1 ||
If you say Brahma nāsti it means sādhakaḥ nāsti. If you say sādhakaḥ nāsti, it
means you are not there. I will only say your buddhi is not there but you are
there. Like that Sardarji joke they say, the taxi driver wanted to check him
whether he is intelligent or not. So, he asked, ‘In my family there are three
people – one is my wife and another is my child. Who is the third one?’ Then
Sardarji scratched his turban and he said, ‘It must be your father.’ No, no, no. ‘It
must be your mother.’ He says everything. Then the taxi driver said, ‘Fool, if
there are three people – one is my wife and another is my child. I am the third
one. Tattvamasi. Then the Sardarji understood, this is very important thing. So,
he went and asked another person to find out he is also like me or not. ‘In my
house there are three members – one is my wife and another is my child. Who
is the third one?’ Then he also said so many other answers, your father, your
mother, all those things. Then the Sardar said, ‘No. It is the taxi driver.’ Because,
taxi driver said ‘I am the third person.’ So therefore, there are three things in
creation – one is sādhaka, another is sādhana and the third is sādhyam. It is
very clearly said Brahman is neither means nor end. Then the pūrva-

mīmāṁsaka-sardarji says, Brahma nāsti. Fool, it is the sādhakaḥ, aham Brahma

asmi. Therefore, Brahman is existent as ātman. Ātmarūpēṇa Brahma asti.
iii) Then the next point. Then pūrva-mīmāṁsā said Brahman is the very
ātmā, I, then why should the śāstra reveal because ātmā is ever-evident. What is
ever-evident as aham aham iti, that śāstra need not reveal. Śāstra is meant to
reveal what? What is not available for other pramāṇas that śāstra reveals. For
that Śaṅkarācārya answers, yadyapi ātmā prasiddhaḥ, parantu jīvātma-rūpēṇa
prasiddhaḥ – it is well-known as jīvātmā but it is not clearly understood as
paramātmā. So, adhyasta jīvātma-rūpēṇa ēva prasiddhaḥ na tu paramātma-

rūpēṇa. Adyastha ahaṅkāra-rūpēṇa prasiddhaḥ na tu sākṣi-rūpēṇa. Tvam-pada
vacyārtha-rūpēṇa prasiddhaḥ, na tu lakṣyartha-rūpēṇa. Therefore, śāstra has to
reveal ātmā as paramātmā. Therefore, Brahma asti and that Brahman is I am.
And this knowledge is sufficient, because it gives me puruṣārtha, the mōkṣaḥ.
Last one more point is there, which we will see in the next class.

य ेवावशि्र्ते ॥ ॐ िा्न्तः िा्न्तः िा्न्तः ॥ रिः रः ॐ.

030 Sūtra 1.1.4 Samanvayādhikaraṇam
We are seeing the significance of the word tu in the fourth-sūtra, tattu

samanvayāt. Śaṅkarācārya pointed out that the word tu signifies the negation
of all objections to Vēdānta. Tuśabdaḥ pūrva-pakṣa-vyāvrttyarthaḥ. Of various
objections to Vēdānta, Śaṅkarācārya has taken pūrva-mīmāṁsaka pūrva-pakṣaḥ
for negation in his commentary. The pūrva-mīmāṁsaka’s main contention was
that Vēdānta will have to be connected to some action or the other to become
beneficial. The action can be in the form of ritual, the action can be in the form
of upāsana but Vēdānta should have karma-sambandhaḥ. Karma-sambandhaḥ
vinā Vēdāntasya svataḥ prāmāṇyam nāsti. This was the main contention of the
pūrva-mīmāṁsaka. And Śaṅkarācārya negated this argument or this
contention, which we saw in three different stages.
 First we say, Vēdānta does not require karma-sambandha. Karma-

sambandha is not required.
 Then next we say, karma-sambandha is not intended in the scriptures.
 And finally we say, karma-sambandha is not possible.
i) Now let us take the first-stage. Karma-sambandha is not required. Why?
Because Vēdānta is capable of giving puruṣārtha by itself. Svataḥ puruṣārtha
pradhāna samarthaḥ. Vēdānta is capable of giving the benefit by itself, then
why should it be connected with karma. And that Vēdānta is capable of giving
puruṣārtha is proved by our anubhava-pramāṇa and śruti-pramāṇa. Our
anubhava-pramāṇa is rajju-jñānam, the knowledge of rope gives us the benefit

even without connection to any action. Kēvala-rajju-jñāna-mātrēṇa yathā

puruṣārtha siddhiḥ bhavati, ēvam ēva kēvala Brahma jñānēna api mōkṣākhya
siddhiḥ bhavati. kimartham karma-sambandhaḥ? And śruti also very clearly
says that mere jñānam is enough for mōkṣa, you don’t require any connection
with karma. And I quoted statements from all the ten upaniṣats to show that
kēvala-jñānēna puruṣārtha siddhiḥ. So, because of this anubhava-pramāṇa and
because of śruti-pramāṇa, our first-stage of argument is karma-sambandha is
not required.
ii) Our second-stage of argument was karma-sambandha is not
intended in our scriptures. Why do you say so? If Vēdānta expects us to use this
knowledge along with some karma, then karma becomes very important.
Because if Vēdānta requires karma-sambandha for validity and utility, karma
becomes very important, then Vēdānta should have glorified karma. If a
political party wants alliance with another party, that party with which alliance is
required should be glorified or condemned? Very simple common sense. At
least until the election is over that party has to be glorified. If Vēdānta requires
or intends alliance with karma then Vēdānta should have glorified karma. But
what do we find throughout Vēdānta?
ि कमनणा ि प्रजया ििेि ॥ कैिल्योपनिषत् १-३ ॥

na karmaṇā na prajayā dhanēna || Kaivalyōpaniṣat 1-3 ||
प्लिा ह्येते अदृढा यज्ञरूपा ॥ मुण्डकोपनिषत् १- २-७ ॥

plavā hyētē adrḍhā yajñarūpā || Muṇḍakōpaniṣat 1- 2-7 ||
In all those karma is criticized and condemned by Vēdānta. From that it is very
clear that there is no intention of karma-sambandha. Therefore, the second
argument we gave in the last class was karma-sambandha is not intended,
karmaṇā ninditatvāt, because karma is condemned.
iii) Then the third argument we gave was karma-sambandha is

impossible because Vēdānta negates all the conditions required for karma. And
after the karma-conditions are negated, how can karma-sambandha come?
What are the conditions for karma?

 The first condition is kartrtvam. I should be a kartā to have karma-

sambandha.
 The second condition is varṇa and āśrama. Because every vaidika-karma
is based on varṇa-āśrama designation. Without varṇa-āśrama designation
vaidika karma is impossible. Therefore, the second condition is varṇa-āśrama.
 The third important condition is dvaitam or duality. Because karma
requires kartā, the subject, it requires object, it requires instrument, it requires
a beneficiary, it requires a locus etc. These are called kārakam. Kārakam means
accessories for action, which is a duality. Vēdānta negates all these conditions.
Kartrtvam is negated. Varṇa-āśramas are negated.
यिदद्रे श्यमग्राह्यमगोत्रमिणनमचक्षुाःश्रोत्रं तदपाभणपादम् । ॥ मुण्डकोपनिषत् १-१-६ ॥

yattadadrēśyamagrāhyamagōtramavarṇamacakṣuḥśrōtraṁ tadapāṇipādam | ||
 The final condition is dvaitam. The upaniṣat very clearly says,

nēha nānāsti kiñcana || brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 4-4-19, Kaṭhōpaniṣat 2-1-11 ||
Therefore, since all the conditions for karma are negated, Vēdānta cannot have
karma-sambandha. Therefore, karma-sambandha is not required; karma-
sambandha is not intended. Karma-sambandha is not possible and therefore,
pūrva-mīmāṁsaka is wrong. Another condition of pūrva-mīmāṁsaka was
Brahman is non-existent. Because It is neither a means nor an end. Such a
Brahman, which is different from both sādhanam and sādhyam, is useless and
is non-existent also. For which we answered ‘No doubt, Brahman is neither a
means nor an end. It is neither sādhanam nor sādhyam’, but don’t say
therefore, ‘it is non-existent’, because there is a third thing, which is other than
sādhanam and sādhyam. And never search for that third-entity. Like our
Sardarji, never search for that third entity. What is other than sādhanam and
sādhyam? The very sādhaka is other than sādhanam and sādhyam.’ Therefore,
by negating sādhanam and sādhyam the upaniṣat says,
िेनत िेनत ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ३-९-२६ ॥

nēti nēti || brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 3-9-26 ||

iti vacanēna sarva-sādhana-sādhya-niṣēdhēna sādhana-sādhya-vyatiriktam

siddharūpam sādhakam tat tvam asi iti bōdhayati. Therefore, Brahman is I
myself; how can you say that Brahman is non-existent. To say Brahman is non-
existent is to say I am non-existent. And I am non-existent is a contradiction in
terms. Why there is a contradiction? Because to say ‘I am non-existent’, I must
be existent. So, therefore, nobody can negate the existence of Brahman
because It is the very negator-Himself. And not Brahman is existent, Brahman is
useful also; even though It is neither sādhanam nor sādhyam, Brahman is
useful because when I know I am Brahman, that Brahma-jñānam negates my
jīvatvam status. Brahman is useful because the knowledge that aham Brahma
asmi negates my abrahmatvam and abrahmatvam is jīvatvam. Yathā rajju-
sarpa-jñānēna rajjau-adhyasta sarpa bhāvasya nivrttiḥ bhavati, ēvam ātmanaḥ
Brahmatvam jñānēna, ātmani adhyastasya jīva-bhāvasya nivrttiḥ bhavati | Jīva-
bhāva nivrttiḥ ēva, mōkṣa-rūpa parama-puruṣārthaḥ | katham tādrśaḥ
Brahmaṇaḥ niṣprayōjanatvam svapnē’pi śaṅkitum śakyatē? How can you even
imagine in dream that Brahman is useless when Brahma-jñānam gives the
greatest puruṣārtha called mōkṣa itself. Therefore, Brahma asti katham?
Ātmarūpēṇa asti | So thus, the second contention was also answered.
 Then the final contention was if Brahman is the very ātmā it should be
Self-evident, svayaṁ-prakāśaḥ. And if Brahman is Self-evident as the very ātmā
why should Vēdānta come and reveal, which is already evident to me? Aham
aham iti bālyādiṣvapi sarvāsu avasthāsu jāgrat-svapna-suṣuptiṣu aham aham iti
sarvadā prasiddhatvāt, sarvathā prathamānatvāt, since It is ever-evident why
should Vēdānta reveal? Because, pramāṇam is meant to reveal something not
known and if Brahman is ātmā why should it reveal? For that we gave the
answer, even though ātmā is evident It is not fully known. Sāmānya-jñānaṁ ēva
vartatē parantu viṣēśa-jñānam nāsti. I know ‘I am,’ I know ‘I am existent,’ I know
‘my sat rūpam,’ I know ‘my cit rūpam’ but what is most important thing that is
not known, i.e., I don’t know ‘I am ānanda- svarūpaḥ.’ How do you say that? By
looking at your castor-oil face I know that. Therefore, sāmānya-jñānamēva
vartatē viṣēśa-jñānam nāsti tasmādēva adhyāsaḥ api vartatē. In my adhyāsa-

bhāṣyam, I made an important point: any superimposition requires a

samanvaya-jñānam that there is something but at the same time there is no
viṣēśa-jñānam that it is rope is not known. If you remember, you can enjoy, or
else it is OK. . Similarly, I have got samanvaya-jñānam ‘aham asmi’, but I don’t
have the viṣēśa-jñānam ‘aham Brahma asmi’. So, Brahmatva viṣēśa-jñānam
abhāvāt, ātmani saṁsāritva adhyāsaḥ bhavati. That alone I said in the last class
‘I know myself as ahaṅkāra; I don’t know myself as the sākṣi. I know myself as
the tvam-pada-vācyārtha, but I don’t know myself as tvam-pada-lakṣyārtha.
Therefore, Vēdānta is required not to give samanvaya-jñānam but Vēdānta is
required to give viṣēśa-jñānam. So, thus all these three main contentions of
pūrva-mīmāṁsaka are answered. Up to this we had seen in the last class.
 Now, lastly one more argument we are going to give against pūrva-
mīmāṁsaka. Now, what was pūrva-mīmāṁsaka’s contention? He said karma-
kāṇḍam alone is pramāṇam and jñāna-kāṇḍam cannot be pramāṇam by itself,
jñāna-kāṇḍam has to be validated, has to become pramāṇam only by joining
karma-kāṇḍam. Therefore, he gives importance to what? Karma-kāṇḍam is like
flower and jñāna-kāṇḍam is like a thread strung to flowers. If the thread should
get validity and utility, if the string has to be kept on the head, nobody keeps
mere string but only when it is associated with flower, the string also gets some
status. Puṣpamālānu-ṣaṅgēna sūtraṁ śirasi dhāryatē. And then what is
puṣpaṁ, what is sūtram, according to pūrva-mīmāṁsaka? Karma-kāṇḍa is the
flower, which is svataḥ-pramāṇam, which is valid, which is useful; therefore,
that is mukhyam. Jñāna-kāṇḍam does not have any independent validity, it has
to hold on to the tail of karma-kāṇḍa to get validity. This was karma-kāṇḍi’s
argument. Now, vēdānti gives the final offensive-argument. Until now it was
defensive-argument, but now we are going to give an offensive-argument. We
say that in fact, it is the other way round. Other-way-round means which way-
round? In fact, karma-kāṇḍam is apramāṇam. Then what is pramāṇam? Jñāna-
kāṇḍam alone is pramāṇam. So, until now we were only claiming that ‘jñāna-
kāṇḍam is pramāṇam’, now our offense is ‘karma-kāṇḍam is apramāṇam’. This
is our offensive argument. Earlier karma-kāṇḍam was pramāṇam and jñāna-
kāṇḍam was apramāṇam. Until now we slowly got and we said jñāna-kāṇḍam is

also pramāṇam. Now our next aim is push down the karma-kāṇḍa from the
pramāṇam-status and say it is apramāṇam. And if it gets validity, it is only
because of its association with jñāna-kāṇḍam. How do you prove that? If you
are ready, we will prove that. Now, you yourself say ‘what is the definition of
pramāṇam?’ We had seen before the definition of pramāṇam is (do you
remember ) anadhigata, abādhita saprayōjana arthabōdhakam pramāṇam.
(a) anadhigatam – it should reveal something which is new, not known by any
means before. (b) abādhitam – it should reveal something which is not negated
by, contradicted by other pramāṇams. (c) saprayōjanam – it should also be
useful. We have proved that Vēdānta is pramāṇam, because Vēdānta reveals
something new – what is the new thing? Aham Brahma asmi and it is
abādhitam, it is never negated by any other pramāṇam and also it is
saprayōjanam, it is very useful and what is the utility?; jīva-bhāva will go away
and Brahma bhāva will come, Brahma-bhāvō hi mōkṣaḥ. Therefore, jñāna-
kāṇḍam is pramāṇam because it fulfils all the three conditions.
Now, let us what about karma-kāṇḍa? You claim karma-kāṇḍam is

pramāṇam. Now I am asking you? “Does it fulfill all these three conditions? First
you claimed that it fulfills the condition of revealing something new. It reveals
puṇyam, which is a new thing; it reveals pāpam, which is a new thing; it reveals
svargalōka (none of us has seen svarga-lōka) which is a new thing; so it reveals
lot of new things and also it is saprayōjanam you claim, because it gives you
dharma puruṣārtha, artha puruṣārtha, kāma puruṣārtha. Therefore, you claim it
reveals something new and also it is saprayōjanam. But now I am going to ask:
whether it fulfills the second-condition. What is the second-condition? It should
not be negated by any other pramāṇam. Karma-kāṇḍa is valid only when it is
abādhitam, it is not negated. We say that it does not fulfill the second-condition,
because karma-kāṇḍam is negated by jñāna-kāṇḍam of the Vēda. Therefore,
karma-kāṇḍam abādhitam vā bādhitam vā? iti cēt karma-kāṇḍam jñāna-
kāṇḍēna bādhitatvāt Brahma jñānēna bādhitatvāt. How do you say so? Because
karma-kāṇḍa reveals duality, which is the main theme of karma-kāṇḍa. It talks
about kartā, karma, karaṇam, adhikaraṇam, sampradānam; it talks about
phalaṁ, it talks about plurality. And what does jñāna-kāṇḍam do?


nēha nānāsti kiñcana || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 4-4-19, Kaṭhōpaniṣat 2-1-11 ||
there is no plurality at all. What you call plurality is nothing but Brahman.
ब्रह्मैिद
े म् अमृतम् पुरस्तात् ब्रह्म पश्चात् ब्रह्म दभक्षणतश्चोिरेण । ॥ मुण्डकोपनिषत् २-२-११ ॥
BrahmaiVēdam amrtam purastāt Brahma paścāt Brahma dakṣiṇataścōttarēṇa | ||
And then what about duality. The upaniṣat says –
यत्र िा अन्द्यददि स्यात् तत्र अन्द्यो अन्द्यत् पश्येत् । ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ४-३-३१ ॥

yatra vā anyadiva syāt tatra anyō anyat paśyēt | || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 4-3-31 ||
Where there is seeming-duality then alone a person sees plurality everywhere –
यत्र सिनमात्मैिाभूित्केि कं पश्येत् ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् २-४-१४, ४-५-१५ ॥

yatra sarvaṁ ātmaivābhūt tat kēnakaṁ paśyēt || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 2-4-14, 4-5-15 ||
When a person recognizes the ātman where is the question of duality? From
these two statements, it is very clear that ajñāna-kālē dvaitam and jñāna-kālē
advaitam. And whatever obtains at the time of ajñānam is pramāṇam or
apramāṇam? Valid or invalid? Suppose I say, ajñāna-kālē sarpaḥ and jñāna-kālē
rajjuḥ. At the time of ignorance, there is snake and at the time of knowledge
there is rope, tell me what is valid? I have not said what is valid. I only say at the
time of ajñānam, there is sarpaḥ and at the time of jñānaṁ, there is rajjuḥ. This
itself indicates that sarpa is mithyā, invalid. And therefore karma-kāṇḍa reveals
invalid-duality, which obtains at the time of ignorance and therefore karma-
kāṇḍa is apramāṇam. Not only that there is another very interesting statement –
अन्द्याः असौ अन्द्याः अहं अस्स्म इनत ि साः िेद यथा पशुरि
े ं स दे िािाम् । ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् १ -४ -१० ॥
anyaḥ asau anyaḥ ahaṁ asmi iti na saḥ Vēda yathā paśurēvaṁ sa dēvānām | ||
Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 1-4-10 ||
Anyaḥ asau anyaḥ ahaṁ asmi iti he does not know. And not only that saḥ
dēvānām paśuḥ. Dēvānām paśuḥ is an utilistic term of scolding. It is a nice
method of scolding telling ‘he is a brhaspati’. That brhaspati said like that
means do not think he is dēva-guru etc. So, dēvānām paśuḥ means mahā
அசட் (mahā aśaḍ/ moron), he doesn’t know that he is ignorant. Therefore,

whoever sees dvaitam is ignorant. That means dvaitam is valid or invalid? It is

invalid. It is bādhitam. That being so karma-kāṇḍasya bādhitatvāt,
apramāṇatvam. If at all, it should get validity, what should it do? Now karma-
kāṇḍam has become thread and jñāna-kāṇḍam has become flower. So, they
also talk about flower and thread, we also talk about flower and thread, the
problem is what is flower and what is thread? He says karma-kāṇḍam is flower
and jñāna-kāṇḍam is thread and we say jñāna-kāṇḍam is flower and karma-
kāṇḍam is thread. Karma-kāṇḍa has to be associated with jñāna-kāṇḍa.
Now the next question is ‘If karma-kāṇḍa is apramāṇam, in what way it

will be useful for jñāna-kāṇḍa?’ In what way karma-kāṇḍa will help jñāna-kāṇḍa?
We say that jñāna-kāṇḍa sādhanatvēna karma-kāṇḍasya prāmāṇyam. Karma-
kāṇḍa does not have its own validity but jñāna-kāṇḍa-sādhanatvēna, jñāna-
kāṇḍa-upāyatvēna, as a means to come to jñāna-kāṇḍam, karma-kāṇḍa is
useful.
Then the next question is: ‘How will karma-kāṇḍa help as a means to
come to jñāna-kāṇḍa?’ We say sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti pradhānēna, karma-
kāṇḍa is useful only by giving sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti. Now, don’t ask
‘What is sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti?’ Here itself I will swoon . Therefore,
Vēdāntin says karma-kāṇḍa is not meant for dharmārthakāma puruṣārtha at all.
Why? Because we don’t consider dharmārthakāma as puruṣārtha at all, they are
only exalted-saṁsāra. It is like politicians ‘A-class’ prison. The politicians have
got special prison. Similarly, we do not accept dharmārthakāma as puruṣārtha
at all; we only tempt other people by saying it is puruṣārtha but in fact, karma-
kāṇḍa including upāsana-kāṇḍa is meant for only vairāgya-siddhi. Having got
enough kicks in life, he will get vairāgyam and for vairāgyam alone, svarga is
prescribed, for vairāgyam alone grhasthāśrama is prescribed and for vairāgyam
alone children, house, svarga, Brahma-lōka, sarvam vairāgya-prāpyartham. But
if we say vairāgyam people won’t understand, now they are immature.
Therefore, for the vairāgyam-pill, which is very bitter, we want to give sugar-
coating and dharmārthakāma puruṣārtha status is only sugar-coated tablet. It is
like laxative given to children with sugar-coating. Children eat it as chocolate,

they take it because it is very nice but after going inside it purges. Similarly, all
the other puruṣārthas are prescribed and Vēda says it is wonderful, குழல்
இேிது யாழ், இேிது என்ெதம் மக்கள் மழவலச் பசால் னகளாதவர் (kuḷal inidu yāḷ inidu
ēnbatam makkal maḷalai śōl kēlādavar), child is wonderful, husband is
wonderful, all those things are sugar-coating. The idea is go there and get
whipped up left and right so that grabbing your head you feel like running
away. If you feel like running away, it means it has worked. The purging has
taken place or is taking place. Therefore, karma-kāṇḍam kimartham?
Superficially, dharmārthakāmārtham, but really sādhana-catuṣṭaya
siddhyartham ēva. And by way of providing sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti a
person comes to Vēdānta. Therefore only the first sūtram is ‘atha.’ Atha means
karma-kāṇḍa-dvārā, vairāgya-siddhi anantaram. Having got kicked sufficiently
and having got vairāgyam ‘athaḥ Brahma-jijñāsā’. Ok. “Svāmiji, is it not all your
interpretation? You are a sannyāsi. You are like the monkey which lost the tail.
You are without wife and children. Are you not jealous of our enjoyment and
saying all this, you may ask? That also, to cut our tail.” Do you have any
pramāṇam for that?
परीर्क्ष्य लोकाि् कमनसचताि् ॥ मुण्डक उपनिषत् १-२-१२ ॥

parīkṣya lōkān karmacitān || Muṇḍaka upaniṣat 1-2-12 ||
Having experienced left, right and center all the benefits of karma, which
includes upāsana, Brahma lōka-paryantam sarvam pratyakṣa anumāna
upamāna āgama pramāṇaiḥ parīkṣya duḥkha-sādhanatvēna niścitya
apuruṣārthatvēna nirṇīya, one should very clearly know that everything other
than mōkṣa is mahā-saṁsāra iti nirvēdam māyāt; he should get vairāgyam. ‘But
I have not got vairāgyam?’ Tablet dosage is not enough. Therefore, continue the
medicine for some more days or months or years or janmas. Therefore, dosage
is not enough, therefore, increase the dosage and come.’ So, pramāṇam
number 1 – parīkṣya lōkān. Pramāṇam number 2 –
तमेतं िेदािुिचिेि ब्राह्मणा निनिददषनन्द्त यज्ञेि दािेि तपसाऽिाशकेि ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ४-४-२२ ॥

tamētaṁ vēdānuvacanēna brāhmaṇā vividiṣanti yajñēna dānēna tapasā’nāśakēna ||

Yajña refers to karma, tapas refers to upāsana. All the karmas and all the
upāsanas are meant for vividiṣā-siddhyartham. Vividiṣā means interest in
Vēdānta. Entire karma-kāṇḍa and entire upāsana-kāṇḍa is to create interest in
Vēdānta; jijñāsā. And interest in Vēdānta is directly proportional to vairāgyam
towards saṁsāra. For example, suppose a person has got some disease. So,
people say Iśvara-anugraha, you go to that temple and seek God’s grace. So,
this person thinks, ok, one day I will go. Anyway for this disease; there are lot of
cures are there, because so many ‘pathy’s are there – allopathy, homeopathy,
naturopathy etc. Therefore, he continues to pray but also continues all the
‘pathy’s, all the medicines. Then gradually he finds that one by one pathy is not
working. He has tried everything. And each system is failing. The prayer is
continuing, but you will find that the intensity of the prayer increases more and
more as system after system is failing. And when all the other systems have
failed and the doctor himself says ‘You do prayer, you can inform others also.’
When everything else fails, then also the same old prayer continues but the
intensity is tremendous. That is called tīvra-jijñāsā, tīvra-mumukṣutvam, which
is directly-proportional to the vairāgyam towards all the other ‘pathy’s. So, now
Vēṅkaṭācalapati (or Gaṇapati) is the only pathy. Therefore, karma-kāṇḍam and
upāsana-kāṇḍam is valid or not? It is not valid by itself but it is only valid by
providing sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti. So, jñāna-kāṇḍa upāyatvēna karma-
kāṇḍasya prāmāṇyam. In the Gītā also –
सिं कमानत्खलं पाथन ज्ञािे पररसमाप्यते ॥ गीता ४-३३ ॥

sarvaṁ karmākhilaṁ pārtha jñānē parisamāpyatē || Gītā 4-33 ||
All the karmas you have to do. We don’t condemn karma, they are important
but the amount of rituals etc., will get validated only when you come to
Vēdānta. That is why I used to often make the statement ‘jñāna-kāṇḍa is
impossible without going through karma-kāṇḍa, and karma-kāṇḍa is
incomplete without coming to jñāna-kāṇḍa.’ If you remember just this,
everything will be clear. Wherever I say karma you should include upāsana also.
Therefore, everyone requires pūjā, japa, tapas, all of them are required. But if a
person says life………..long I will continue that only, I will never come to
Vēdānta, this itself is sufficient for me then that will be problem. And if he

comes to Vēdānta, really speaking he will be highly successful Vēdāntic-student,

whereas the other people who will miserably fail in Vēdāntic-study but a ritualist
who comes to Vēdānta will easily understand Vēdānta. So with this pūrva-
mīmāṁsaka mata khaṇḍaṇa is over, which consists of two matas Prābhākara-
matam and Bhāṭṭa-matam. So, till now what we have seen is Prābhākara-mata
khaṇḍaṇam and Bhāṭṭa-mata khaṇḍaṇam. It is all a part of what? It is a part of
commentary upon tu.
Now lastly, Śaṅkarācārya introduces one more important matam, which

is much more powerful than the other two and that matam also Śaṅkarācārya
discusses and dismisses in the commentary. Śaṅkarācārya discusses this
matam here because this matam is very close to pūrva-mīmāṁsaka matam.
That matam is called Vrttikāra matam. Vrttiḥ means a small commentary like
notes, unlike vyākhyānam and bhāṣyam. Vyākhyānam and bhāṣyam are also
commentaries but they are elaborate. Whereas vrttiḥ means a small
commentary like notes. So, the word vrtti has got several meanings. We know
ghaṭa-vrtti, paṭa-vrtti, akhaṇḍākāra-vrtti etc., a thought is also called vrtti. A
small commentary is also called vrtti. Vrttikāraḥ means a commentator. So
therefore, Vrttikāra-matam means a philosophy or a view or a contention of one
of the Brahma-sūtra commentators. From this it is very clear that Śaṅkarācārya
is not the first commentator. Even before Śaṅkarācārya, prasthāna-trayam
existed and there were several commentators and several famous
commentators also. And one of the commentators is Vrttikāra, which is not a
proper name. We do not know the name of this commentator. Like Tom Dicken
Harry. In Vēdānta we use Dēvaduttaḥ, Viṣnudattaḥ, and Yajñadattaḥ; So,
Vrttikāra is one such famous commentator. Śaṅkarācārya discusses two
Vrttikāras throughout his commentary. One is Vrttikāra is called jñāna-karma-
samuccaya-vādi, who is heavily discussed in his Gītā-bhāṣyam. I just want to
give you an incidental information (which I do not want to discuss here). One
Vrttikāra who was very famous during Śaṅkarācārya’s time was jñāna-karma-
samuccaya-vādi, who claims that jñānam and karma should be judiciously
combined to get mōkṣa. Integral-philosophy. You have to integrate to get
mōkṣa. This is called one Vrttikāra-matam, which Śaṅkarācārya heavily criticizes

in his Gītā bhāṣyam. And here we are discussing another Vrttikāra-matam,

which Śaṅkarācārya elaborately dismisses here. What is that Vrttikāra-matam
and how he dismisses that we will discuss in the next class.


031 Sūtra 1.1.4 - Samanvāyadhikaraṇam
We are seeing the significance of the word tu in the fourth sūtra. And
Śaṅkarācārya pointed out that the word tu signifies the negation of all pūrva-
pakṣas and as an indication of that, Śaṅkarācārya takes certain pūrva-pakṣas
and negates them. He negates the pūrva-mīmāṁsaka pūrva-pakṣaḥ mainly
consisting of Prābhākara-matam and Bhāṭṭa-matam. And after negating
Prābhākara-matam and Bhāṭṭa-matam, Śaṅkarācārya takes up one more pūrva-
pakṣaḥ for elaborate discussion. That pūrva-pakṣaḥ is Vrttikāra-matam. As I said
in the last class Vrttikāraḥ means a commentator only. Any commentator can be
called Vrttikāraḥ and Śaṅkarācārya takes a particular commentator, who must
have been very popular during Śaṅkarācārya’s time. The name of the
commentator is not known to us and therefore we will also retain the word
Vrttikāraḥ. Vrtti means a brief commentary, Vrttikāraḥ means a brief
commentator. He does not come exactly under pūrva-mīmāṁsā but some of his
views are very close to pūrva-mīmāṁsā and therefore Śaṅkarācārya discusses
him along with the other two. So, first we will study his basic views. What is
Vrttikāra-matam?
i) Firstly and most importantly, he differs from pūrva-mīmāṁsaka in saying

that Brahman is existent. While pūrva-mīmāṁsaka said that there is no such
thing called Brahman. Nirguṇaṁ-Brahma nāstyēva Vrttikāra niṣprayōjanatvāt.
Vrttikāra differs from pūrva-mīmāṁsaka and asserts that there is something
called Brahman and this Brahman is revealed by the upaniṣats. So, Brahma asti

and Brahman is revealed by the upaniṣats, which means brāhmaṇaḥ

śāstrayōnitvam he accepts. Brahman cannot be known through any other
pramāṇa, Brahman has to be uniquely known through Vēdānta-pramāṇa,
upaniṣad-pramāṇa alone. He also agrees saying that upakramādi ṣaḍliṅga
vicāra proves the existence of Brahman as revealed by the upaniṣat. So, tat tu
samanvayāt. By samanvaya, by upakramādi ṣaḍliṅga vicāra, it is possible to
show that Vēdānta reveals Brahman. Thus brāhmaṇaḥ śāstra pramēyatvam api
tēna aṅgikriyatē. Up to now he is one with advaitins.
ii) But later alone he changes his philosophy and he says even though
Brahman is existent as revealed by the upaniṣat, mere Brahma-jñānam cannot
give mōkṣa. Kēvala Brahma-jñānam mōkṣam na dadāti. Brahma asti, Brahma-
jñānam api asti, śāstra-pramāṇa-dvārā, Brahma-jñānam sampādayitum śakyatē
api, all these are possible but through Brahma-jñānam one cannot get mōkṣa.
Why? Here he goes along with pūrva-mīmāṁsaka once again and says kēvala-
jñānam cannot give any puruṣārtha, mere knowledge cannot give any
prayōjanam including Brahma-jñānam. Therefore, what should one do for
mōkṣa? He says after gaining Brahma-jñānaṁ, one has to do Brahma-
upāsanam. Brahma-upāsanēna mōkṣaḥ bhavati, Brahma-jñānēna mōkṣaḥ na
bhavati. And therefore, what does Vēdānta do? Vēdānta reveals Brahman and
asks you to do Brahma-upāsanam. This Brahma-upāsana-rūpa-karmaṇā,
upāsana is also a type of karma alone, through this upāsana-rūpam karma one
will get an extraordinary-puṇyam and through that puṇyam alone mōkṣa is
possible. Vēdānta reveals Brahman, after earning we have to meditate upon
that Brahman and through constant meditation we acquire enormous,
qualitative, quantitative puṇyam and as a result of that puṇyam one will attain
mōkṣa. In support of that he again quotes the pūrva-mīmāṁsā sūtra –

The whole Vēda asks you to do something or the other. Mere learning is not
enough, after learning you have to apply that learning in some action or the
other. In karma-kāṇḍa and upāsana-kāṇḍa you do various rituals and you do

dēvatā upāsanas whereas in Vēdānta you don’t do rituals, you don’t do dēvatā
upāsanas, but you do what? Brahma upāsanam karaṇīyam.

Brahma-jñānam by itself is of no use. Therefore, it should be put into upāsana-

vidhi. And in support of his statement, he gives some upaniṣat pramāṇam also.
In Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat there are two statements –
आत्मेत्येिोपासीत ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् १-४-७ ॥

ātmētyēvōpāsīta || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 1-4-7 ||
This is called vidyā-sūtram, which we studied elaborately in Brhadāraṇyaka.

Vrttikāra says that the upaniṣat very clearly uses the word upāsīta. And in
another place there is an expression
आत्मािमेि लोकमुपासीत ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् १-४-१५ ॥

ātmānamēva lōkamupāsīta || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 1-4-15 ||
Here also there is a clear expression upāsīta. Form that it is very clear what we
require is Brahma upāsanam or paramātma upāsanam, tad-dvārā puṇya
prāptiḥ, puṇya-dvārā mōkṣa prāptiḥ.
Then we ask him the question what about the Upaniṣadic statement
which talks about jñānēna mōkṣaḥ.

Tarati śōkam ātmavit || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 7-1-3 ||
ब्रह्म िेद ब्रह्मैि भिनत ॥ मुण्डकोपनिषत् ३-२-९ ॥

Brahma Vēda Brahmaiva bhavati || Muṇḍakōpaniṣat 3-2-9 ||
I have given you the quotations from all the ten upaniṣats, pointing out that
jñānēna mōkṣaḥ is said in the upaniṣat. Now what about those words? For that
he says, you should carefully interpret the Upaniṣadic mantra. He says, every
word indicating jñānam has got the meaning of upāsanam also. His contention
is every word indicating jñānam has got the meaning of upāsanam also. For
example in śikṣā-vallī –

य एिमेता महासँनहता व्याख्याा॑ता िे॒द । सन्धीयते प्रजा॑या प॒शुभभाः । ब्रह्मिचनसेिान्नाद्येि सुिग्येणा॑ लोके॒ि ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत्
१-३-४ ॥
sa ya ēvam ētā mahāsa̐hitā vyākhyātā vēda | sandhīyatē prajayā paśubhiḥ | Brahma
varcasēnānnādyēna suvargyēṇa lōkēna || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 1-3-4 ||
So, ‘ya ēvamētā mahāsahitā vyākhyātā vēda,’ there what do we interpret? The
word Vēda means upāsīta. So, that means the word Vēda has got two
meanings, one meaning is jñānam and the other meaning is upāsanam. And in
Bhrguvallī also –
य एा॑िं िे॒द । क्षेम इा॑नत िा॒सच । योगक्षेम इनत प्राा॑णापा॒ियोाः । कमेनत

ा॑ ह॒स्तयोाः । ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् ३-१०-२ ॥
ya ēvaṁ vēda | kṣēma iti vāci | yōgakṣēma iti prāṇāpānayōḥ | karmēti hastayōḥ | ||
Taittirīyōpaniṣat 3-10-2 ||
In that context, we take the meaning of the word Vēda as upāsanam. And
therefore, he says, Brahma Vēda Brahmaiva bhavati. In this statement also
Brahma-jñāni does not become Brahman, Brahma jñānēna mōkṣaḥ na bhavati.
Brahma Vēda Brahmaiva bhavati means Brahma upāstē saḥ Brahma bhavati.
Brahmavid āpnōti param means not Brahma jñāni attains mōkṣa, Brahmavit
means Brahma upāsakaḥ āpnōti param. Ātmavit śōkaṁ tarati means na tu
ātma-jñāni śōkam tarati, then what is the meaning? ātma upāsakaḥ śōkam
tarati. So, who says this? Vrttikāra says, wherever the word jñānam comes you
have to translate as upāsanam.
यस्स्मन्द्सिानभण भूतानि आत्मैिाभूनद्वजािताः ।

तत्र को मोहाः काः शोक एकत्िमिुपश्यताः ॥ ईशािास्योपनिषत् ७ ॥
yasminsarvāṇi bhūtāni ātmaivā-bhūd-vijānataḥ |
tatra kō mōhaḥ kaḥ śōka ēkatvam anupaśyataḥ || Īśāvāsyōpaniṣat 7 ||
vijānataḥ means the one who does upāsanam.
आत्मािं चेनद्वजािीयादयमस्मीनत पूरुषाः । ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् ४-४-१२ ॥

ātmānaṁ cēd vijānīyād ayaṁ asmīti pūruṣaḥ | || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 4-4-12 ||
Vijānataḥ means upāsīta. In short take all the ten quotations and in all those
quotations wherever the word jñānam comes, he tells, you have to translate it
as upāsanam. And thus Brahma-upāsanēna, puṇya-dvārā mōkṣa phalaṁ
siddhiḥ. Why? Kēvala-jñānēna kim api phalaṁ/ prayōjanam nāsti. Then we ask

the question: ‘Why do you say like that?’. I have already told before, in pūrva-
mīmāṁsaka context that the general rule is jñānēna-phalaṁ nāsti; but there
are exceptional cases where the problem is purely due to ignorance. When the
problem is due to ignorance jñānam can give the benefit, I have pointed out.
And we gave an example. What was the example? Rajju-jñānēna sarpa-nivrttiḥ
sarpa-nivrtti-dvārā bhayādi nivrttiḥ kampādi-nivrttiḥ tat kēvala jñānēna
prayōjanam sambhavati, I have quoted exceptional cases. Then why do you
jñānēna prayōjanam nāsti? Who is asking this? We, the advaitins ask Vrttikāra.
Jñāna-mōkṣa-vādinaḥ vayam prcchāmaḥ jñāna-mātrēṇa prayōjanam kutracit
drśytē anubhūyatē ca. For that he says, yes I also accept the exception. Rajju-
jñānēna phalaṁ vartatē. I do accept. But Brahma -jñānam does not come under
that exception. I don’t question the exception. There are exceptions, but don’t
bring Brahma-jñānam under the category of exception. Brahma-jñānam comes
under the regular rule, what is that? kēvala-jñānēna prayōjanam-nāsti and
therefore after Brahma-jñānam you should do upāsanam. In support of his
statement, he shows the example of many people who are expert in the
upaniṣats. How many people have studied Vēdānta, look at them. They are very
experts in Vēdānta, they can reel out Tattva-bōdha by heart, they can reel out
upaniṣats by heart. But are they uttama-puruṣāḥ? They continue to be saṁsāris
even after the thorough study of Vēdānta. Therefore, Vrttikāra argues śruta
brahmṇō’pi yathā pūrvaṁ sukha-duḥkhādi saṁsāri-dharma-darśanāt. They are
many people who know Vēdānta thoroughly and who are still saṁsāris. In fact,
sobbingly they will be saying aham brahmāsmi; sobbingly they say sthūla-
sūkṣma-kāraṇa-śarīrāt vyatiriktaḥ, avasthā-traya-sākṣī and immediately they
can give the reference also Īśāvāsya 3.20. What is the use of Brahma-jñānaṁ;
what is the use of Vēdānta-jñānam? Even the other family members tell ‘Going
to all these classes what is the benefit?’ From all these personal experiences, it
is very clear that Brahma-jñānam does not transform a person. Even yesterday
somebody came and asked me, ‘Svāmiji, you have been teaching Vēdānta
classes for twenty years, what is your experience? Do people change?’ And then
he says, ‘Svāmiji, my humble opinion is they continue to be the same. They don’t
have compassion to others, they are full of rāga-dvēṣas, they develop even
jealousy, they don’t help the others, everything remains the same, they were as

much saṁsāris as they were before.’ And therefore, Vrttikāra says, that Brahma-
jñānēna, Vēdānta-jñānēna, upaniṣat is over, Gītā is over, Brahma-sūtra is about
to be ‘finished ’; he says that none of this will give any benefit, he will only say
that ‘I have finished Brahma-sūtra also’. But he will be what? Vēdāntic-
educated-saṁsāri. Therefore, Vrttikāra says, Brahma-jñānēna mōkṣaḥ nāsti.
In fact, this is one argument will make all the people sympathize with
Vrttikāra and you will slowly gravitate towards Vrttikāra. We also feel the same
as the Vrttikāra says. Our krōdah has not reduced, our bhaya has not reduced.
So thus, he gives a powerful argument – śruta Brahmaṇaḥ yathā pūrvaṁ sukha-
duḥkhādi saṁsāri dharma darśanāt. Saṁsāra continues to be in those people
who have learnt Vēdānta or Brahman. From this it is very clear that Brahma
jñānēna na mōkṣaḥ. tarhi kim kartavyam? Brahma-jñāna anantaram Brahma
upāsanam kartavyam. Who says? Vrttikāraḥ. And then he gives one more
argument in support of that. What is that? He says, the upaniṣats very clearly
say –
आत्मा िा अरे द्रष्टव्याः श्रोतव्यो मन्द्तव्यो निददध्याससतव्यो ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् २-४-५ ॥

ātmā vā arē draṣṭavyaḥ śrōtavyō mantavyō nididhyāsitavyaḥ || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 2-4-5
||
Ātmā should be clearly understood through śravaṇam. Draṣṭavyaḥ means It

should be clearly seen, clearly understood. By what method? śrōtavyaḥ or
mantavyaḥ also. By śravaṇam and mananam ātmā should be or Brahman
should be clearly understood. So, through śravaṇam and mananam one clearly
gets Brahma-jñānam. Now, Vrttikāra argues if Brahma-jñānam can itself give
mōkṣa, then śrōtavyaḥ mantavyaḥ must be sufficient. Because through
śravaṇam and mananam Brahma-jñānam can be attained. Śravaṇam gives
knowledge and mananam gives clarity. Through śravaṇa-mananam clear
jñānam is attained. So, mōkṣa must be there. So, upaniṣat should stop with
śrōtavyaḥ mantavyaḥ. But what do we find? After śravaṇa-mananam the
upaniṣat clearly prescribes nididhyāsitavyaḥ. Nididhyāsanam means repeated
thinking of that, dwelling upon that. It is derived from the root √ dhyai,
dhyāyati. Nididhyāsanam means repeated-dhyānam. And what is repeated
thinking otherwise called? Upāsanam. Therefore, nididhyāsitavyaḥ clearly

shows upāsanam kartavyam. And this upāsanam is a clean action, because

according to saṁskrta grammar, the suffix tavyaḥ indicates a compulsory
action. śrō-tavyaḥ, man-tavyaḥ, nididhyāsi-tavyaḥ. In saṁskrta language, tavyaḥ
is a suffix, which indicates a compulsory action. kartavyaḥ, draṣṭavyaḥ,
pātavyaḥ, etc., means it should be done, it should be heard, it should be drunk.
So, the very word nididhyāsitavyaḥ indicates a vidhi, a vidhi indicates a
compulsory action. Therefore, the upāsanam action gives the prayōjanam and
not Brahma-jñānam. Why?

Without upāsana-action Brahma jñāna will be like learning yōgāsana. If I know

yōgāsana very well; somebody said, ‘I know every āsana very well but I am not
slimming at all.’ Then I asked ‘How many hours do you practice?’ ‘I don’t do all
those things.’ Then what is it? I clearly know yōgāsana. Therefore, yōgāsana-
jñānam yōgāsana karmaṇaḥ aṅgam bhavati. Jñānam is only karmāṅgam.
jñānam itself is of no use. Similarly, Brahma-jñānam is Brahma upāsana aṅgam.

Therefore, what is the conclusion? Brahma upāsanēna mōkṣaḥ. Whereas what

is pūrva-mīmāṁsaka matam? He did not accept Brahma-jñānam, he did not
accept Brahma upāsanam, he said the Vēdāntic study is only a help for karma-
kāṇḍa rituals and karma-kāṇḍa upāsanas. He never accepted Brahma-jñānam
and Brahma-upāsanam. Whereas Vrttikāra accepts Brahma-jñānam and he
prescribes Brahma upāsanam. This is Vrttikāra-matam.
i) Now Śaṅkarācārya is going to refute this matam very elaborately. Now

his approach is like this. He defines the nature of mōkṣa from different angle.
He asks the basic question what is mōkṣaḥ? And he gives a few definitions of
mōkṣa and having given the definitions of mōkṣa he establishes that such a
mōkṣa is never possible through upāsana. Here we are going to heavily criticize
upāsanam. Just as Gaudapāda does in Māṇḍūkya kārikā –

उपासिाभश्रतो िमो जाते ब्रह्मभण ितनते ।

प्रागुत्पिेरजं सिं तेिासौ कृपणाः स्मृताः ॥ माण्डू क्प्य काररका ३-१ ॥
upāsanāśritō dharmō jātē Brahma ṇi vartatē |

prāgutpattēr ajaṁ sarvaṁ tēnāsau krpaṇaḥ smrtaḥ || Māṇḍūkya kārikā 3-1 ||
Gaudapāda says every upāsaka is an unfortunate one. Here also we are going
to heavily criticize upāsana. And when we criticize upāsana it may disturb some
people. Why is these scriptures glorify upāsana so much, in fact, various
upāsakas are popular in society and everybody runs towards these dēvī-
upāsaka, āñjanēya-upāsaka, this upāsaka and that upāsaka and got rid of
stomach ache, headache, etc. So, when the upāsakas are so much glorified, the
Vēdānta is going to criticize upāsanas - this has to be carefully understood. We
are not criticizing upāsana totally. We are criticizing upāsana presented as a
means of mōkṣa, which comes after Brahma-jñānam. The upāsana which comes
after Brahma-jñānam as a means of mōkṣa is heavily criticized. But we glorify
the upāsanam before Brahma-jñānam as a means of mental refinement. So, the
position is important.
 Before Brahma-jñānam,
 a means of mental-refinement,
upāsana is glorified and not only it is glorified, advaitin tells it is compulsory

also. But what upāsana is criticized here. The Vrttikāra’s upāsana is criticized.
And what type of upāsana he prescribes here? His upāsana is after Brahma-
jñānam. And as a means for what? As a means of mōkṣa, that we criticise.
Therefore, kindly do not think that Vēdānta is against upāsana. It only says,
Brahma-jñāna anantaram kartavyam kiṁ api nāsti.
िैि तस्य कृतेिाथो िाकृतेिेह कश्चि ।

ि चास्य सिनभूतेषु कभश्चदथनव्यपाश्रयाः ॥ गीता ३-१८ ॥
naiva tasya krtēnārthō nākrtēnēha kaścana |
na cāsya sarvabhūtēṣu kaścidarthavyapāśrayaḥ || Gītā 3-18 ||
कमनण्यकमन याः पश्येदकमनभण च कमन याः ।

स बुद्धिमान्द्मिुष्येषु स युक्ताः कृत्स्िकमनकृत् ॥ गीता ४-१८ ॥
karmaṇyakarma yaḥ paśyēdakarmaṇi ca karma yaḥ |

sa buddhimānmanuṣyēṣu sa yuktaḥ krtsnakarmakrt || Gītā 4-18 ||
गतासूिगतासूंश्च िािुशोचनन्द्त पस्थण्डतााः ॥ गीता २-११ ॥

gatāsūnagatāsūṁśca nānuśōcanti paṇḍitāḥ || Gītā 2-11 ||
Jñāna-anantara-upāsana we criticize and jñāna-pūrva-upāsana we glorify.

Mōkṣa-sādhana-bhūta-upāsana we criticize and citta-aikāgra-sādhana-bhūta-
upāsana we glorify. Therefore, here Śaṅkarācārya is going to heavily criticize
the upāsana as presented by Vrttikāra.
The first definition of mōkṣa he takes is this, which is not normally given.
अशरीरता नह मोक्षाः.
aśarīratā hi mōkṣaḥ.
Mōkṣa is freedom from śarīra sambandhaḥ. And naturally what is saṁsāra?

Saśarīratā hi saṁsāra. Śarīra-sambandha is saṁsāra. So, saśarīratā hi saṁsāra
and aśarīratā hi mōkṣaḥ – these two definitions Śaṅkarācārya takes. Where
does he find these two definitions? Is it svanta-sāhityam? Are these two
definitions are Śaṅkarācārya’s svanta-sāhityam? (own imagination?)
Śaṅkarācārya says ‘No’. We have got cakkani rāja mārgamu vedāṁta mārgamu
luṁḍaga (cakkani rāja mārgamu Vēdānta mārgamu luṇḍaga, here is a royal
path, the path of Vēdānta). What is that?
ि िै सशरीरस्य सताः नप्रयानप्रययोरपहनतरस्स्त ॥ छान्द्दोग्योपनिषत् ८-१२-१ ॥

na vai saśarīrasya sataḥ priyāpriyayōrapahatirasti || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 8-12-1 ||
What does this statement mean? As long as śarīra sambandha is there sukha
and duḥkha opposites cannot be avoided. Priyāpriyam means sukha-duḥkham,
apahatiḥ means avoidance. Na asti is not possible. Therefore, priyam will come,
priyam will go, apriyam will come, apriyam will go and this cannot be avoided.
And priyāpriya gamanāgamanam alone is called saṁsāra. Because, even when
priyam comes we will not be very very happy because we will worried that this
priyam will go away. Have I not I told you? Somebody was telling ‘Svāmīji,
everything is so nice, nice husband, have got two children, one boy and one girl,
house is also there, cars are also there, husband is earning well, everything is so
nice.’ ‘So, you must be very happy.’ ‘Svāmīji, I am worried somebody’s evil eye

may fall.’ Because, people come and tell ‘what a lucky person you are.’
Therefore, as long as we are in relative-saṁsāra, we are worried; when apriyam
comes, of course, we are worried and when priyam comes we are worried
about drṣṭi. They extend it to Svāmījis also! To teach you Vēdānta is zero .
Vatta cumbalam.  If cough comes, it is because of drṣṭi! What to tell these
people. So therefore, this problem cannot be avoided. Yāvatkālam śarīra-
sambandha vartatē tāvat-kālam priyāpriyē bhavataḥ ēva. Then what is mōkṣaḥ?
अशरीरं िाि सन्द्तं ि नप्रयानप्रये स्पृशताः ॥ छान्द्दोग्योपनिषत् ८-१२-१ ॥

aśarīraṁ vā vāsantaṁ na priyāpriyē sprśataḥ || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 8-12-1 ||
One for whom there is no śarīra sambandha to him priya and apriya will not
touch. So thus, what is the definition of mōkṣa? Aśarīratā hi mōkṣaḥ. So this
Śaṅkarācārya presents as the headline, as the main point. Now, he comes back
to the upāsana. He points out karma and upāsana are both action. You yourself
agree that karma is also an action, upāsana is also an action. What is the
difference? One is kāyikam-karma, physical action and upāsanam is mānasam-
karma, mental-action; but both are actions. And Śaṅkarācārya argues wherever
actions are there, there will be gradations, tāratamyam. That means a person
does action for one hour and another person does action for two hours,
therefore, quantitative difference will be there. Ēka-dinayāgaḥ, dinadvaya-
yāgaḥ, ahīna-satram (a yāga done more than one day) and again saṁvatsara-
yāgaḥ etc., are there. Therefore, quantitative gradation is there. And again
qualitative gradation is also there. 50% of mind is involved in Gāyatrī japa, 25%
is involved, 5% is involved, no percent is involved (many gradations of Gāyatrī
japa), so tāratamyam is there in karma. And therefore, Śaṅkarācārya says, there
will be tāratamya in the puṇya produced also. So, karma-phala-bhūta-dharmē
karma-phala-bhūta-puṇyē api tāratamyam vartatē. There is gradation.
And when there is puṇyam-gradation, what can that puṇyam do? It can
only give varieties of bodies depending upon the gradation of puṇya. The type
of body depends upon the type of puṇyam. If it is limited puṇyam, then the
body is also of that type. Even among animals there are certain animals which
are part of temples, like the elephant in Guruvāyūrappa temple. Even though it

has done some pāpam to become elephant, but because of some puṇyam it is
temple-elephant carrying the Lord. Even if it is a dog, it is a dog of some
cinema-actress, she doesn’t know how to care her husband, problem, therefore,
keep a dog and love. And for that dog how much expenditure? Rs2500/- air-
condition room! Some puṇya it has done. And a little bit more puṇyam it can be
human body, there also healthy body, there also cultured body, there also
coming to Vēdānta-śāstra, thus you will find puṇyam can only give different
types of bodies. Therefore, puṇyam can improve your saśarīratvam, but it can
never make you aśarīraḥ. Within the saśarīratvam, the puṇyam can give you
exalted saśarīratvam or inferior saśarīratvam.
Still you have a better puṇya you can get indra-śarīram, still better puṇya
you can get Prajāpati-śarīram. Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya says any amount of
karma and upāsana will keep you only within saśarīratvam, wherein gradation
cannot be avoided, priyāpriya cannot be avoided. Therefore, saṁsāra cannot be
avoided. Therefore, he says four things are synonymous – karma, puṇyam,
saśarīratvam and saṁsāraḥ they all go together. As long as you are within this
circle, you are doing karma and upāsanā, you will get some puṇya, you will
continue to be saśarīraḥ and therefore, you will continue to be a saṁsāri alone.
If you define mōkṣa also as an upāsana-phalaṁ, then mōkṣa also will include
puṇyam, if it involves puṇyam then it will involve saśarīratvam and if it involves
saśarīratvam then it will be within saṁsāra only. And that is the reason we
never accepts a mōkṣa which is going to some lōka. In different systems of
philosophy they define mōkṣa as going to some lōka, where god is residing.
Either Kailāsa-lōka or Vaikuṇṭha-lōka, we never accepts that mōkṣa because as
long as it is a lōka and as long as these people retain their individuality, you will
be saśarīra or aśarīra? To go to another lōka you require another śarīra.
Therefore, in Vaikuṇṭha or Kailāsa you will have saśarīratvam. Then certainly
there will gradation. In seating arrangements itself there will be gradations.
Some people are sitting right under my nose, some people are little bit front,
some people are sitting behind, etc., similarly, in Vaikuṇṭha also there will some
taller saśarīra-puruṣas and you will have to struggle to see the Lord. As long as
saśarīratvam is there, as long as Bhagavān is saśarīraḥ, I am saśarīraḥ and we

are in a particular place, there will be gradation. And where there is gradation
there comparisions will come, where there is comparision there jealousy will
come. I will never be satisfied. I will say those people are luckiest. Here also
same problem. This is what I experience every-time I arrange the camp. It is the
biggest struggle I have, because when the accommodation is limited in the
main āśrama, I have to put in adjacent-āśrama. The first struggle is somehow to
come to the camp. There is worry that I couldn’t get admission to the camp.
Because some people do not get because the admission date is over. Now
another person has got the admission to the camp, now this person feels I
could not go but he could go. And once you come to the camp the next
comparision is I have got only accommodation outside but not inside. And
inside I got the second-floor, I got the first-floor, I got room with geyser or
without geyser. As long as saśarīratvam is there comparisons cannot be
avoided.
Therefore, we do not accept any mōkṣa where there is saśarīratvam for me and
saśarīratvam for god, and both of them are located in place. As long as mōkṣa is
upāsana-phalaṁ you will have dharmādharma, you will have saśarīratvam and
you will have within saṁsāra only. Only exalted saṁsāra that is the only
difference. And therefore, Śaṅkarācārya first argument is upāsana-phalaṁ
mōkṣaḥ na bhavati. Tasmāt upāsana-phalaṁ saśarīratvam ēva bhavati naiva
aśarīratvam. And as long as there is saśarīratvam, what will be the problem?
Remember Taittirīya –
ते ये शतं मिुष्यगन्धिानणामािन्द्दााः । स एको दे िगन्धिानणामािन्द्दाः । … ते ये शतं दे िगन्धिानणामािन्द्दााः । … स एक

इन्द्द्रस्याऽऽिन्द्दाः ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् २-८-२, ३ ॥
tē yē śataṁ manuṣyagandharvāṇāmānandāḥ | sa ēkō dēvagandharvāṇāmānandaḥ | … tē
yē śataṁ dēvagandharvāṇāmānandāḥ | … sa ēka indrasyā’’nandaḥ || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-8-
2, 3 ||
Indra has got maximum ānanda. Hundreds times of dēvānanda. You interview
indra he says, ‘I am very happy, but’
ते ये शतधमन्द्द्रस्याऽऽिन्द्दााः । स एको बृहस्पतेरािन्द्दाः । ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् २-८-४ ॥

tē yē śatamindrasyā’’nandāḥ | sa ēkō brhaspatērānandaḥ | || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-8-4 ||

Brhaspati gets more ānanda. You interview Brhaspati he says, Prajāpati gets
more ānanda. As long as saśarīratvam is there mōkṣa is impossible. And
upāsana-phalaṁ falls within saśarīratvam. What is mōkṣa? Aśarīratvam.
Therefore, how do you get mōkṣa? Na tu karmaṇā na tu upāsanēna jñāna-
mātrēṇa mōkṣaḥ. Then, he asks the question ‘Why cannot you say aśarīratvam
comes because of Brahma upāsanam? The other upāsanams will give
saśarīratvam, whereas Brahma upāsanam gives aśarīratvam – why can’t you
take like that. Śaṅkarācārya says, No. aśarīratvam cannot be Brahma upāsana-
phalaṁ . That we will see in the next class.


032 Sutra 1.1.4 Samanvayādikaraṇam
We are seeing the significance of the word tu in the fourth sūtra, tattu
samanvayāt. Śaṅkarācārya pointed out that the word tu signifies the negation
of all other dārśanams. And as a part of that commentary, Śaṅkarācārya
negated pūrva-mīmāṁsaka matam in the form of Bhāṭṭa-mata niṣēdhaḥ and
Prābhākara-mata nirākaraṇam. And now Śaṅkarācārya has come to Vrttikāra-
mata nirākaraṇam. Vrttikāra is one of the commentators of Brahma-sūtra.
And according to Vrttikāra, Brahma-upāsanaṁ gives mōkṣa and not

Brahma-jñānam. Brahma-jñānam cannot give mōkṣa and Brahma-upāsanaṁ
alone gives mōkṣa. Unlike the pūrva-mīmāṁsaka, this Vrttikāra accepts the
existence of Brahman while pūrva-mīmāṁsaka did not accept and he also
accepts that Brahman is revealed by Vēdānta-śāstram, Brahmaṇaḥ
śāstrayōnitnōti anēna abhyupgamyatē; but what he says is you should not stop
with Brahma-jñānam; having gained the jñānam, you have to practice
upāsanaṁ. And by the long-practice of Brahma-upāsana, a special puṇyam is
generated, a special adrṣṭaṁ is generated and as a result of that puṇyam, one
will attain mōkṣa. So, Brahma upāsanēna janya puṇyēna, mōkṣaḥ siddhyati is
the Vrttikāra-matam. And Śaṅkarācārya very elaborately refutes this vrittikara-
mataṁ. This is the biggest portion of the samanvaya sūtra-bhāṣyam. So we will
go stage-by-stage, so that it will become clear.
First Śaṅkarācārya points out Brahma-upāsanēna mōkṣaḥ na bhavati.

Mōkṣa cannot be attained through Brahma-upāsanam, or for that matter, any

upāsanaṁ. This is his first approach. To establish this particular fact,

Śaṅkarācārya takes up the definition of mōkṣa; and the first definition he gave
was aśarīratā hi mōkṣaḥ. And in support of this he gave the Cāndōgya
statement, aśarīratvam is mōkṣaḥ and saśarīratvam is saṁsāraḥ. And what is
the meaning of aśarīratvam; śarīra-saṁbandhaḥ abhāvaḥ mōkṣaḥ; and what is
the meaning of saśarīratvam; śarīra-saṁbandhaḥ-bhāvaḥ. The presence of
śarīra-sāṁbhanda is saṁsāra; the absence of śarīra-saṁbanda is mōkṣaḥ; so
śarīra-saṁbandhaḥ bhavābhavābhyam banda-mōkṣau. And Śaṅkarācārya
pointed out that this mōkṣa in the form of aśarīratvam can never be given by
any type of upāsana, because all karmas and upāsanas can only bring about a
gradation in śarīram. All type of karmas and upāsanās can only bring about a
gradation in the śariram and retain my status of saśarīratvam. So if I do better
upāsanas, I will be better saśarīraḥ; if I do lesser upāsanas, I will have lesser
saśarīratvam. Karma and upāsana cannot change my saśarīratvam status. That
is why in Taittariya Upaniṣad:
ते ये शतं मिुष्यगन्धिानणामािन्द्दााः । स एको दे िगन्धिानणामािन्द्दाः । … ते ये शतं दे िगन्धिानणामािन्द्दााः । … स एक

इन्द्द्रस्याऽऽिन्द्दाः ॥ तैभिरीयोपनिषत् २-८-२, ३ ॥
tē yē śataṁ manuṣyagandharvāṇāmānandāḥ | sa ēkō dēvagandharvāṇāmānandaḥ | … tē yē
śataṁ dēvagandharvāṇāmānandāḥ | … sa ēka indrasyā:':'nandaḥ || Taittirīyōpaniṣat 2-8-2,
3 ||
As a result of karma what have I become, from manuṣya I have become

manuṣya gandarva; manuṣya gandarva is aśarīra or saśarīra? He is a better
saśarīra and dēvagandarva? Better saśarīraː even Brahmāji-status is only better
saśarīratvam. Therefore I will be moving within saśarīratvam alone, whether it
is karma or upāsanaː whereas what is the definition of mōkṣaː aśarīratva hi
mōkṣaḥ. Therefore upāsana cannot produce aśarīratva-rūpa-mōkṣaḥ.
And for that vṛttikāra raised another question; and what was the
question. I accept aśarīratvam is mōkṣaḥ; at least for your sake; temporarily I
accept aśarīratvam is mōkṣaḥ and why can’t you say that Brahma-upāsanaṁ is
a very potent upāsanaṁ; it is not like other upāsanaṁ; but Brahma-upāsanaṁ
is a specially powerful upāsanaṁ; and it is so powerful that it can give you what,
aśarīratvam. Therefore the other upāsanas will give you better saśarīratvam;

whereas Brahma-upāsanaṁ will give you not better saśarīratvam but

aśarīratvam itself. And therefore Vēdānta deals with Brahma-upāsana as a
means of what?: Aśarīrtva siddhayē Brahma-upāsanam. This is pūrvapakṣa. Is
this clear? Up to this only we have done in the last class.
Now we have to see the answer for this question. Śankarācārya gives an
interesting answer and also a correct answer; whether it is interesting or not is
depending upon the student’s attitude but it is the correct answer. What is the
answer? Aśarīratā cannot be the result of any karma or upāsanaṁ. Aśarīratā
cannot be the result of any karma or upāsanaṁ. Why? He says because
aśarīratvam is the very nature of ātma. OK. What is the connection between the
question and the answer? It would be like that there is no connection; but I will
explain and it will become clear.
Now whatever is the nature of a thing, it is always there. This is the

definition of nature. Nature is something which is intrinsic to that particular
thing and whatever is intrinsic is nitya-siddham. If heat is the nature of fire,
when is the fire hot; is it today, yesterday or tomorrow; if heat is the nature of
fire, fire is eternally-hot. If coldness is the nature of ice, ice is eternally cold.
Śankarācārya says aśarīratvam is the very nature of every jīvaː and being nature
it is nitya-siddhā-svarūpam; it is eternally-accomplished. So aśarīra tu nitya
siddhā; whereas any karma-phalaṁ or Upāsana phalaṁ is not available now but
karma-phalaṁ and upāsana-phalaṁ will come later after the practice of karma
and Upāsana. Therefore karma-phalaṁ or upāsana-phalaṁ is siddham or
sādhyam? Karma-phalaṁ and upāsana-phalaṁ are siddham or sādhyam?
Sādhyam means it is something to be acquired in future. Karma phalaṁ =
sādhyam. Aśarīrata nitya siddham; why, because it is svarūpam. Therefore,
how can sādhyam and siddham be equated. Are you understanding;, if you
understand, it would be nice. Karma-phalatva sādhyatvāt aśarīratāyāḥ
siddhatvāt; kathaṁ siddhā aśarīratā sādhya karma-phalaṁ bhāvitum arhati. (If
it is in sanskrit, I think it is more clearer to me!). Aśarīratāyāḥ siddhatvāt karma
(upāsana also) phalasya sādhyatvāt kathaṁ siddhā aśarīratā sādhya karma
phalaṁ bhavitum arhati. How can you equate sādhyam and siddham?

Therefore siddha aśarīratā rūpa mōkṣaḥ cannot be in the form of sādhya

Upāsana phalaṁ.
Now the question comes, how do you say that aśarīratā is the very
svarūpam of everyone. Śankarācārya says we can refer to the upaniṣad it will
become clear.
अशरीरँ शरीरेष्िििस्थेष्ििस्थस्थतम् ।
महान्द्तं निभुमात्मािं मत्िा िीरो ि शोचनत ॥ कतो. I . २२॥
aśarīram̐ śarīrēṣvanavasthēṣvavasthitam |
mahāntaṁ vibhumātmānaṁ matvā dhīrō na śōcati || katō. I. 22||
the Upaniṣad clearly says Ātma is aśarīra. Again in Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad II.i.2 says
ददव्यो ह्यमूतनाः पुरुषाः स बाह्याभ्यन्द्तरो ह्यजाः ।

अप्राणो ह्यमिााः शुभ्रो ह्यक्षरात् परताः पराः ॥ २॥
divyō hyamūrtaḥ puruṣaḥ sa bāhyābhyantarō hyajaḥ |
aprāṇō hyamanāḥ śubhrō hyakṣarāt parataḥ paraḥ || 2||
Aprānaḥ; Amanāḥ, amūrtāḥ. If you go back to our upaniṣad classes (that is why
I said Brahma sūtra student must be upaniṣad student; therefore we saw
amūrtaḥ is stūla-śarīra rahitaḥ; aprānaḥ; amanāḥ means sūkṣma-śarīra rahitaḥ;
subrāḥ means kāraṇā-śarīra rahitaḥ. Upaniṣad says ātma is śarīra-traya varjitaḥ.
Muṇḍaka itself in the beginning
यिदद्रे श्यमग्राह्यमगोत्रमिणन-
मचक्षुाःश्रोत्रं तदपाभणपादम् ।
नित्यं निभुं सिनगतं सुसूर्क्ष्मं
तदव्ययं यद्भूतयोकित पररपश्यनन्द्त िीरााः ॥ १.१.६॥
yattadadrēśyamagrāhyamagōtramavarṇa-
macakṣuḥśrōtraṁ tadapāṇipādam |
nityaṁ vibhuṁ sarvagataṁ susūkṣmaṁ
tadavyayaṁ yadbhūtayōniṁ paripaśyanti dhīrāḥ || 1.1.6||
Ātma does not have no legs, hands, eyes, ears, nose, etc.; sarva-śarīra rahitaḥ
ātma.
In Īśāvāsya upaniṣad,
स पयनगाच्छु क्रमकायमव्रण-

मस्िानिरꣳ शुिमपापनििम् । .......... ॥ ८॥

sa paryagācchukramakāyamavraṇa-
masnāviraꣳ śuddhamapāpaviddham | .......... || 8||
ि्a paryagācchukramakāyam. Akāyam, means kāyam means śariram. Akāyam

means śarīra-varjitam. Asñaviram, śuddham, apāpa-viddham, there also śarīra
traya rahitaḥ ātma. Therefore aśarīratā is not a goal to be accomplished; but it
is a fact to be recognized. It is not a goal to be accomplished, but it is a fact to
be recognized and therefore it is not a phalaṁ at all. When you say phalaṁ, it
becomes sādhyam; result means it is to be accomplished in time. Aśarīratā tu
nitya-siddhā svarūpaḥ. And therefore what; mōkṣaḥ na upāsana-sādhyaḥ,
siddhatvāt, caitanyavat. Mōkṣaḥ na upāsana sādhyaḥ; siddhatvāt caitanyavat.
Then a pūrva-pakṣa comes in between and he is raising an aside-objection. So

we have to go a little bit away from the main topic. He says how do you define
aśarīratā as mōkṣam. In advaitam, aśarīratā should not be defined as mōkṣa.
Who says: a madhyastaḥ, a in-between; he raises a question; advaitin cannot
define mōkṣa as aśarīratvam. Why, because if he defines aśarīratvam as mōkṣa
and the biggest problem will be he cannot accept jīvan-muktiḥ. See whether
you understand, or I will explain. If advaitin defines advaitam as mōkṣaḥ;
advaitin can never have jīvan-mukti, because in jīvan-mukti he is aśarīraḥ or
saśarīraḥ? When you say jīvan itself, he is alive, transacting; you have to glorify
him, he is teaching, he does everything. Therefore, if you define aśarīratvam as
mōkṣa when will you get mōkṣa? Only after death. In fact, the first qualification
required is death; then we can see the others later. Aśarīratāyaḥ mōkṣatvye,
jīvan muktirēva na siddhyati iti pūrva pakṣaḥ.
And Śankarācārya says: “Do you think, I would not have thought about
that?” Do you think that you are smarter than me? Even when I defined mōkṣa
as aśarīratvam, I have already thought over. Ok, what is the answer?
Jīvan-mukti is possible even when we say mōkṣa is aśarīratvam. We hold

on to that view; what is mōkṣa? Aśarīratvam mōkṣaḥ, jīvan mukti vartatē vā na
vā? Vartatē; samyak vartatē. Jīvan-mukta is saśarīra or aśarīra? That alone we
are going to analyse. Śankarācārya is saying jīvan mukta is aśarīraḥ; the other

people think jīvan Mukta is saśarīraḥ; jīvan-mukta is aśarīraḥ only. This is the
answer. I will explain. Do not worry. Jīvan-mukta is aśarīraḥ; only the other
people claim jīvan-mukta as saśarīra; it is their problem, not mine, what can I
do? Ok. How should we understand this answer? Let us go back. I said the
Upaniṣad reveals aśarīratvam as our very nature. So the upaniṣad clearly says
that aśarīratvam is my svarūpam. If aśarīratvam is svarūpam, Ātma svarūpam,
then, when am I aśarīraḥ? The Upanishad points out that I am aśarīraḥ all the
time. Ātma nitya-aśarīraḥ, means śarīra sambanda varjitaḥ. There is no time
when ātma is saśarīraḥ. There is no scope for the phrase ātma-saśarīram.
Ātmānaḥ nitya aśarīratvāt, kadācit api kadancit api, kutracit api ātmānaḥ
saśarīratvam naiva asti, naiva āsīt, naiva bhavisyati. Why? Ātma is aśarīram all
the time? Three reasons we say.
First reason is that it is the very nature of myself. What is the pramāṇam?
अशरीरँ शरीरेष्िििस्थेष्ििस्थस्थतम् ।
महान्द्तं निभुमात्मािं मत्िा िीरो ि शोचनत ॥ कतो. I . २२॥
aśarīram̐ śarīrēṣvanavasthēṣvavasthitam |
mahāntaṁ vibhumātmānaṁ matvā dhīrō na śōcati || katō. I. 22||
अपाभणपादोऽहमसचन्द्त्यशसक्ताः पश्याम्यचक्षुाः स शृणोम्यकणनाः ।

अहं निजािाधम निनिक्तरूपो ि चास्स्त िेिा मम सचत्सदाऽहम् ॥ कैिल्य. २१ ॥
apāṇipādō:'hamacintyaśaktiḥ paśyāmyacakṣuḥ sa śrṇōmyakarṇaḥ |
ahaṁ vijānāmi viviktarūpō na cāsti vēttā mama citsadā:'ham || kaivalya. 21 ||
The first reason is that I am eternally-aśarīra because it is my very nature.
Then the second-reason; Ātmanaḥ asaṅgatvāt; ātma is asaṅgaḥ; is a very

important argument which Śankarācārya gives very profusely. Asaṅgo na hi
sajjatē; Bṛhadāraṇyakam; Asaṇgōhi ayaṁ puruṣaḥ; asaṅgaḥ means what?;
saṅga-varjitaḥ, saṁbanda-varjitaḥ; it cannot have any relationship with
anything; ākāśavat; just as ākāśa. Ākāśa is along with everything object, but
ākāśa is not connected with object. Ākāśa is there along with the mike; but mike
saṁbandaḥ ākāśasya nāsti. Ākāśa is there where fire is; but fire-saṁbandaḥ
ākāśasya nāsti. That is why we say accēdyōyam; adāhōyam; aclēdyaḥ, aśoṣyah;
fire cannot burn ātma etc. all why; because Ātma is not related to anything.
Asaṅgatvāt śarīra-saṁbandaḥ nāstiː therefore Ātma nityaṁ aśarīraḥ.

So what is the first argument? Svarūpatvāt nityaṁ aśarīraḥ; what is the

second? Asaṅgatvāt śariram nityaṁ aśarīraḥ;
What is the third reason; śarīra-saṁbanda comes as a result of karma

phalaṁ. Puṇyēna puṇya śariram; pāpēna pāpa śariram; ubhābhyām manuṣya
śariram; a mixed-śarīram. Śarīra-saṁbanda comes as a result of karma-phalaṁ.
Karma-phalaṁ comes for a kartaː karta is only doing the karmaː and only when
one does karma result comes. Ātmānaḥ nitya-akartṛtvād; Ātma being ever
akartā, where is the question karmaː where is the question of tad janya śariram
and where is the question of śarīra-saṁbandhaḥ. Therefore what is the third
argument? Ātmānaḥ nitya kartṛtvād śarīra-saṁbandhaḥ naiva bhavati. And
therefore ātmānaḥ aśarīratvam nitya-siddham.
Now the next question is, if Ātmānaḥ is aśarīratvam is nitya-siddham why

do you say saśarīratvam is saṁsāraḥ. When we say that saśarīratvam would not
come at all; if saśarīratvam is impossible; how can you say saśarīratvam-
saṁsāraḥ; aśarīratvam-mōkṣaḥ? Are you understanding the question. Ātma is
nitya-aśarīraḥ; śarīratvam ātmānaḥ nāstiː naiva saṁbhavati. Yati na saṁbhavati
saśarīratvam saṁsāraḥ ityucyatē; aśarīratva prāptiḥ mōkṣaḥ iti kathaṁ ucyatē
tyayāː how do you say?
Śaṅkarācārya says Ātma cannot become saśarīraḥ, but Ātma can be

mistaken as saśarīra. Ātma cannot become saśarīraḥ; it is not saśarīraḥ; but it
can be, why can be, it is mistaken as saśarīraḥ. Like the Murphy’s law; What can
go wrong, will go wrong. What can happen, has successfully happened. What
can happen is mistake and therefore saśarīratvam has happened because of
mistake. Therefore saśarīratvam adhyāsa–siddham. Therefore only we have
kept ready the adhyāsa-bhāṣyam. So saśarīratvam kathaṁ āgaccati? Ajñāna-
siddham, adhyāsa-siddham; it is an error that has happened. And if
saśarīratvam is because of error, how do you get aśarīratvam. If the rope has
become a snake because of error, how do you reconvert that snake into rope?
(see the language, how do you reconvert that snake into a rope? That
conversion is only an intellectual-process of knowledge that there was and
there is and therefore Śaṅkarācārya says saśarīratvam is error and how do you

get aśarīratvam; not by dying. So what is required is to know the fact that
aham Ātma nitya-śarīra sambandha varjitaḥ asmi. I am ever free from śarīra-
saṁbanda. Just as the waker is not connected to any dream-event; even at the
time of dream; similarly even at the time of saṁsāra, I am aśarīraḥ only.
Therefore jīvan-mukti is possible or not? It is very much possible. Jīvan-muktaḥ
is saśarīraḥ or aśarīraḥ; aśarīraḥ only. Ajñāni is aśarīraḥ or saśarīraḥ? Here only
we get the doubt. Ajñāni aśarīraḥ or saśarīraḥ? What will we say. We will say
ajñāni is saśarīraḥ; Śankarācārya says ajñāni is also aśarīraḥ; but ajñāni thinks
he is saśarīraḥ. Therefore a correction is required. A screw is loose here (do not
mistake me). That is to be set right only. There is no necessity of pulling and
pushing and ātma and śarīram; and making ātma-saśarīraḥ. Therefore what we
require is a shift in the understanding. Therefore aśarīraḥ kathaṁ siddhyati?
Jñānēna ēva siddhyati. Na tu upāsanēna; and yasya ētat jñānam sāṁbhutam;
saḥ jīvan muktaḥ; jīvan muktaḥ api aśarīraḥ ēva; tasya śarīra abhimāna abhāvāt.
Therefore what is the conclusion. Jīvan mukti is possible.
And in support of that Śankarācārya again quotes Bṛhadāraṇayaka

vākyam; gives an example, (35.00)
तदे ष श्लोको भिनत । यदा सिे प्रमुच्यन्द्ते कामा येऽस्य हृदद भश्रतााः । अथ मत्योऽमृतो भित्यत्र ब्रह्म समश्नुत इनत ।
तद्यथानहनिल्िनयिी िल्मीके मृता प्रत्यस्ता शयीतैिमेिेदं शरीरं शेतऽे थायमशरीरोऽमृताः प्राणो ब्रह्मैि तेज एि सोऽहं भगिते
सहस्रं ददामीनत होिाच जिको िैदेहाः ॥ बृहत्. ४.४.७ ॥
tadēṣa ślōkō bhavati | yadā sarvē pramucyantē kāmā yē:'sya hrdi śritāḥ | atha martyō:'mrtō
bhavatyatra brahma samaśnuta iti | tadyathāhinirlvayanī valmīkē mrtā pratyastā
śayītaivamēvēdaṁ śarīraṁ śētē:'thāyamaśarīrō:'mrtaḥ prāṇō brahmaiva tēja ēva sō:'haṁ
bhagavatē sahasraṁ dadāmīti hōvāca janakō vaidēhaḥ || brhat. 4.4.7 ||
He gives the example of the snake and its skin. So the snake removes its
skin and the skin continues to be there very close to the snake and because the
snake does not have the abhimāna whatever happens to the skin the snake is
unaffected. So also the jñāni continues to be in the body, whatever happens to
his body he does not claim as happening to him. Not that the body becomes
free from karma. The body has got its own course, just as the snake-skin has
got its own course. Sometime it is even exported. That is its prārabdham.
Similarly, karma anusarēṇa, prārabdha vēgēna, śarīrasya sukha duḥkhadikam

bhavatiː but a jñāni never claims body’s pleasure and pain as his pleasures and
pains. He says ahaṁ nitya aśarīraḥ; duḥkhēṣvanudvignamanāḥ sukhēṣu
vigatasprhaḥ | vītarāgabhayakrōdhaḥ sthitadhīrmunirucyatē, etc. And
therefore aśarīratvam mōkṣaḥ; mōkṣaḥ nitya siddhaḥ; by jñānam it is owned up
by upāsana it need not be accomplished. This is the first argument. Mōkṣaḥ na
upāsanā janyaḥ; why, aśarīratā-rūpa mōkṣasya siddhatvāt.
Now let us go to the second-argument. Mōkṣa cannot be Upāsana

phalaṁ . Why, Here Śaṅkarācārya gives another definition of mōkṣa. What is the
first definition? Aśarīratā mōkṣaḥ, he has established. Now the second
definition of mōkṣa is Brahma-bhāvaḥ hi mōkṣaḥ. Do not ask me which
definition is correct. Both definitions are correct. From different angles, he is
giving. Why do we give such a definition, because every āstika-philosopher
accepts mōkṣa is nityaḥ. They all uniformly accept that mōkṣa must be nityaṁ,
because they are already tired of svarga, family, children, etc. and other
phalaṁs. Seeing al this, they understood that they are all anityam. And no one
wants anitya phalaṁ. Yēhi sāṁsparśajā bhōgāḥ, duḥkha yōna ēva tē;
ādyantavanta kauntēya na tēṣu ramatē budhaḥ; and sāṅkya nyāya vaiśēṣika
and all the people do not want any anitya phalaṁ. It is to get out of this
mortality they are talking about mōkṣa. Therefore in all philosophies, mōkṣa is
nityaḥ.
And from scriptures we come to know that there is only one nitya-vastu,
and what is that: Brahma. As we saw in Tatva Bōdha. Nitya vastu. Tat
vyatiriktam sarvaṁ anityam. Ayaṁ ēva hi nitya anitya vastu vivēkaḥ; virāga kaḥ.
Everybody wants mōkṣa to be nityaḥ. There is only one thing that is nityaː that
is Brahman. That means what: Hence mōkṣa and Brahman are one and the
same. Mōkṣa is nityaḥ, Brahman is nityaḥ; and we have got only one nitya-
vastuː and therefore Brahman must be mōkṣa and mōkṣa must be Brahman.
Therefore, mōkṣa-prāptiḥ is equal to Brahma prāptiḥ. In Purāṇās and all they
talk about this only as Īśvara prāptiḥ; the Brahman of the upaniṣad is the Īśvara
of the purāṇās; Bhakta attained Bhagavān; attained Viṣṇuː attained aikyaṁ with

Śiva etc. What is all this? Because they equate mōkṣa with Bhagavān; mōkṣa is
nityaḥ and Bhagavān is nityaḥ; therefore both are identical.
Now what is our discussion? Can mōkṣa be the Upāsana-phalaṁ? Now we

have to rearrange our question? What is that? Can Brahman be Upāsana
phalaṁ. Why, because Brahman and mōkṣa are identical. Therefore our
analysis is can Brahman be Upāsana-phalaṁ. Brāhmaṇa ēva mōkṣa rūpatvāt,
Brahma bhāvatva mōkṣatvāt; Brahma bhāvaḥ upāsanēna labhyatē vā na vā?
For this purpose, Śaṅkarācārya says any karma and Upāsana can
produce four types of phalaṁ. Any karma or upāsana whether it is ordinary
karma and upāsana or extra-ordinary karma and upāsana I do not care, any
karma or upāsana can produce only catur-vidha phalanām ēva satvāt. What are
the four types of karma-phalaṁ? When I say karma-phalaṁ you should
remember to include upāsana also in your mind.
What are the four types of karma phalaṁ? No.1 āptiḥ; āptiḥ means
reaching; so by doing action we can reach a place; just as we have reached
āstika samājam by the action of travelling. Therefore, āptiḥ or reaching is No.1.
No.2 utpattiḥ, you yourself will know; it means production; you can
produce something; like a farmer, he does not reach somewhere, staying
wherever he is, he sows the seeds and in due course, he produces lot of grains;
lot or crops; therefore production, all types of factories do karma for what;
producing various things. So utpattiḥ is the second-phalaṁ.
What is the third phalaṁ? Vikāraḥ or modification or conversion; so you

convert one thing into another; just as a bangle is melted and reconverted into
chain. Or they take all kinds of rubbish and from waste-products they produce
what; sometimes gas; sometimes paper; they are all what? Conversion of waste
product into useful thing. Conversion of cow-dung etc., into gōbar gas. All these
are vikāraḥ. Conversion, modification.
What is the fourth one? Sāṁskāraḥ or purification. There is so many

factories which exclusively concentrate on purification of oil; purification of this

or that; there the thing is there, it is not modified; but whatever impurities are
there, they are only removed; it is purified. When they get the various ores from
the earth/mines, iron ore, gold etc., they all go to the Refineries etc. and they go
through various processes and ultimately electrolytic-purification and you get
pure gold. 99.9999% they say; they do not say 100; that is why we are human
beings, because we cannot do 100%. So this is called sāṁskāraḥ. So āptiḥ,
utpattiḥ; vikāraḥ; sāṁskāraḥ; these are the four types of karma-phalaṁ.
Now the question is can Brahman come under any of the four things?
Can Brahman come under any of the four? Because what is mōkṣa? Brahma
prāptiḥ mōkṣaḥ. So if Brahma can come under āptiḥ, utpattiḥ, vikāraḥ,
sāṁskāra, we can do karma. Let us see one by one.
First Brahman-reaching, is out of question. Āptiḥ is impossible. Why, you

are all experts! Brahmaṇaḥ sarvagatatvād. Akkada undē pānduraṇgude
ikkada unnāduː Pānduraṅga who is in Pandarpur, he is here also . It is all nice
to hear; then they say; therefore, let us all go to Pandarpur! . What therefore?;
I do not understand this ‘therefore-logic’. . If the Pānduraṅga who is there, is
also here, you need not go anywhere; you can be here itself. Similarly, you say
that Brahman is all-pervading and mōkṣa is attaining Brahman. And what
should you do for that? You have to die . And thereafter śukla-gati,
uttarāyaṅa-mārgaḥ; and the jīva has to travel and go to some lōka and
thereafterwards merge into that Bhagavān. Which Bhagavān; who is here! 
Therefore all-pervasiveness and travel are contradiction. Tasmāt Brahma āpyaṁ
na bhavati. Brahman cannot be reached; Brahman need not be reached. (It is
convenient and looks good. As such lazy! , So therefore many people argue,
why go to temple? Anyway I do not want to get into that topic!.
The second is what? Production. By karma and upāsana you can produce
puṇyam; you can produce a better śariram; you can produce so many things.
But can Brahman be produced? There is no question of utpatti in the case of
Brahman, because nitya siddhatvāt Brahmaṇaḥ; So Brahma na āpyaṁ;
sarvagatatvāt; Brahma na utpādyaṁ, nitya siddhatvāt. So therefore when will
we attain mōkṣa? They ask after listening to all this. Whenever you attain

Brahma; idiocracy; Brahman is nitya siddam. He says I have understood Svamiji;

but still he is asking when will I get? What to say? It is like അഞ്നലമന്നത
ഞാന് അറിയ ം, മഞ്ഞളുപ ാലെ ലെളുത്തിരിക് ം. (añnamennatu ñān-aṟiyuṁ,
maññaḷupōle veḷuttirikkuṁ).‌This means Vēdānta is not understood nor mōkṣa.

It is whose mistake? Poor śiśya why should he be blamed. Therefore the second
karma-phala is also not possible.
What is the third one? Vikāraḥ; Vikāraḥ can Brahman be the result of
modification. That is Jīvātma gradually undergoes transformation and grows
(body is only getting bigger!); and he grows and grows and grows like
Añjanēya taking viśva-rūpa and one day you have attained infinite growth; with
a modification; the jīvātma-waste becomes the paramātma-product. No
Brahman is not the end-product of any process, because Brahmaṇaḥ
avikāryatvād.
अव्यक्तोऽयमसचन्द्त्योऽयमविकार्योऽयमुच्यते ।
तस्मादे िं निददत्िैिं िािुशोसचतुमहनसस ॥ गीता २.२५ ॥
avyaktō:'yamacintyō:'yamavikāryō:'yamucyatē |
tasmādēvaṁ viditvainaṁ nānuśōcitumarhasi || Gīta 2.25 ||
There is no modification possible, with regard to Brahman; therefore third

karma-phalaṁ is also out. Then what is the one left out?
Fourth one; sāṁskāraḥ; Why can’t we say that you go on purifying; by

karma-yōga by upāsana by pūja japa tapa etc. You go on rubbing – off the
impurities and when all the impurities are gone, you Jīvātma becomes
Paramātma like the shining gold; becomes shining one after removal of
impurities etc. So what does the guru do daily. Using sand-paper, he rubs on
and on the śiśya and now the śiśya is free of all off all the rust!. In the śāstra the
gold example is also given, because previously the gold was not shining, and it
goes through the purificatory-process and now the gold becomes the shining
one. Similarly, the jīvātma by the removal of impurities, becomes the
paramātma. It is sounding good. What is to be seen is not whether it is good;
but whether it is right or wrong. Whether it is good or not is not the question;
this is not an entertainment. If it is entertainment, we can ask which one is

better, whether it is Kuchipudi or Bharata Nātyam. We are discussing facts.

Therefore whether it is good or bad is not the question. Whether it is right or
wrong is the question. Śaṅkarācārya says Brahmaṇaḥ is nitya śuddhatvād.
There is no question of removal of impurities.
अप्राणोहि‌अमनााः‌शब्र
ु ाः‌शध्
ु दाः,‌न‌पर्यगात ्‌शक्र
ु ं ‌अक.‌शध्
ु दम ्‌अपाप‌विध्दम ्.‌
aprāṇōhi amanāḥ śubraḥ śudhdaḥ, na paryagāt śukraṁ aka. śudhdam apāpa vidhdam.
In the śāstra, saṁskāra is sub-divided into two, one is removal of impurities and
another additional of virtue. It is like śarīra saṁskāram. So when we want to the
śarīra-saṁskāram, refinement of the body; in the bathroom we take a good
bath; that is one part of the sāṁskāraḥ; removal of impurities by putting all
kinds of things. Soap, shampoo etc. This is dōṣa-apanayana rūpa sāṁskāraḥ;
refinement in the form of dōṣa-apanayanam; removal of impurities and after
finishing the bath, standing in front of the mirror, we do lot of other things (for
some people it takes hours) which is called Guṇa-ādhāna rūpa sāṁskāraḥ;
addition of various things. Powder, snow, scent, lipstick, etc. these are all guṇa
ādhānaṁ. In the case of Brahman, there is no dōṣa-apanayanam bhavati, nitya-
śuddhatvād; guṇa ādhānam na bhavati nirguṇatvāt. Brahma viṣayē, dōṣa
apanayanam na bhavatiː nirduṣṭatvāt; guṇa ādhānaṁ api na bhavati,
nirguṇatvāt. Therefore, Brahman cannot be saṁskāryaḥ also. Therefore
Brahman is not āpti-viṣayaḥ, utpatti-viṣayaḥ; saṁskāra-viṣayaḥ; and vikāra-
viṣayaḥ. Tasmāt Brahma catur-vida karma-phala vilakṣaṇaḥ. Therefore
Brahman is different from all the four types of karma-phalaṁ. Therefore, Mōkṣa
is different from all four types of karma-phalaṁ. Therefore, mōkṣa is different
from upāsana-phalaṁ also. Therefore Brahma upāsanēna mōkṣaḥ siddhyati iti
vaktuṁ na śakyatē. One can never say that. More in the next class.


athātō brahmajijñāsā ||
samanvayāt and Śaṅkarācārya pointed out that the word tu signifies the
negation of all other dārśanams. And as a part of that commentary,
Śaṅkarācārya negated pūrva-mīmāṁsaka-matam in the form of Bhāṭṭa-mata
niṣēdhaḥ and Prābhākara-mata niṣēdhaḥ. And now Śaṅkarācārya has come to
Vrttikāra-mata niṣēdhaḥ. The main feature or argument of Vrttikāra is that
Brahma-jñānam cannot give mōkṣa. After Brahma-jñānam one has to practice
Brahma-upāsanam, which will produce special puṇyam and through that
special puṇyam one attains mōkṣa. So, Brahma-upāsanēna mōkṣaḥ is the main
contention of Vrttikāra. Śaṅkarācārya has started negation of Vrttikāra-matam.
1) The first point that we are seeing is Brahma upāsanēna mōkṣaḥ na

bhavati. Mōkṣa cannot be attained through Brahma upāsana. To establish this
Śaṅkarācārya gave two different definitions of mōkṣa and through both the
definitions, Śaṅkarācārya pointed out that such a mōkṣa cannot be the result of
upāsanam. The first definition we saw was aśarīratā hi (one word) mōkṣaḥ. And
we also saw elaborately that if mōkṣam is aśarīratvam then that aśarīratvam
cannot be attained through any upāsana, because aśarīratvam is our intrinsic-
nature. And svarūpam is siddham. Siddhasya svarūpasya upāsana sādhyatvam
nāsti.
2) And then the second definition he gave was Brahma-bhāvaḥ hi
mōkṣaḥ. Mōkṣa is identical with Brahman. And if mōkṣa is in the form Brahman

then it cannot be upāsana-phalaṁ, because, upāsana-phalaṁ comes under four

types – āptiḥ, utpattiḥ, vikāraḥ saṁskāraḥ; either in the form of reaching, or
producing, or modifying, or purifying. In the case of Brahman, all the four are
not possible. Brahma na āpti viṣayaḥ, sarvagatatvāt, Brahma na utpatti viṣayaḥ,
nitya-siddhatvāt, Brahma na vikāra viṣayaḥ, avikaryatvāt, Brahma na saṁskāra
viṣayaḥ, nitya-śuddhatvāt. And therefore, Brahman is caturvidha karma-phala
vilakṣaṇam. Brahman is different from all the four type of karma-phalaṁ . And
upāsana also comes under a type of karma alone. And therefore, we can say,
Brahma is not upāsana-phalaṁ also. And Brahman being mōkṣaḥ, mōkṣa is not
upāsana-phalaṁ . So thus, because of these two definitions of mōkṣa, we come
to the conclusion that mōkṣa is not Brahma upāsana-phalaṁ . This is the first
argument. Up to this we had seen in the last class.
3) Now I am going to the second argument. This is called
abhyupētya-vādaḥ, an assumption. Abhyupētya-vādaḥ means assuming
something and showing that the pūrva-pakṣi is wrong. What is that
assumption? Suppose, we say for the sake of the argument, we assume that
mōkṣa is the result of upāsana. Then what will be the nature of mōkṣaḥ? You
can easily guess; if mōkṣa is the result of upāsanam, it will certainly have a
beginning because any result has a beginning because the result is
accomplished by following a sādhana. So, if upāsana-phalaṁ is mōkṣa, then
before upāsana, mōkṣa was there or not? You have just now said that mōkṣa is
upāsana-phalaṁ, so before doing upāsana mōkṣa was not there and even at
the time of upāsana there is no mōkṣa; after upāsana alone a puṇya is
generated and mōkṣa comes. This clearly shows mōkṣa has a beginning. You
know the hereafter arguments. What are those arguments?
जातस्य नह ध्रुिो मृत्युध्रुनिं जन्द्म मृतस्य च । ‌

jātasya hi dhruvō mrtyurdhruvaṁ janma mrtasya ca ||| Gītā 2-27 ||
4) Whatever has beginning will certainly have an end. Therefore, the

upāsana-phala-rūpa mōkṣaḥ will be anitya-mōkṣaḥ. Gauḍapāda beautifully tells
this in his Māṇḍūkya kārikā –

अिादे रन्द्तित्त्िं च संसारस्य ि सेत्स्यनत ।

अिन्द्तता चाऽऽददमतो मोक्षस्य ि भनिष्यनत ॥ ३० ॥
anādērantavattvaṁ ca saṁsārasya na sētsyati |
anantatā cā’’dimatō mōkṣasya na bhaviṣyati || Māṇḍūkya kārikā 4- 30 ||
5) Ādimataḥ mōkṣasya anantatā na bhavati. Anantatā means eternity.

Eternity is not possible for a mōkṣa, which has beginning after the practice of
upāsana. And therefore, mōkṣa will become anityam. And fortunately or
unfortunately, all philosophers have agreed commonly that mōkṣa has to be
nityaḥ. The very purpose of mōkṣa-śāstra, as I said in the last class, is to go out
of saṁsāra represented by mortality. Svargam anityam, karma-phalaṁ anityam,
grham anityam etc., after suffering, due to mortality, he has come to a mōkṣa
hoping that in mōkṣa the problem of mortality won’t be there, yamaḥ na
kaṭākṣayē iti krtvā, thinking that yama won’t come he went there. Upāsana-
phala-rūpa mōkṣē api yamaḥ vartatē vā na vā? There Yama is gracefully sitting.
And in the cāndōgyōpaniṣat it is said –
तद्यथेह कमनद्धजतो लोकाः क्षीयते एिमेिामुत्र पुण्यद्धजतो लोकाः क्षीयते ……. ‌॥ ६ ॥

tadyathēha karmacitō lōkaḥ kṣīyatē ēvamēvāmutra puṇyacitō lōkaḥ kṣīyatē ……. ||
cāndōgyōpaniṣad 8-1-6 ||
6) Whatever acquired through karma is destroyed here and whatever

is acquired through puṇyam in the other lōka that is also anitya. So, puṇya-
phalaṁ is anityam has been said clearly and you are saying upāsana produces
puṇyam and puṇyam produces nitya-mōkṣaḥ that is impossible. And therefore,
what is the conclusion? Nitya-mōkṣaḥ upāsana-phalaṁ bhavitum na arhati;
upāsana-phalasya anityatvāt. In fact, the word phalaṁ, Śaṅkarācārya tells
somewhere, the very word phalaṁ itself means phalgutayā līyatē iti phalaṁ .
फल्गुतया लयम् अदशनिं गच्छतीनत फलनििनचिम्

phalgutayā layam adarśanaṁ gacchatīti phalanirvacanam || Gītā śāṅkarabhāṣyam 18-12 ||
7) that which becomes rotten and gets destroyed in time is called

phalaṁ. Phalgutayā līyatē iti phalaṁ. Phalgu means alpam, phalgu
tucchamasāraṁ ca. It will become destroyed by getting rotten. If mōkṣa is
upāsana-phalaṁ, then it will be anityaḥ. This is the second argument called
abhyupētya-vādaḥ.

8) Now we are going to the third argument. In the third argument

Śaṅkarācārya says is upāsana cannot be and it is not the theme of Vēdānta.
Upāsana Vēdāntasya tātparyam bhavitum na arhati. Why?
(a) The first reason is that mīmāṁsā or samanvaya shows that
tātparyam is not upāsana. For this we already have used ṣaḍliṅgāni we saw.
And by analyzing the Vēdānta by the method of ṣaḍliṅgaiḥ tātparya-nirṇayaḥ it
is very clear that Vēdānta talks about owning up a mōkṣa, which is here and
now. Vēdānta does not talk about accomplishing something new in future. So,
this can be proved through upakrama, upasaṁhāra abhyāsaḥ, apūrvatā,
phalaṁ ārtha-vādaḥ upapattiḥ. All this we saw in the introduction itself. The
mahā-vākyam which is central-part of Vēdānta says Tat tvam asi. By using the
present tense, Vēdānta clearly shows that mōkṣa is in the present. Mōkṣa is
here and now. If it is not here and now, it can never be anywhere, at any time.
Either you are nitya-muktaḥ or you are nitya-baddhaḥ. Mōkṣa that comes in the
future cannot be nityam at all. So thus, samanvayēna nirṇīyatē Vēdāntasya
tātparyam Brahmaṇi ēva na tu upāsanāyām. Not only that in Brhadāraṇyaka
the upaniṣat talks about karma-phalaṁ and upāsana-phalaṁ .
……..पुत्रण
े ैि जय्यो िान्द्येि कमनणा कमनणा नपतृलोको निद्यया दे िलोको ……. ॥ १६ ॥
…….putrēṇaiva jayyō nānyēna karmaṇā | karmaṇā pitrlōkaḥ | vidyayā dēvalōkaḥ …….| ||
By having a child, who is āstika and who believes in karma and who performs
karma for the father, (if such a son is there ) through that putra a father can
get the benefit of manuṣya janma once again. Putrēṇa ayam lōka jayyaḥ. Then
karmaṇā pitrlōkaḥ. By doing karmas one will go to svargalōka. And vidyayā
upāsanēna dēvalōkaḥ means Brahma-lōkaḥ. Like this three lōkas have been
talked about. Manuṣya-lōkaḥ, putrasya-phalaṁ, svarga-lōkaḥ, karmaṇaḥ-
phalaṁ, Brahma-lōkaḥ upāsanasya phalaṁ . Having enumerated karma-
phalaṁ and upāsana-phalaṁ the Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat glorifies a saṁnyāsi
and it says –
…..पुत्रैषणायाश्च नििैषणायाश्च लोकैषणायाश्च व्युत्थायाथ भभक्षाचयं चरनन्द्त …|

……. putraiṣaṇāyāśca vittaiṣaṇāyāśca lōkaiṣaṇāyāśca vyutthā ātha bhikṣācaryaṁ caranti
…..| || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 3-5-1 ||

The saṁnyāsi says I don’t want putra-phalaṁ, I don’t want karma-phalaṁ, I

don’t want even upāsana-phalaṁ, so saying he goes to mōkṣa, he seeks mōkṣa.
So, very indirect argument. So, saying that I don’t want upāsana-phalaṁ, he
seeks out mōkṣa. What do you understand by this? Can you get the argument?
Having renounced the upāsana-phalaṁ, he is going after mōkṣa, which
indicates mōkṣa will not come under upāsana-phalaṁ . Since a saṁnyāsi rejects
upāsana-phalaṁ and goes in search of mōkṣa, mōkṣa cannot come under
upāsana-phalaṁ and therefore Vēdānta does not deal with karma-phalaṁ,
upāsana-phalaṁ does not deal with upāsana-phalaṁ, Vēdānta deals with
mōkṣa, which is neither karma nor upāsana. So, how can you bring in karma
and upāsana in Vēdānta. And therefore, upāsana is not the tātparyam. Earlier I
said samanvayāt upāsana is not the tātparyam. Now I say, mōkṣasya upāsana-
phala lakṣaṇatvāt, upāsana is not the tātparyam.
(a) Then the next very interesting and technical reason, Śaṅkarācārya gives
is this. The entire Vēda is divided into two portions – one is karma-kāṇḍa
(remember, upāsana-kāṇḍa is also included), the Vēda-pūrva and jñāna-kāṇḍa
is Vēda antaḥ. The Vēda-pūrva is analyzed by Jaimini in his sūtra, pūrva-
mīmāṁsā-sūtrāṇi, which begins with athātō dharma jijñāsā. Thereafterwards,
jñāna-kāṇḍa or Vēda-anta is analyzed by Vyāsācārya and he introduces by
saying athātō Brahma-jijñāsā. That only we are studying now. So, athātō
dharma jijñāsā analyzes Vēda-pūrva-bhāga and athātō Brahma-jijñāsā analyzes
Vēda -anta-bhāga. Now Śaṅkarācārya is asking the question, ‘All the karmas
and upāsanas should be analyzed in the Vēda-pūrva or Vēdaānta?’ And
Śaṅkarācārya says all the karmas and upāsanas should be analyzed in Vēda -
pūrva, i.e., karma-kāṇḍa. Why is it so? Because, karma produces dharma or
puṇyam; upāsana also produces dharma or puṇyam. Therefore, everything
connected with dharma should be analyzed in the pūrva-bhāga. Why? Because
the introductory-sūtra itself is athātō dharma jijñāsā.
Now, if Vēdānta deals with mōkṣa and if mōkṣa is upāsana-phalaṁ; then if

Vēdānta is also dealing with upāsana, then Vēdānta also ought to have come

under Vēda -pūrva alone athātō-dharma-jijñāsā. In fact, Vyāsācārya would not

have any work at all, because Vēdānta will become part of what; athātō dharma
jijñāsā. Because, according to you Vēdānta also is dealing with upāsana and
upāsana is going to produce puṇyam and therefore Śaṅkarācārya says if
Vēdānta is dealing with upāsana and dharma and puṇyam, Vēdānta would not
have become separate-śāstram, Vēdānta would have become a part of pūrva-
mīmāṁsā-sūtram of Jaimini. In the end portion of Jaimini-sūtras a paragraph or
even a chapter could have been added. Atha Brahma upāsanā. So,
Hiraṇyagarbha upāsana etc., were dealt with and at the end of pūrva-mīmāṁsā-
sūtrāṇi there will be another chapter dealing with Brahma-upāsana, which will
also produce puṇyam, which will also produce mōkṣa. Vyāsācārya would not
have written. But what do we find? In the pūrva-mīmāṁsā-sūtram, Vēdānta is
not included, Vyāsācārya chose to write a separate Brahma-sūtra. Why? It is
only because Vēdānta has nothing to do with dharma. Vēdānta is dealing with
an ātmā, which is
अन्द्यत्र िमानदन्द्यत्रािमानदन्द्यत्रास्मात्कृताकृतात् ।
………… ॥ १४ ॥
anyatra dharmād anyatrādharmād anyatrāsmāt rtā rtāt |
……..| || Kaṭhōpaniṣat 1-2-14 ||
In Vēdānt-śāstram, there is neither dharma nor adharma, and it talks about

ātmā, which transcends dharmādharma.
यदा पश्याः पश्यते रुक्प्मिणं कतानरमीशं पुरुषं ब्रह्मयोनिम् ।

तदा निद्वान्द्पुण्यपापे नििूय निरञ्जिाः परमं साम्यमुपैनत ॥ ३ ॥
yadā paśyaḥ paśyatē rukmavarṇaṁ
kartāramīśaṁ puruṣaṁ brahmayōnim |
tadā vidvān puṇyapāpē vidhūya
nirañjanaḥ paramaṁ sāmyamupaiti || Muṇḍakōpaniṣat 3-1-3||
Vēdānta deals with a mōkṣa or a vidvān who renounces both puṇyam and
pāpam, puṇya-pāpē vidhūya. In the Bhagavad Gītā –
सिनिमानन्द्पररत्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज ।

. ......॥ ६६ ॥
sarvadharmānparityajya māmēkaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja
……| || Gītā 18-66 ||

Therefore, Vēdānta does not deal with dharma; only pūrva-bhāga deals with
dharma. Vrttikāraḥ himself tells karma produces dharma or puṇyam and
upāsana also produces dharma or puṇyam, how can that dharma-sambandha
upāsana be part of Brahma-jijñāsā? And therefore, dharma-vilakṣaṇatvāt,
upāsana is not the tātparyam of Vēdānta. So this is the third argument. The first
argument is mōkṣa cannot be upāsana-phalaṁ . The second argument is if
mōkṣa is upāsana-phalaṁ then it will be anityam. Then the third argument is
upāsana cannot be the central theme of Vēdānta, because of the reasons we
saw.
Now let us go to the fourth argument. Brahma-upāsana itself is not possible.

The very question whether Brahma-upāsana will give mōkṣa or not will come
only if Brahman is available for upāsana. We say Brahma-upāsana itself is
horse-horn, it is not possible. Why? Because the upaniṣats very clearly say ‘tat
tvam asi’; Brahman itself is you, you are yourself Brahman, which means
Brahman is not an object at all. It is the upāsaka’s svarūpam. It is the very
nature of the upāsaka. How can the upāsaka-Brahman become upāsya-
Brahman? Kartr-karma virōdhāt. Subject can never be an object and object can
never the subject; subject is eternally the subject and object is eternally the
object, they cannot be interchanged. All this we saw in Tattva-bōdha. Drgēva na
tu drśyatē. Therefore, nobody can meditate or do upāsana upon Brahman,
including God. Bhagavān also can see everything except what; his own eyes.
You can ask Krṣṇā whether he can do it? Krṣṇā may be God, may be avatāra;
therefore, may be he has got penetrating vision,
बहूनि मे व्यतीतानि जन्द्मानि ति चाजुनि ।

तान्द्यहं िेद सिानभण ि त्िं िेत्थ परन्द्तप ॥ गीता ०४.०५ ॥
bahūni mē vyatītāni janmāni tava cārjuna |
tānyahaṁ vēda sarvāṇi na tvaṁ vēttha parantapa || Gītā 04.05 ||
Krṣṇā might have the X-ray vision to see the past, present and future, even that
Krṣṇā or Rāma with his eyes cannot see one thing, what is that; his own eyes.
Therefore, Brahman cannot be an object of upāsana. Therefore, your very basic
topic has collapsed. It is illogical to talk of Brahma-upāsana. Even if you don’t

accept my logic, you don’t accept my intellect, then I will tell you ‘You yourself
look at the upaniṣat. The upaniṣat very clearly says –
यद्वाचािभ्युददतं येि िागभ्युद्यते ।

तदे ि ब्रह्म त्िं निद्धि िेदं यदददमुपासते ॥ 1.५ ॥
yadvācā’nabhyuditaṁ yēna vāgabhyudyatē |
tadēva Brahma tvaṁ viddhi nēdaṁ yadidamupāsatē || Kēnōpaniṣat 1-5||
So, the student asks for Brahman, the teacher very clearly says whatever you
meditate upon is not Brahman, whether it is ordinary or extraordinary, whether
it is mundane or mysterious. Nēdaṁ yadidamupāsatē.
यच्चक्षुषा ि पश्यनत येि चक्षूंनष पश्यनत ।

तदे ि ब्रह्म त्िं निद्धि िेदं यदददमुपासते ॥ 1.७ ॥
yaccakṣuṣā na paśyati yēna cakṣū̐ṣi paśyati |
यत्प्राणेि ि प्राभणनत येि प्राणाः प्रणीयते ।

तदे ि ब्रह्म त्िं निद्धि िेदं यदददमुपासते ॥ ९ ॥
yatprāṇēna na prāṇiti yēna prāṇaḥ praṇīyatē |
So thus, it repeatedly says, (even if you have missed the earlier one due to sleep
and did not fall in the ears. ) the meditated upon is not Brahman, it is anātmā,
the mediator is Brahman. Therefore, where is the question of Brahma-
upāsanam and Brahma-upāsanam producing mōkṣa? Therefore, what is the
fourth argument? Brahma-upāsanam is not possible. Why? Brāhmaṇaḥ
aviṣayatvāt, aviṣayam means what being not an object; therefore Brahma-
upāsanam na sambhavati.
(a) Then the pūrva-pakṣi, the Vrttikāraḥ comes and asks a very very
legitimate question. It is an aside, an extension of the fourth argument. What is
the argument we give? Brahma-upāsanam na sambhavati. Why? Because the
upaniṣat Brahman is not an object says upāsanam. Then Vrttikāra says you are
in trouble. If you say Brahman is not an object and therefore, Brahma upāsana
is not possible then I will say Brahma-jñānam is also not possible because
jñānam indicates Brahman to become an object of knowledge. (We are quoting
and he is also quoting) He quotes “The upaniṣat itself clearly says” –

अन्द्यदे ि तनद्वददतादथो अनिददतादधि । ………. ॥ ४ ॥

anyadēva tadviditādathō aviditādadhi …… ||| Kēnōpaniṣat 1-4||
यस्यामतं तस्य मतं मतं यस्य ि िेद साः ।

अनिज्ञातं निजाितां निज्ञातमनिजािताम् ॥ ३ ॥
yasyāmataṁ tasya mataṁ mataṁ yasya na Vēdasaḥ |
avijñātaṁ vijānatāṁ vijñātamavijānatām || Kēnōpaniṣat 2-3 ||
The upaniṣat clearly says Brahman is not even an object of knowledge.

Therefore, if you say Brahma-upāsanam is not possible, then Brahma-jñānam is
also not possible. So, then how can you say Brahma-jñānēna mōkṣaḥ? You say
that I am wrong I accept it, now you accept you are also wrong. So, did you get
the question? Then only answer will be meaningful. Brahma-upāsanēna na
mōkṣaḥ, because Brahma-upāsanam is impossible. For that pūrva-pakṣi says
Brahma-jñānēna mōkṣaḥ also you cannot say, because Brahma-jñānam is also
not possible. Why? Brahmaṇaḥ apramēyatvāt, aviṣayatvāt, avijñēyatvāt. And
suppose you accept Brahma-jñānam is impossible then you cannot say Vēdānta
is a pramāṇam for Brahma-jñānam. So, if you say upāsana is not possible, (who
says, Vrttikāra) I will argue that Brahma-jñānam is also not possible. If Brahma-
jñānam is not possible, then śāstram cannot be pramāṇam for Brahma-jñānam.
Pramāyāḥ ēva asambhavēt, pramāṇasya pramāṇatvam katham siddhayēt? Let it
be. If you say śāstram is not pramāṇam, because Brahma-jñānam is not
possible then the very third sūtra will be in trouble, because the third sūtra says
śāstrayōnitvāt, in which it is said śāstram is the pramāṇam for Brahman. So are
you able to understand? I am thoroughly enjoying and hope you are also
enjoying! Jñānam is not possible and if jñānam is not possible then pramāṇam
is not required. And if you accept śāstram is not a pramāṇam then the third
sūtram is in trouble. This is the argument of Vrttikāra. He says then you cannot
say that Vēdānta cannot be pramāṇam for mōkṣa. If you say śāstram is not
pramāṇa the third sūtra gets dismissed. So, your wonderful interpretation of
fourth sūtra is causality of third sūtra. For that Śaṅkarācārya answers. Yes,
Brahma-jñānam is not possible. I have told this umpteen times, says
Śaṅkarācārya. Brahma-jñānam is not possible, in fact, Brahma-jñānam is not
required. It is not possible, it is not required because we have repeatedly said

that in the form of Consciousness, Brahman is all-the-time evident. It is Self-

shining, svayam siddhaḥ, Svayañjyōtiḥ bhavati.
अत्रायं पुरुषाः स्ियंज्योनतर् भिनत ।

atrāyaṁ puruṣaḥ svayañjyōtir bhavati || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 4-3-9 ||
ज्योनतषामनप तज्ज्योनतस्तमसाः परमुच्यते । ………. १३.१७ ॥

jyōtiṣāmapi tajjyōtistamasaḥ paramucyatē …….| || Gītā 13-17 ||
ि तत्र सूयो भानत ि चन्द्द्रतारकं िेमा निद्युतो भानन्द्त कुतोऽयमत्ग्िाः ।

तमेि भान्द्तमिुभानत सिं तस्य भासा सिनधमदं निभानत ॥ कठॊ. २.२.१५ ॥
na tatra sūryō bhāti na candratārakam nēmā vidyutō bhānti kutō’yamagniḥ | tamēva
bhāntamanubhāti sarvam tasya bhāsā sarvamidam vibhāti || Muṇḍakōpaniṣat 2-2-10,
Kaṭhōpaniṣat 2-2-15 ||
Nothing need reveal Consciousness, because Consciousness reveals everything

else. Tasya bhāsā sarvamidam vibhāti. Śāstram need not reveal Consciousness.
In fact, Consciousness reveals the śāstram. How are you able to listen to
Brahma-sūtra? You able to receive Brahma-sūtra because of Consciousness.
You do not say, Brahma sūtra I have heard, therefore Consciousness I must
have and that I am inferring. In fact, for doing the inference, you require
Consciousness. So, Consciousness need not be proved. Svataḥ siddhaḥ, nitya
siddhaḥ
स नित्योपलस्िस्िरूपोऽहमात्मा ॥ हस्तामलकीयम् ॥
sa nityōpalabdhisvarupō’hamātmā || Hastāmalakam ||
Therefore, in Gītā repeatedly Śaṅkarācārya says ātma-jñānam Brahma-jñānam

na sampādanīyam. “tasmāt ātmākāraṁ jñānam iti anupapannam” ||
“तस्मात् ज्ञािे यत्िो ि कतनव्याः, ककत तु अिात्मनि आत्मबुद्धिनििृिािेि” । ॥ गीता शाङ् करभाष्यम् १८-५० ॥
tasmāt jñānē yatnō na kartavyaḥ, kiṁ tu anātmani ātmabuddhinivrttāvēva” | || Gītā
Śāṅkara-bhāṣyam 18-50 ||
In life you need not work for gaining Brahma-jñānam. Svāmiji if you had said
this in the beginning, I would not have come to the class all these days .
Now the next question is “If Brahman or ātmā is Self-evident and therefore
jñānam is not required, then why do you talk about acquisition of Brahma-
jñānaṁ; and why do you talk about Brahma-jñānēna mōkṣaḥ; and why do you

say śāstram is pramāṇam?” You talk about Brahma-jñānam, you talk about
gaining of Brahma-jñānam – tadvijñānārthaṁ sa gurumēvābhigacchēt
samitpāṇiḥ, so you yourself said all these things and now u-turning.
Now Śaṅkarācārya says. These are all very important portions of

samanvaya-bhāṣyam. What a beautiful section! Śaṅkarācārya excels. He says
our problem is not knowing Brahman or ātman, our problem is the
misconception, the misunderstanding of ātman, which requires a correction.
The Self-evident ‘I’ is mistaken and mistakes have to be eliminated and the
unmistaken-‘I’ should remain.
ससिादे िाहधमत्यस्माद् युष्मिमो निनषध्यते ।

रज्ज्िाधमिानहिीयुनक्प्त्या तत् त्िधमत्याददशासिैाः ॥ उपदे श साहस्री १८.४ ॥
siddhādēvāhamityasmād yuṣmaddharmō niṣidhyatē | rajjvāmivāhidhīryu tyā tat
tvamityādiśāsanaiḥ || upadēśa sāhasrī 18-4 ||
When I use the word aham ‘I’, ‘I’, the-Self, am evident and the anātmā, the body-
mind is also evident. Two things are evident when I say ‘I’. What are the two
things? One is ‘I’, the Consciousness; how is it evident; is Self-evident and then
the body-mind-complex is also evident because what; because of the
Consciousness. So thus, two things are shining intimately – one is ‘I’, the
Consciousness and another is the material body-mind-complex. And when two
things are shining very intimately, what are we doing? The anātmā-dharma, the
properties of the body I am throwing upon Consciousness out of sheer
ignorance. Just like the elephant throws mud upon itself. Elephant should be
black, then it is beautiful. But the elephant throws mud on itself after the bath!
Similarly, we are unlocated, limitless Consciousness; and we enjoy that during
our suṣupti and then the moment we wake up, the first job that we do is
superimpose the limitations of the body and mind and say that I am a rāgī,
dvēṣī, kāmī, krōdhī, puruṣaḥ, strī, pitā, putraḥ, all those things. And therefore,
śāstram is required not to reveal Brahman; but śāstram is required not to reveal
Brahman but to remove the superimposed-limitations. This removal of
limitation is in the form of a vrtti, a mode in the mind, and that vrtti is called
aham Brahma asmi. So in the antaḥkaraṇam a thought should take place, a
cognition should takes place – what is that – aham Brahma asmi and when I say

aham Brahma asmi, I don’t know nothing new but I am free from the limitation
of the body and mind. So that dropping the limitation is an intellectual process
and this process is called ātma-jñānam. In this ātma-jñānaṁ, I am not seeing
anything new; I am not experiencing anything new. I am only removing
something old.
तं निद्याद्दुाःखसंयोगनियोगं योगसंसज्ञतम् ।.......... गीता २३ ॥

taṁ vidyād duḥkhasaṁyōgaviyōgaṁ yōgasaṁjñitam | || Gītā 6-23 ||
I am only dropping something and I am not acquiring, seeing, and experiencing

anything new. Therefore, ātma-jñānam is possible not in the form of a new
experience but in the form of intellectual elimination of limitation. Śaṅkarācārya
writes in his commentary.
“निरितषयाण्यप्रमातृकाभण च प्रमाणानि भनितुमहनन्द्तीनत” प्रमातृप्रमाणप्रमेयरूपनत्रपुदटनििृभिाः एि आत्मज्ञािम्.

प्रमातृप्रमाणप्रमेयरूपनत्रपुदटनििृभिाः, द्वै तनििृभिाः, निकल्पनििृभिाः, पररच्छे दनििृभिाः एि आत्मज्ञािम्.
“nirviṣayāṇyapramātrkāṇi ca pramāṇāni bhavitumarhantīti_

pramātrpramāṇapramēyarūpatripuṭinivrttiḥ ēva ātmajñānam.
pramātrpramāṇapramēyarūpatripuṭinivrttiḥ, dvaitanivrttiḥ, vikalpanivrttiḥ, paricchēdanivrttiḥ
ēva ātma-jñānam.
Such an ātma-jñānam can come only through śāstram. Therefore, śāstram is

pramāṇam. Therefore, śāstra-pramāṇam kidrśam? Brahma-bōdhaka-rūpēṇa
śāstram na pramāṇam; parantu adhyāsa nivartaka-rūpēṇa śāstram pramāṇam.
In fact, there is a sūtra also Śaṅkarācārya quotes in his Māṇḍūkya-kārikā-bhāṣya
vaitathya prakaraṇam - 32 –
‘ससिं तु निितनकत्िात्’ इत्यागमनिदां सूत्रम् ॥ ॥ द्रनिडाचायन ॥

‘siddhaṁ tu nivartakatvāt’ ityāgamavidāṁ sūtram || || Draviḍācārya ||
आिन्द्दनगररणा च माण्डू क्प्यकाररकाव्याख्यािे : उक्तेऽथे द्रनिडाचायनसम्मनतमाह – ससिास्थन्द्त्िनत । ब्रह्मभण पदािां

व्युत्पत्त्यभािेऽनप ससिमेि शास्त्रप्रामाण्यम्, अभािबोिििञ्पदसंसृष्टैाः स्थूलाददव्युत्पन्नपदै ाः भानिकद्वै ताभािबोििेि
अध्यस्तनिितनकत्िाददनत सूत्राथनाः.
ānandagiriṇā ca māṇḍūkyakārikāvyākhyānē : uktē’rthē draviḍācāryasammatimāha –
siddhāntviti | brahmaṇi padānāṁ vyutpattyabhāvē’pi siddhamēva śāstraprāmāṇyam,
abhāvabōdhananañpadasaṁsrṣṭaiḥ sthūlādivyutpannapadaiḥ bhāvikadvaitābhāvabōdhanēna
adhyastanivartakatvāditi sūtrārthaḥ.

Śāstram is a pramāṇam not because it reveals Brahman but because it removes

the superimposed limitations. And therefore, ātma-jñānam is possible or not?
Very much possible. Therefore, śāstram is pramāṇam or not? Śāstram is
pramāṇam. Therefore, gurū-ūpasadanam, should you come to next class or
not? Happily you can come. That is why such a pramāṇam is called niṣēdha-
rūpa pramāṇam. With this the fourth argument is over. Brahma-upāsanam is
impossible, whereas Brahma-jñānam is possible in negative form (niṣēdha-
rūpa). More arguments later.


samanvayāt and Śaṅkarācārya pointed out that tu signifies the negation of all
pūrva-pakṣas and as a sample Śaṅkarācārya takes up certain pūrva-pakṣas for
negation. He negated two types of pūrva-mīmāṁsā matams viz., Bhāṭṭa-matam
and Prābhākara-matam and now he is negating Vrttikāra-matam. The main
feature of Vrttikāra-matam is Brahma-jñānēna mōkṣaḥ na bhavati, parantu
Brahma upāsanēna ēva mōkṣaḥ. This Vrttikāra-matam Śaṅkarācārya is negating
elaborately. We have seen some of the arguments against Vrttikāraḥ.
(1) Firstly, Śaṅkarācārya said mōkṣa cannot be upāsana-phalaṁ, because

mōkṣa is aśarīratvam, mōkṣa is Brahma-bhāvaḥ and either way mōkṣa cannot
be the result of upāsana.
(2) Then secondly, he pointed out that if mōkṣa is taken as upāsana-phalaṁ,

then that mōkṣa will be anityam only, because that which is produced in time
will be perishable.
(3) Then thirdly, Śaṅkarācārya pointed out that upāsana cannot be the
central theme of Vēdānta, because it is samanvaya virōdha, it is against the
samanvaya, i.e., upakramadi-ṣaḍliṅgaiḥ nirṇīta-arthaḥ. And again, if upāsana is
the central theme then it would have become part of athātō dharma-jijñāsā; it
cannot be an independent śāstra. Finally, we find in Vēdānta that all the
saṁnyāsis renounce the upāsana-phalaṁ, i.e., lōka-ēṣaṇā tyāgaḥ is mentioned;

lōka being upāsana-phalaṁ . Since upāsana-phala-tyāga is mentioned in

Vēdānta, upāsana cannot be the central theme. This is the third argument.
(4) Fourthly and finally, we saw that Brahma-upāsana is impossible, because

Brahman is not the object of meditation. It happens to be the very subject and
the upaniṣats clearly say –
िेदम् यदददमुपासते ॥ केिोपनिषत् १-५ ॥

nēdam yadidamupāsatē || Kēnōpaniṣat 1-5 ||
And therefore Brahma-upāsanēna mōkṣaḥ iti vaktum naiva śakyatē. Up to this

we saw in last class. Until now Śaṅkarācārya has given his own arguments.
Hereafter we are going to see Śaṅkarācārya’s refutation of some of his specific
statements and specific questions. Until now we had the general negation of
Vrttikāra-matam.
(5) The first one we will see is this. Vrttikāra pointed out that Brahma-jñānam
cannot give mōkṣa, because jñānam can never give any benefit. Any jñānam
cannot give any benefit; jñānam has to be put into some kind of action. In this
regard, he was very similar to Bhāṭṭa-matam and Prābhākara-matam. So,
joining Bhāṭṭas and Prābhākaras, Vrttikāra argued kēvala-jñānēna kimapi
prayōjanam nāsti. Jñānam should be followed by action. Science should be
followed by technology or application. And continuing his argument he said
that Jaimini has clearly pointed this out in the sūtra –

Vēda will be useful only when it instigates you into some action or the other.
Vēda is never interested in mere teaching but Vēda wants you to do something
or the other. Therefore, if there are any statements in the Vēda, which do not
involve action, actionless-statements are all apramāṇam, ānarthakyam
atadarthānāṁ. Therefore, his main contention is any knowledge, which does
not involve any action, is useless knowledge. Kriyā-sambandha-rahitam vākyam
apramāṇam. Any statement wherein some action or the other is not involved;
all those statements are useless. And therefore only he said, vidhi-vākyāni ēva

pramāṇāni, all Vedic injunctions, commandments are pramāṇam, because all

commandments involve action. And any vākyam which is not vidhi, where there
are no commandments, therefore, avidhi-vākyāni sarvāṇi api apramaṇāni. A
non-commanding statements are all apramāṇam, because there is no
prayōjanam. And he uses a technical word for that they are all ārtha-vāda-
vākyāni. So, vidhi-vākyāni pramaṇāni, they are commandments and they involve
action. Ārtha-vāda-vākyāni apramaṇāni, non-commandment statements are
apramāṇam, because they do not involve action. This is their contention.
Śaṅkarācārya negates him through a wonderful argument. Śaṅkarācārya

asks do you accept niṣēdha-vākyams in the Vēda, because you say Vēda consists
of vidhi and niṣēdha – Do’s and don’ts, vihitam and pratiṣiddham. Therefore,
Śaṅkarācārya asks them do you accept niṣēdha-vākyams of the Vēda, like
himsāṁ na kuryāt – you should not harm anyone, kalañjam na bhakṣayēt – you
should not eat meat, surām na pibēt – you should not drink liquor. All these
statements are what? Niṣēdha-vākyāni.
Now Śaṅkarācārya asks do these niṣēdha-vākyams come under pramāṇa-

vākyam or apramāṇa-vākyam? Then the Vrttikāra (including Prābhākara and
Bhāṭṭa) all of them say that niṣēdha-vākyams are also pramāṇa-vākyams. They
do not come under arthavāda. They are also pramāṇa-vākyams. They are as
valid as vidhi-vākyams. So, niṣēdha-vākyams are as valid, as much pramāṇam as
vidhi-vākyams. So vidhi means commandments in the form of Do’s and niṣēdha
means commandments in the form of Don’ts.
Now Śaṅkarācārya asks you accept niṣēdha-vākyams as pramāṇam, tell

me what action is involved in niṣēdha-vākyam? After knowing that I should not
drink liquor, what action should I do? ‘Not drinking liquor’ is it an action? “No.
no, no, I should avoid drinking liquor.” “Avoidance of drinking is action?”
Avoidance is not an action at all. Avoidance is absence of action. Therefore,
niṣēdha-vākyam do not produce any action at all. Niṣēdha-vākyam only lead to
avoidance of certain action, that avoidance is inaction, it is audāsīnyam. If you
ask some people “what are you doing” They say: ‘we are doing nothing’.
Remember ‘being indifferent’ is not an action. If it is an action then you are not

indifferent. Therefore, remember, we use the word ‘I am doing nothing’, ‘doing

nothing’ is not a type of action, avoidance is not a type of action. Therefore,
niṣēdha-vākyams only retain the actionlessness; niṣēdha-vākyams do not
produce any action.
Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya concludes niṣēdha-vākyams do not have kriyā-

sambandham and even without kriyā-sambandham, you accept niṣēdha-
vākyam as pramāṇam. Niṣēdha-vākyam api pramāṇam ēva, even though kriyā-
sambandha is not there. So extending this argument, Śaṅkarācārya says, kriyā-
sambandha-rahitam Vēdānta-vākyam api pramāṇam ēva saprayōjanatvāt,
niṣēdha-vākyavat. Vēdānta-vākyam is also pramāṇam even though no action is
involved, exactly like niṣēdha-vākyam, where no action is involved. And
therefore, āmnāyasya kriyārthatvād sūtram should not be applied totally. In
some cases alone, vidhi is pramāṇam, in some cases, actionlessness-statements
also are pramāṇam. This is the fifth agrument.
(6) Then the next specific question Vrttikāra asked was this. You say Brahma-
jñānam ēva mōkṣam dadāti. After Brahma-jñānaṁ, upāsana is not required,
you say. Then he asks, if Brahma-jñānam should give mōkṣa, then all the
students of Vēdānta should be mukta-puruṣa. Because what do the students
get? All the students of Vēdānta gain knowledge by the study of Vēdānta and
they all must be liberated people. But what do we see? (Vrttikāra)
śrutabrahmaṇō’pi yathā-pūrvaṁ sukha-duḥkhādi saṁsāri dharma darśanāt. I
have interviewed several students of Vēdānta. Not for one year; they are
students for many years. And I asked them are you free, are you a jīvan-mukta?
Will you get vidēha-mukti? Are you a free from punar-janma? When we ask
point-blank questions always they started with but, then, if, etc. Except straight
answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ does not come. From that itself we know mere Vēdānta-
jñānam is not enough because nobody claims I am muktaḥ after even years of
listening. And therefore, it is clear and not only that, they give even certificate to
the teacher that you are a wonderful-teacher and even a child can understand,
so simple it is, Brahma-sūtram class is the one we like most etc. They are good
in issuing the certificates to the teacher but only when the question comes ‘are

you jīvan-mukta, who will be vidēha-mukta after maraṇam’ nobody wants to

answer straight-away. From this it clear that there is something fishy. And
therefore, my conclusion is correct. Vēdānta śravaṇēna mōkṣaḥ naiva siddhyati.
Śravaṇam is important but afterwards upāsanam has to be done, (who says?
Vrttikāra) and thereafter alone mōkṣa will come. Vēdānta-śravaṇam will not give
mōkṣa. This is Vrttikāra’s statement.
Śaṅkarācārya answers I never said that a listener of Vēdānta will be free. I

never said “A listener of Vēdānta will get mōkṣa.” There can be thousands of
listeners. My statement is a listener will get mōkṣa I never say, I say a knower of
Vēdānta is definitely free. Śruta brahmaṇaḥ asaṁsāritvam iti mayā na uktaṁ,
avagata-brahmaṇaḥ asaṁsāritva iti mayā ucyatē; jñāta brahmaṇaḥ asaṁsāritva
iti mayā ucyatē. The one who has understood Vēdānta is free. ‘The one who has
listened to Vēdānta’ I don’t say.
So, imagine a dialogue between a teacher and student; an imaginary

dialogue. The student claims I have attended the classes and I can understand
very well.
Then I ask the question, “Who are you?”
He says, aham sthūla-sūkṣma-kāraṇa-śarīrāt vyatiriktaḥ, I have finished in

Vēdāntic-LKG itself all these things, I am other than sthūla-sūkṣma-kāraṇa-
śarīram.
Wonderful, then if you are different form all these three, what is your
nature? Is there aham saccidānanda svarūpa ātmā? You have understood I am
the ātmā, then what is the nature of the ātmā revealed in the upaniṣats?
ि जायते धरयते िा कदासचि्

िायं भूत्िा भनिता िा ि भूयाः ।
अजो नित्याः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो
ि हन्द्यते हन्द्यमािे शरीरे ॥ गीता २-२० ॥
na jāyatē mriyatē vā kadācin
nāyaṁ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ |
ajō nityaḥ śāśvatō’yaṁ purāṇō
na hanyatē hanyamānē śarīrē || Gītā 2-20 ||

I am birthless and I am deathless - this is what I have understood. (Not

what I have heard. I have told listener is not free but the knower is free.) So, I
know I am different form sthūla-sūkṣma-kāraṇa-śarīra. I know I am ātmā and I
know I am free from birth.
Then I ask you a question, “Do you have punar-janma?”
Then this person says that ‘how will I be definite?’ Who knows I will get
vidēha-mukti or not? But one thing is sure if at all I have a punar-janma I will
have only one. (That much confident he is.) Either I will get krama-mukti by
going to Brahma-lōka or maximum next janma I will come back as your disciple
only!
So, I read one prayer. First I was impressed by the prayer, then I said I don’t like
that prayer. He says, the prayer then I said I don’t like that prayer. He says,
आचायनाः शङ् कराचायनाः सन्द्तु मे जन्द्मजन्द्मनि

ācāryaḥ Śaṅkarācāryaḥ santu mē janma-janmani –
Let Śaṅkarācārya himself be my guru in all my janmas. I said I will never

ask this prayer. So, now this person says I know I am ātmā and I know ātmā is
birthless but I am not sure whether I will have rebirth or not.
Then I ask the question, “Now only you said ātmā is birthless, then how
do you say I am doubtful whether I will have rebirth or not?”
Then he says, “I know ātmā is birthless but I am not very sure whether I
am birthless or not?”
Can you find the hitch? That means what? “I am doubtful whether I am
ātmā or not?” If I know I am ātmā and if I know ātmā is birthless then what
should be my answer? Imagine somebody asks me “Whether you will have
punar-janma?” I should answer, “Where is the question of rebirth, when there is
no question of first birth itself? Therefore, if you have understood Vēdānta, then
for the question “Are you free?”, my instantaneous answer, without giving room
even for a second, should be, ‘I don’t have first janma, there is no question of

next janma, I am not bothered about the lot of sthūla-sūkṣma-kāraṇa-śarīram,

because I have clearly understood I have nothing to do with śarīram, I am the
śarīri.
Therefore, why should I bother what is the lot of śarīram, if I have

understood I am the śarīri who is ajaḥ, nityaḥ’. So therefore, if understanding is
there then answers will be point-blank. If there is any glitch in the
understanding then for the question ‘Are you free?’ the answer will be ‘Let you
know later, or let Brahma-sūtra be over, or perhaps after sometime I will be
free by your grace.’ Teaching is not sufficient, in addition to the teaching: ‘I want
your grace also’. Svāmiji, of course, we know we are muktaḥ, but we want your
grace on this New Year day so that we will be liberated soon.’ What blessing to
give? Therefore, knowledge and saṁsāra can never go together. As long as I
doubt my freedom, my knowledge is doubtful; as long as the knowledge is clear
freedom can never be doubted. Therefore, jñānam and bandha can never go
together. If there is a doubt, the doubt is in the form I know ātmā is free but
only my doubt is whether I am free or not? That means what? The doubt is
whether I am ātmā or not? If I know I am ātmā and if I know ātmā is free then
where is the question of doubt? Therefore, listeners are many; and knowers’ are
few. Knower is one for whom ‘I am free’ is a fact. Listener is one for whom ‘I am
free’ is an information-contained in the upaniṣat. Listeners will say upaniṣat
says I am free, a knower will say that I am free is not an Upaniṣadic-information
and it is an ever obtaining fact. Therefore, freedom is a fact or not is the
question. If it is a fact, it is an eternal-fact. Therefore, Śaṅkarācārya says: where
there is jñānaṁ, there is no question of saṁsāra. Where there is saṁsāra or
doubt, whether I should be in the saṁsāri category or mukta category, (I have
told you, whenever I say ‘you are all free, you all take it as a joke.) You are
laughing. Whenever I am talking about the difference between the baddha and
mukta what do you feel? In which camp do you see? While talking about
saṁsāris do you feel it is about ourselves or while talking about mukta do you
feel it is about ourselves? Whenever I talk about mukta puruṣaḥ I should feel
śāstra is talking about me. Whenever śāstra is talking about saṁsāris I should
feel that śāstra is talking about somebody else. That is called knowledge.

Śaṅkarācārya says śruta brahmaṇaḥ saṁsāritvam is possible, listeners can be

saṁsāris, I never question that. I only say knowers cannot be saṁsāris.
Saṁsāris can be listeners but they cannot be knowers. Therefore, jñānāt
kaivalyam and after jñānam no upāsana is required.
7) Then comes the next question that Vrttikāra asks. If you say Vēdānta
jñānam or aham Brahma asmi iti jñānam gives mōkṣa then why should Vēdānta
prescribe nididhyāsanam after the study?
आत्मा िा अरे द्रष्टव्याः श्रोतव्यो मन्द्तव्यो निददध्याससतव्यो ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् २-४-५ ॥

ātmā vā arē draṣṭavyaḥ śrōtavyō mantavyō nididhyāsitavyō || brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 2-4-5
||
Ok. It prescribes śravaṇam, mananam and nididhyāsanam. Nididhyāsanam

clearly means meditation, which means after śravaṇam, mananam, after the
study of Vēdānta you have to practice meditation. And you call that meditation
as nididhyāsanam. I am calling that meditation as upāsanam. Whatever name
you use it is very clear that meditation must be there after Vēdāntic-study.
Therefore, Vēdānta-jñānēna na mōkṣaḥ, jñānā-anantaram upāsanam
kartavyam. Nididhyāsanam iti nāma bhavatu upāsanam iti nāma bhavatu
prasaṅkhyānam iti nāma bhavatu, you have to do meditation. And through
meditation alone you will get mōkṣaḥ. These are all the arguments of Vrttikāra.
(do not mess it up). So, śravaṇa-anantaram manana nididhyāsanayōḥ vidhānāt;
kēvala jñānēna na mōkṣaḥ jñānānantaram kartavyam kiñcit vartatē tēna
karmaṇā ēva mōkṣaḥ siddhyati iti sphuṭam bhavati. This is Vrttikāra’s
philosophy.
Śaṅkarācārya says ‘Yes, upaniṣat says – śrōtavyaḥ mantavyaḥ

nididhyāsitavyaḥ. My argument is that śravaṇam mananam and nididhyāsanam
all these three are meant for jñānam only. They (any of the three) are not
practiced after jñānam and they are practiced for jñānam. So, jñānāya
śravaṇam, jñānāya mananam, jñānāya nididhyāsanam.’ So, Śaṅkarācārya says,
“श्रिणिदिगत्यथनत्िान्द्मििनिददध्यासियोाः.” अिगनत अथनत्िात्.

‘śravaṇavadavagatyarthatvānmanananididhyāsanayōḥ.’ avagati arthatvāt.

Avagati means jñānam.
Then the next question is ‘How do you say that all these three are meant
for jñānam?’. For that we answer, Śaṅkarācārya doesn’t go to these details. So,
the details that I am saying now is taken form Śaṅkarācārya’s some other text
or sub-commentators etc. Śaṅkarācārya answers only this much. ‘All these three
are meant for jñānam.’
Now the question is ‘How do you say that all these three are meant for
jñānam?’ For that we answer, śravaṇam is the main sādhana which gives
jñānam. Śravaṇāt aparōkṣa jñānam bhavati. Because, śravaṇam alone reveals
my nature. tat tvam asi iti mahā-vākyēṇa ātma aparōkṣa jñānam janayati
Vēdānta vākyam and therefore, śravaṇam is the main sādhana. It is called aṅgī-
sādhana, mukhya-sādhana, which produces knowledge. That is why we say
Vēdāntic-study/scriptural-study is the most important sādhana. That also not
listening here and there, but it should be systematically, consistently, from the
beginning to the end comprehensively, without giving any gap like listening
now and then after a year or so continuing it. No, not like that, it should be
without giving much gap listening for a length of time under the guidance of a
competent guru is very important. That alone produces knowledge. But what
happens is even though jñānam takes place through śravaṇam, there are
obstacles, obstructing jñānam from giving mōkṣa. And as long as these
obstacles (pratibandhas) are there jñānam is not capable of doing its job, i.e.,
saṁsāra nivrtti. Not that jñānam has no capacity; jñānam has the capacity but
the capacity is obstructed by obstacles. There are two obstacles.
(a) One obstacle is doubt with regard to this knowledge. ‘Whether aham
brahmāsmi’ is a fact. This doubt can come from my own intellect or the doubt
can come from other systems of philosophy. For example, Viśiṣṭādvaitam says
you can never be Brahman; it is a sacrilege, it is impossible, maximum you can
reach is: you can be a part of Brahman, be satisfied with that. Therefore, both of
them are diagonally opposite; if you accept viśiṣṭādvaitam then you cannot
accept advaitam. If you accept advaitam, you cannot accept viśiṣṭādvaitam. And
both of them are written by great ācāryas; therefore, my question is how you

can accept any one of them, because acceptance of one automatically means
the rejection of the other. You can never be catholic with regard to this
knowledge, because both of them are diagonally opposite, if I am part of
Brahman, I can never be the whole-Brahman. If I am whole-Brahman I can
never be a part. So, the moment I have to choose between the two then
automatically, intellectually I have to reject. Externally I may respect all the
people, all the ācāryas, I can do namaskāra, I can do pūjā, all that is possible;
but intellectually, acceptance of one system presupposes rejection of the other.
It is like if you are in this hall, then you cannot be on the street. If you go to the
street then you will have to renounce this hall. Both together are impossible.
And therefore, several systems say opposite things my intellect will have to
accept one thing or the other. I can be diplomatic externally; I can conceal
myself of being whether I am viśiṣṭādvaiti or advaiti, I like this also, I like that
also, I will go to this lecture, that lecture, I am catholic, etc., I can say but at the
end when the basic, cardinal question comes ‘Are you Brahman or are you part
of Brahman?’ You cannot say I am both. To say both amounts to –
അഞ്ഞനലമന്നത ഞാന് അറിയ ം, മഞ്ഞളുപ ാലെ, ലെളുത്തിര ക് ം
(añjanam ēnnatu ñānariyum mañjalupōlē vēḷuttērikum).
meaning both of them I do not know properly (like the collyrium proverb).
Therefore, intellect will have to be sure about that. As long as there is lingering
doubt, it doesn’t come under drḍha-jñānam, it is sapratibandhaka-jñānam. In
my heart of hearts I cannot say I am free so long as there is sapratibandhaka-
jñānam. Because in advaitam jīvan-mukti is possible. In Viśiṣṭādvaita and other
systems jīvan-mukti is not possible. I have to wait for death that is the first
thing. I have to successfully die and thereafterwards I have to go through śukla-
gati and then I have to go to mōkṣa. Therefore, in my heart of hearts I can vote
for one thing alone. Therefore, that means doubt should be there even an iota.
So therefore, the first obstacle is saṁśayaḥ or doubt with regard to jñānam
giving mōkṣa-phalaṁ .
(b) The second obstacle is the habitual notion that ‘ātmā is something else
and I am somebody else’. Ātmā is something else, which is inside me and I

know that that ātmā is free, birthless but my doubt is, ’whether I am free”. It is
like saying ‘Svāmiji, I am Brahman I know but my wife is not alright. அம்மா
அம்மா, ெிரம்மனுக்கு ’வவப்’ உண்னடாடி’ (ammā ammā brahmanukku wife
uṇḍōḍī). If I say I am Brahman, where is the question of my wife? No wife you

will have. I know I am Brahman but my son is not yet settled. அம்மா அம்மா
ெிரம்மனுக்கு ’’son” உண்னடாடி (ammā ammā brahmanukku son uṇḍōḍī). I
know I am Brahman but my financial position is totally messed up. அம்மா
அம்மா ெிரம்மனுக்கு ‘finance” உண்னடாடி finance uṇḍōḍī (ammā ammā
brahmanukku finance uṇḍōḍī). So therefore, we always contradict our
statements. One side we say I know I am Brahman and on the other we are
complaining of problems at anātmā level. This is called habitual notion of taking
ātmā as a third entity. This is called viparīta bhāvanā. So, this viparīta-bhāvanā is
the second obstacle. And as long as this is there, the knowledge is
sapratibandhaka-jñānam. And sapratibandhaka-jñānam is a jñānam alright but
jñānam cannot give full benefit. Therefore, sapratibandhaka-jñānam is as good
as ajñānam. It is not ajñānam, but it is as good as or as bad as ajñānam.
Therefore, śravaṇam gives jñānam; mananam and nididhyāsanam do not
produce jñānam, do not produce puṇyam also, but removes the obstacles.
What obstacles? Mananam removes doubt, whether I am Brahman or part of
Brahman; I should give a clear answer inside; outside I can be diplomatic. Inside
in the heart of hearts I have to/can accept only one and I should reject other as
improper defective. Therefore, mananam is to ascertain this knowledge and
eliminate all other ideas given by all other systems of philosophy. All other ṣad-
darśanas and any other interpretation of Vēdānta, all of them I have to weigh
and analyze and I should be doubt free. That is why I say doubt free knowledge
means four things you should know.
 What is right I should know as right.
 What is wrong I should know as wrong. If I say what is right as wrong and
also I say what is wrong as right then the right also will become wrong. So, in
malayāḷam they say മനസ്സിൊകാത്ത കാരയം മനസ്സിൊയി എന്ന റഞ്ഞാല്,
മനസ്സിൊയത കൂടി മനസ്സിൊെില്ല, മനസ്സിൊപയാ? (manassilākātta kāryaṁ
manassilāyi ennu paṟaññāl-, manassilāyatukūṭi manassilāvilla, manassilāyō?) So,

if you say right is wrong and wrong is right then right also becomes wrong.
Therefore, right is right I should know, and wrong is wrong I should know.
 And also I should know why the right is right? I should know to logically
establish that.
 And fourth point is I should also know why the wrong is wrong? That is
why we have got advanced Vēdāntic texts. In Brahmasūtra itself the second
chapter is exclusively meant to know what is wrong as wrong. If sāṅkhya is
wrong you have to understand it as wrong only. Respect the sāṅkhya
philosophers, respect as a human being, we respect Kapila, we respect Jaimini,
we respect Patañjali, you can have their photos, you can have them worshiped,
do everything respecting a person is one thing and accepting a philosophy is
quite another. Respecting is a duty of a gentleman and accepting everything is
the sign of a confused-man. And therefore, be a gentleman but don’t be a
confused-man. Therefore, mananam removes saṁśaya-pratibamdha.
(c) Then finally comes nididhyāsanam. Nididhyāsanam is to remove the

second obstacle i.e., looking upon ātmā as a third person. Start looking at ātmā
as first person. That is why I say nididhyāsanam is imitating a sthitaprajña.
Make a habit of saying I am free, I am birthless; so that the ātmā as a third
person; that notion that attitude must go. I need not wait for mōkṣa. I should
not ask the question Svāmiji whether I will be liberated in this janma or next
janma. Because, I am the ātmā liberated in which janma? If It is bound, It will
get janma! This is called changing thought-process or reorientation of the ways
of thinking. It is called nididhyāsanam and it does not give jñānam and it does
not give mōkṣa. It only removes the obstacles. So, thus mananam and
nididhyāsanam will convert sapratibandhaka-jñānam into apratibandhaka-
jñānam. Mananam and nididhyāsanam will convert obstacled-knowledge into
obstacles-free knowledge. Therefore, all the three practices are meant for what?
Drḍha-jñānārtham ēva, apratibandhaka-jñānārtham ēva. And afterwards, what
will happen? Jñānēna mōkṣaḥ; na tu jñānānantaram kartavyam nāsti, jñānēna
mōkṣaḥ. I have given an example before. Imagine there is a bulb, and it is a
dark room and there is a switch. Switch will bring the electricity, and light will
burn. Everything is properly connected. Connection is called sādhana-catuṣṭaya-

sampatti. Switching on is called śravaṇam. So, the moment you switch on,
śravaṇam sādhana-catuṣṭaya-sampatti wires connections are proper, then the
bulb burns and the nature of light is to destroy darkness. Now you find you
have switched on the light, but still the room is dark. Then you doubted perhaps
the connections are improper but you found the connections are also proper,
then you thought that the bulb is also not burning but you find bulb is also
burning. How come room is dark? Then you see that bulb is covered by two-
thick black-clothes. Now suppose somebody asks ‘Can light remove darkness?’
Can you say, sometimes it will remove and sometimes it will not remove. No,
light can remove darkness, it’s capacity to remove darkness is never affected all
the time. But between the light and the removal of darkness there is an
obstacle or there are obstacles in the form of two thick-dark pieces of clothes.
What do you require? You need not change the bulb, you need not do anything,
you have to just remove the dark pieces of cloth. Now, after removing the cloth,
the darkness is gone. And now somebody asks the question, what removed the
darkness? Did the light remove the darkness or removal of the dark-cloth
removed the darkness? Somebody said, ‘No, no, no. Light will not remove only
when I remove the dark cloth, the darkness was gone. And therefore, removal
of the cloth alone removes the darkness.’ Can you say that? Removal of the
cloth is only the removal of obstacles. Ultimately, the light alone removes the
darkness. Similarly, śravaṇam produces jñānam, jñānam alone removes
saṁsāra, but there are two-cloth pieces, mananam removes cloth-piece
number-one and nididhyāsanam removes cloth-piece number two. When both
are removed jñānam is unobstructed. Then what gives mōkṣa? Jñānam alone
gives mōkṣa. Therefore, jñānānantaram kim kartavyam? After jñānam nothing
else is to be done. After jñānam means after apratibanddhaka-jñānam you need
not do anything to attain mōkṣa. Therefore, śravaṇa, manana, nididhyāsanam
all these three are meant for giving unobstructed knowledge and unobstructed
knowledge gives mōkṣa. Therefore, after knowledge what should you do?
Nothing.


We are seeing the significance of the word tu, which occurs in the fourth
sūtra, tattu samanvayāt. Śaṅkarācārya pointed out that the word tu signifies the
negation of all the other pūrvapakṣas. And as a part of that Śaṅkarācārya is
refuting different pūrva-pakṣas. One pūrva-pakṣa he negated was the Bhāṭṭa-
mīmāṁsā matam and another pūrva-pakṣa he negated was Prābhākara-
mīmāṁsā matam and the third pūrva-pakṣa he negated is Vrttikāra-matam.
Vrttikāra’s main argument is that Brahma-jñānam cannot give mōkṣa and
therefore, one has to do Brahma upāsanam after gaining Brahma-jñānam. He
does accept Brahman and he does accept Brahma-jñānam possibility but what
he says is Brahma-jñānam is not sufficient; afterwards Brahma-upāsanam has
to be practiced. And he says that this Brahma-upāsanam is a type of karma
because any upāsanam is a karma, in keeping with that Brahma upāsanam is
also another type of karma. This Brahma upāsana karma is capable of
producing a special type of puṇyam, which special puṇyam cannot be attained
by other upāsanas. This special puṇyam produced by special Brahma-upāsana
is capable of giving mōkṣa after maraṇam. So thus, Brahma-upāsana janya
adrṣṭāt mōkṣaḥ is the Vrttikāra-matam. And we have been seeing Śaṅkarācārya
refuting it elaborately. Various arguments he gives.
(a) The two main arguments are that Brahma-upāsana cannot produce
mōkṣa, because mōkṣa is nitya-siddhaḥ, eternally available. That means we
were liberated, we are liberated and we ever will be liberated and therefore, no

upāsana need produce mōkṣa, no upāsana can produce mōkṣa and if mōkṣa is
produced, that will not be eternal. This is one argument that he gave.
(b) The second argument he gave was, Brahma-upāsana is not possible also
because Brahma is never an object of upāsana, it is not upāsya-viṣaya, because
it happens to be the very nature of upāsaka. It is clearly revealed through the
well-known Kēnōpaniṣat mantra –
यन्द्मिसा ि मिुते येिाहुमनिो मतम् ।

तदे ि ब्रह्म त्िं निद्धि िेदं यदददमुपासते ॥ केिोपनिषत् १- ६ ॥
yanmanasā na manutē yēnāhurmanō matam |
tadēva Brahma tvaṁ viddhi nēdaṁ yadidamupāsatē || Kēnōpaniṣat 1- 6 ||
Whatever you do upāsana upon is not Brahman. Then finally, Vrttikāra gave a
very important pūrva-pakṣa that is based on the well-known Upaniṣadic
statement –
श्रोतव्याः मन्द्तव्याः निददध्याससतव्याः ॥ बृहदारण्यकोपनिषत् २-४-५ ॥

śrōtavyaḥ mantavyaḥ nididhyāsitavyaḥ || Brhadāraṇyakōpaniṣat 2-4-5 ||
And Vrttikāra claims that this Upaniṣadic statement is prescribing meditation

after jñānam. How? Because, śrōtavyaḥ is listening to the scriptures with the
help of a teacher which necessarily produces knowledge. And mantavyaḥ
indicates removal of all the doubts though mananam. So, through śravaṇam
and mananam, we get doubtless knowledge. But the upaniṣat is not happy with
that knowledge and therefore, the upaniṣat says don’t stop with mere
knowledge, after knowledge you have to practice nididhyāsitavyaḥ, which is
meditation. Therefore, it makes it very clear that jñānam is not sufficient, after
jñānaṁ, one has to practice meditation. And that meditation you are calling as
nididhyāsanam I am calling it as upāsanam. Therefore, Brahma-upāsana after
jñānam is prescribed by the Vēdānta. Then how do you say there is no Brahma-
upāsanam when the śruti itself clearly says? For that our answer is
nididhyāsanam is not Brahma-upāsanam after jñānam. In fact, nididhyāsanam
is not an upāsanam after jñānam. Nididhyāsanam is also part of the process of
jñānam only. Therefore, there is a very big difference between Vrttikāra’s-
upāsanam and Vēdānta’s-nididhyāsanam. Vrttikāra says upāsanam is after

jñānam whereas Vēdāntin says nididhyāsanam is not after jñānam but

nididhyāsanam is also for jñānam only. Nididhyāsanasya api avagatyarthatvāt.
This is the first difference. One is Vrttikāra-mata after jñānam, in Vēdānta
nididhyāsanam is for jñānam.
The second-difference is upāsana is a karma that comes after jñānam.

For Vrttikāra, upāsana is a karma after jñānam. Whereas in Vēdānta,
nididhyāsanam is not a karma after jñānam. Here nididhyāsanam is also a
process of jñānam. This is the second-difference.
The third-difference is in the Vrttikāra-matam upāsana produces puṇyam

being karma. Whereas in Vēdānta, nididhyāsanam being not a karma, it doesn’t
produce puṇyam or adrṣṭam; but it only removes our habitual dēhātmā-buddhi.
The removal of dēhātmā-buddhi is drṣṭa-phalaṁ . Upāsanam produces for him;
adrṣṭa-phalaṁ, nididhyāsanam does the drṣṭa-phalaṁ, the removal of habitual-
notion.
The fourth-difference is in upāsana, one expects mōkṣa to happen in

future. Because, in Vrttikāra-matam upāsana is going to produce mōkṣa, which
is going to be an event in future. Therefore, in Vrttikāra-mata the Brahma
upāsaka expects mōkṣa. Whereas in Vēdānta, nididhyāsanam is not with an
expectation of mōkṣa but nididhyāsanam is knocking off the expectation of
mōkṣa. I am either free here and now, or I am never free anywhere at any
time. Therefore, nididhyāsanam knocks off expectations and Vrttikāra’s-
upāsana supports the expectation of mōkṣa. Even though we translate both as
meditation; remember, there is lot of difference between the meditation that he
talks about and the meditation that we talk about. Therefore, our contention is
śravaṇam, mananam and nididhyāsanam, all these three put together gives
knowledge. Of this, śravaṇam has got a positive-role of producing knowledge;
mananam has got a negative-role of removing doubt and nididhyāsanam also
has got a negative-role of removing sāṁsārika-habits. Thus, all the three play
different roles, but the ultimate result of all the three is jñānam. After jñānaṁ,
there is nothing to be done. Whereas in the case of Vrttikāra after jñānam there

is something to be done. Therefore, Brahma-upāsana is not prescribed in

Vēdānta, nididhyāsanam is not Brahma-upāsana after jñānam.
Then comes the last pūrvapakṣa. Śaṅkarācārya through various

arguments has until now established that there is no karma involved in Vēdānta
because, karma belongs to karma-kāṇḍa and in the jñāna-kāṇḍa there is no
karma at all. While negating karma he negated upāsana also because, upāsana
also comes under mental karma only. While karma is kāyika-karma and
upāsana is only mānasa-karma. Vēdānta śāstra does not have even an iota of
karma, Vēdānta śāstra give only Brahma-jñānam. And karmaṇā na mōkṣaḥ,
upāsanēna na mōkṣaḥ, jñānēna ēva mōkṣaḥ.
Now, Vrttikāra puts the last pūrva-pakṣa (last for our discussion! Ok).
What is that? He says, you are telling that there is no mōkṣa by karma and no
mōkṣa by upāsana also because it is also a mental activity. Whereas, you say
jñānēna ēva mōkṣaḥ. So, he asks, isn’t jñānam also a type of karma only? If you
are taking upāsana as a mental activity then what about jñānam? Jñānam is also
a mental activity. Upāsana involves vrtti, jñānam also involves vrtti. Upāsana
also involves mind, jñānam also involves mind. In upāsana also you talk about
āvrtti, jñānam also we talk about āvrtti. So, if that is so, upāsana is coming
under mental activity; then naturally jñānam also should come under mental
activity only. Therefore, if upāsana cannot give mōkṣa, then jñānam also cannot
give mōkṣa. If upāsana is a type of karma, then jñānam is also a type of karma.
So, if you negate my upāsana, then I will negate your jñānam also. So, jñānam
karma-rūpam, mānasa-vrtti-rūpatvāt upāsanavat. That is his argument. Jñānam
also a type of karma (that is the argument), because it is also in the form of a
mental-vrtti like what; upāsanavat. This is pūrvapakṣa of Vrttikāra for which
Śaṅkarācārya gives a very technical answer and important answer also. And this
we should remember that jñānam does not come under karma. Even though
upāsanam is also a vrtti and jñānam is also a vrtti; the upāsana-vrtti comes
under karma whereas jñāna-vrtti does not come under karma. Upāsana-
meditation will come under karma whereas jñāna-vrtti nididhyāsanam will not
come under karma. Now, the question is why? Simply talking won’t work, give

me the logical support. Śaṅkarācārya gives two brilliant arguments in support

of that. I will present it in three stages.
(i) The first difference between jñānam and karma is that jñānam depends
upon the object of knowledge, vastu-tantram whereas karma depends upon
subject of action, which is kartr-tantram. To put in simple English form jñānam
depends upon the object, karma depends upon the subject. I’ll explain it by
giving you an example. Now, you have come to the class and you are doing two
types of jobs here in the class. One is you are using your jñānēndriyam called
ears and when you are using your ears you are a hearer. And after hearing, you
want to make notes. So now, the second function that you do is; you are
functioning behind your karmēndriyam, i.e., hasta and when are functioning
behind the karmēndriyam as a writer, you are a kartā, a writer. Now the beauty
is, the moment you become a hearer, what you hear is not under your control
but it is under the control of the object, for I determine what you hear. If I speak
in English whether you like it or not you should hear in English only. Suppose if I
speak in Tamil, some of you who may not know Tamil at all, you may get wild
also. You may like it or dislike it but you have no choice; as a hearer, what you
hear does not depend upon the subject-hearer but it depends upon the object
of hearing. Therefore, in saṁskrta, we say jñānam is vastu-tantram or pramēya-
tantram and not pramātr-tantram. You have no choice. And what vrtti should
happen also you have no choice. In fact, I choose the vrtti that should take place
in your mind. Whereas the moment you become a writer, functioning behind
your hand, as a writer, what you write is determined by whom? The moment
you become a writer, operating karmēndriyas then the writing does not depend
upon the object but it depends upon the subject. Some of you can choose to
write and some of you need not write at all. There is a choice. And even once
you choose to write what should be written is also your choice. Some of you
write every word including jokes, and some of you write some of it. And when I
use in saṁskrta, some of you write in saṁskrta and some of you write in Tamil,
annihilating almost. Some of you have got shorthand also kāraṇa-śarīram -
KS, sūkṣma-śarīram - SS. In fact, I used to write like that I had a big problem! I
had written PB in several places. Then I didn’t know whether it is physical-body

or parambrahma. You may do anything, as a writer the writing is within the

control of a writer and as a hearer, the hearing is controlled by the object alone.
Therefore, what is the first-difference? Vastu-tantram jñānam and kartr-tantram
karma.
(ii) Then the second difference, in fact, it is the same as first difference put in
another language. It is included in the first but I am presenting it as a separate
difference. Jñānam is dependent upon the type of pramāṇam you use, it is
pramāṇa-tantram. Whereas karma, especially śāstric-karma is dependent on
the śāstra-vidhi or cōdanā. Therefore, it is cōdanā-tantram karma. Pramāṇa-
tantram is jñānam and cōdanā-tantram is karma. This also I will explain. What
type of world I should experience will depend upon the type of pramāṇam that I
operate. If I am going to operate śrōtrēndriyam, what will be the object of
experience? Śabda, sparśa, rūpa, rasa or gandha? I cannot determine what
object of knowledge I should have whether I like it or not it is the śabda
prapañca that I experience. When I am using cakṣurindriyam what is the world
that I experience? It is rūpa-prapañca. Therefore, as a pramātā, the knowledge I
get depends upon the type of pramāṇam I use but I the pramātā cannot decide.
So, as a pramātā the type of experience will depend upon the type of
pramāṇam I use. I do not have any choice. That is why when I am sitting in
meditation, and in the neighbourhood there is some function and music is
going on, the ears are open and I do not have any choice with regard to
hearing, the śabda-prapañca whether I like it or not is going to enter and I am
going experience it. Therefore, it is pramāṇa-tantram. Whereas karma is
cōdanā-tantram, it is a type of vidhi, śāstric injunction can determine the type of
karma or the type of upāsana I do. Śaṅkarācārya gives a beautiful example
here. In Cāndōgyōpaniṣat, there is pañcāgni vidyā. The upaniṣat talks about a
type of meditation. In that meditation various things in the creation are to be
seen as Agni. It is a type of upāsana. In that final portion it says –
पुरुषो िाि गौतमात्ग्िाः ॥ छान्द्दोग्योपनिषत् ५-७-१॥

puruṣō vāva gautamāgniḥ || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 5-7-1||
May you look upon the male, the father as fire principle and finally it says –

योषा िाि गौतमात्ग्िाः ॥ छान्द्दोग्योपनिषत् ५-८-१॥

yōṣā vāva gautamāgniḥ || Cāndōgyōpaniṣat 5-8-1||
You look upon the female, the mother as fire principle. This is an upāsanam.
Looking upon puruṣa as fire and looking upon strī, woman as fire. This type of
meditation depends upon what: cōdanā-tantram, it is śāstra-vidhi and
therefore, I am choosing to see the male as agni or female as agni. Therefore,
that comes under what: cōdanā-tantram and it is a type of karma, it is a type of
upāsana. Suppose, a person is seeing a man as a man, is it because of śāstra
vidhi? Seeing a man as a man is not based upon any śāstra vidhi, it is not
cōdanā-tantram. But seeing a man as fire is cōdanā-tantram. Seeing a man as
man is knowledge, but seeing a man as fire is upāsana. Seeing stone as stone is
jñānaṁ, but seeing a stone as Viṣṇu is upāsana, which is karma. Seeing stone as
stone, we have no choice because it is a fact. But seeing a stone as a deity, you
have a choice. Therefore, jñānam is pramāṇa-tantram whereas karma is
cōdanātantram. This is the second-difference.
(iii) The third-difference is this. Karma can produce four types of results, which
we have seen before āptiḥ, utpattiḥ, saṁskāraḥ and vikāraḥ; āptiḥ – reaching a
place, utpattiḥ - producing a new thing, saṁskāraḥ - purifying a thing and
vikāraḥ means modifying a thing. Therefore, reaching, production, purification
and modification; one of the four results happen in karma. Whereas jñānam
does not/cannot produce any one of the four results. It only reveals a thing as it
is but it does not produce. Imagine that I am knowing about Himālayas from a
book. By that knowledge do I reach Himālayas? No. Therefore, by jñānaṁ, I
don’t reach anywhere. Before jñānaṁ, if I am seated in this place then, after
jñānam I will be in this place only. I don’t reach anywhere. Similarly by karma, I
can produce something, like by tilling the land, by sowing the seeds, I produce
some crops and suppose I gain the knowledge of a mango tree, even the
knowledge of how to produce a mango tree, by gaining that knowledge do I
produce anything? In fact, if it happens it will be wonderful. You gain the
knowledge of pizza, then there are pizzas. No need to cook, need not search, no
need of gas, stove, nothing is required, you go on knowing things it goes on
producing. Jñānam does not produce anything. Then jñānam does it purify

anything? Suppose, you have gone somewhere on vacation. After returning you
find the house is dusty. The knowledge reveals the impure-room but knowledge
does not purify the room. Knowledge reveals an impure thing as an impure
thing, knowledge reveals a pure-thing as a pure-thing but knowledge never
converts an impure-thing into a pure-thing. Therefore, knowledge cannot
purify. That is why –
सचिस्य शुिये कमन ि तु िस्तूपलिये । िस्तुससद्धिरितचारेण ि नकस्थञ्चत्कमनकोदटभभाः ॥ नििेकचूडामभणाः ११ ॥

cittasya śuddhayē karma na tu vastūpalabdhayē |
vastusiddhirvicārēṇa na kiñcitkarmakōṭibhiḥ || Vivēkacūḍāmaṇiḥ 11 ||
Śaṅkarācārya says in Vivēkacūḍāmaṇi if you want citta-śuddhi then mere

knowledge will not do, you have to do karma. Jñānam cannot give any type of
purification. Does jñānam purify the mind? No. karma alone purifies the mind.
Does jñānam purify the ātmā? Ātmā need not be purified; it is nitya-siddha.
Therefore, remember by gaining jñānam I am not purifying the ātmā, I am not
purifying the mind, karma purifies the mind; nothing purifies the ātmā.
Therefore, jñānam does not purify. Then does jñānam modify anything?
Suppose, I am very fat. I want to become slim. I go on standing in front of the
mirror and thinking ‘I am fat, I am fat, I am fat’. So, by thinking or knowing a fat
body, it is not going to be converted into slim body nor otherwise. Jñānam does
not produce the four types of results. Therefore, what is the third difference?
Karma āpyādiphalakam bhavati, karma produces one of these four results
whereas jñānam āpyādiphalakam na bhavati, it does not produce any of these
four results. And therefore, jñānam and karma are not identical. What are the
three differences?
(a) jñānam is vastu-tantram, whereas karma is kartr-tantram.
(b) jñānam is pramāṇa-tantram whereas karma is cōdanātantram. The first and

second are almost the same, two sides of one and the same coin.
(c) jñānam āpyādiphalakam na bhavatiː whereas karma āpyādiphalakam

bhavati.

Therefore Self-knowledge is not a type of karma and Self-knowledge does not

produce anything. Then you will wonder if Self-knowledge does not produce
anything, then it doesn’t give mōkṣa also. In saṁskrta, it is called mūlē-kuṭāra
nyāya. Mūlē-kuṭāra means the fundamental itself is negated. Mūlē – the very
fundamental that is you are telling jñānēna-mōkṣa. But you are saying jñānam
does not produce any result. That means jñānam does not produce mōkṣa also.
Yes, who said jñānam produces mōkṣa? We never said jñānam produces mōkṣa.
Then what does jñānam do? Jñānam reveals the fact that I was, I am and I ever
will be mukta puruṣaḥ. Jñānam reveals a fact. It does not produce, it does not
reach, it does not purify and it does not modify but it reveals the fact that I was,
I am and I ever will be liberated. Therefore, Vēdānta śāstram reveals Brahman
as myself and by that knowledge I know I am free and thereafterwards I have
nothing to do. Therefore, jñānam is not a karma and after jñānam no karma is
required also.
Then you will have a doubt, “Then why should there be karma-kāṇḍa at
all?” For that we say: You listen to the statement once again then this question
doesn’t arise. What did I say? Jñānam is not karma and after jñānam there is no
karma. Similarly, jñānam is not upāsana and after jñānam there is no upāsana.
Then why karma-kāṇḍa? Before jñānaṁ, karma is required, before jñānaṁ,
upāsana is required. Therefore, karma-kāṇḍa is not useless and upāsana-kāṇḍa
is not useless. They are useful before jñānam. They are neither useful during
nor are they useful later but they are useful before. So with this Śaṅkarācārya
concludes the Vrttikāra–mata-khaṇḍanaṁ also.
And with this we conclude the commentary upon the word tu. So, tu-pada
vyākhyānam anēna samāptam. With this Śaṅkarācārya concludes the fourth
sūtra commentary: tattu samanvayāt commentary is over. With this we
conclude the fourth samanvaya-adhikaraṇam is over. So thus, we have
completed the general analysis of the sūtra and also word-to-word analysis of
the sūtra.

Conclusion
Now what is left out is the conclusion. We will conclude. In this conclusion
first I want to present this fourth-adhikaraṇam in the technical format. I said
each adhikaraṇam/topic has to be presented in a technical format, which
involves five factors.

viṣayō viśayaścaiva pūrvapakṣastathōttaraḥ |
Every topic has to be presented in a systematic manner. So, this

samanvayādhikaraṇam also has got five factors. I will briefly mention these five
factors.
 viṣayaḥ – the subject matter is the entire Vēdānta-śāstram.

 viśayaḥ or saṁśayaḥ. What is the doubt? Because if there is no doubt, then
no enquiry is required. The doubt is whether it is karmaparam or
brahmaparam, whether it is dealing with some action to be done or whether
it is just revealing Brahman. So, does it merely teach or does it enjoin some
action. This is the doubt.
 What is the pūrva-pakṣaḥ? The pūrva-pakṣi says it is karmaparam. Vēdānta-
śāstra enjoins action. What is the reason that he gives? The reason is the
well-known Jaimini sūtra.
आम्िायस्य नक्रयाथनत्िाद् आिथनक्प्यम् अतदथानिाम् ॥ धममांसा सूत्राभण १-२-१ ॥

āmnāyasya kriyārthatvād ānarthakyam atadarthānām || mimāṁsā sūtrāṇi 1-2-1 ||
Karma alone can give you something and mere knowledge cannot give you any
benefit. That is his argument. Mere knowledge cannot give anything. Mere
theory is not enough, it should be followed by implementation. Science must be
followed by technology. Theory must be followed by practice. Knowledge must
be followed by karma. So therefore, Vēdānta involves or enjoins karma. Some
pūrvapakṣis say that it is in the form of physical-karma and some pūrva-pakṣis
say that it is in the form of mental-karma. But that is not the discussion, all the
pūrva-pakṣis uniformly say that mere jñānam is not enough, you have to do

something. That’s why many of our students also get a doubt; “Svāmiji is only
teaching; he is never asking us to do this or that”. People like do’s and don’ts.
Because their conclusion is what; if you do something only you will get the
benefit. Therefore, the pūrva-pakṣi is Vēdānta-śāstram is karmaparam
karmaṇām ēva saprayōjanatvāt; agnihōtrādivat, jyōtiṣṭōmādivat. This is
pūrvapakṣa.
(4) What is siddhānta? Siddhānta is Vēdānta-śāstram is Brahmaparam, it

doesn’t enjoin any action, it wants you to understand something. It is just a
matter of recognition. It is just a matter of clear understanding. Other than
understanding nothing is to be done. If mental purification is not there, then
the case is different, do action. If citta-ēkāgratā is not there then you have to do
upāsana; we are not talking about those things here. If you have got
purification and concentration and once you come to Vēdānta you have nothing
to do, but something know only. Why? What is the reason? Jñānēna ēva
saprayōjanatvāt. By this mere knowledge we are getting the benefit just as the
rope-knowledge we are getting the benefit of fear of snake is gone, running
away is gone, palpitation is gone, all by just simple knowledge that this is rope.
Therefore, Vēdānta-śāstram Brahmaparam brahmajñāna mātrēṇa
saprayōjanatvāt rajju-jñānavat.
(v) And finally saṅgatiḥ – the connection between the previous adhikaraṇam
and the present adhikaraṇam. And that saṅgatiḥ is called ākṣēpa-saṅgatiḥ.
What is the ākṣēpa-saṅgatiḥ? It means the fourth adhikaraṇam happens to be
an answer to the objection raised on in the third-adhikaraṇam. To understand
this we should know what has be said in the third-adhikaraṇam. It was said that
śāstrayōnitvāt, Vēdānta deals with Brahman. Brahman is the subject matter of
Vēdānta is the essence of the third adhikaraṇam. Based on that an objection
was given that Brahman is not the subject matter of Vēdānta but karma is
subject-matter of Vēdānta. And that is answered in the fourth-adhikaraṇam that
karma is not the subject matter but Brahman alone is the subject matter, tat tu
samanvayāt. So, with this the fourth-sūtra and the fourth-adhikaraṇam is also
concluded. With this the catussūtri part of Brahmasūtra is over. And generally,

people stop with these four-sūtras but we propose to go further from the next
class onwards, that I will introduce in the next class.


036 Sūtra -1-1-5 Ikṣatyadhi
We have completed the first four sūtras popularly known as catussūtri.

With this catussūtri portion four main topics have been discussed. I have one
request to make. Do not bother about what is written in the Board now, you will
get time to write it down later. Kindly listen to what I say now.
The first-sūtra happens to be the first four-topics also or the four-

adhikaraṇam. The first-adhikaraṇam is jijñāsā-adhikaraṇam in which it was
pointed out that for mōkṣa one has to gain Brahma-jñānam through Vēdāntic
enquiry. This is the essence of the first-adhikaraṇam. For mōkṣa, one has to
gain brahma–jñānam through vēdāntic enquiry.
Then in the second-adhikaraṇam or topic, which is known as janmādi-

adhikaraṇam the idea given was that Brahman is the abhinna-nimitta-upādāna-
kāraṇam of the universe, i.e., both the intelligent and material-cause of the
universe. And this jagat-kāraṇam Brahma we have to know through Vēdāntic
study.
Then in the third-adhikaraṇam known as śāstrayōni-adhikaraṇam, it was

pointed out that the jagat-kāraṇam Brahma alone is the central-theme of
Vēdānta-śāstram and all other topics are only converging into, are only
subservient to this particular topic. This is the essence of śāstrayōni-
adhikaraṇam.

In the fourth-adhikaraṇam known as samanvaya-adhikaraṇam, we saw

that there is consistency with regard to the topic of Brahman, which means
Brahman is given importance in Vēdānta and not anything else. There is focus
on Brahman alone; there is consistency with regard to Brahman alone, which is
samanvayaḥ.
These are the four topics of catussūtri. When we read this catussūtri
along with Śaṅkarācārya’s commentary, we find the whole Vēdānta is
comprehensively discussed. So the four sūtras are complete only when we
study the sūtra along with Śaṅkarācārya’s bhāṣyam, because Śaṅkarācārya
through his commentary on these four-sūtras brings out all the essentials of
Vēdānta. And therefore, catussūtri with Śaṅkara-bhāṣyam is considered to be a
comprehensive study of the entire Brahma-sūtra. The rest of the Brahmasūtra
is an elaboration of, a magnification of this catussūtri alone. And therefore,
generally, people stop Brahma-sūtra study with catussūtri; but we are
proposing to continue the study further, because, I find so many seem to be
interested in the study. If all of you feel that it is enough then how can I teach?
. So therefore, fortunately, you seem to be interested and more than you, I
am interested in revising the portion for myself and therefore, I thought we will
continue the study. And if you ask what we will get out of this further study, I
would say, we are not going to get any new knowledge but it is going to be
clarity and conviction. Further study will help in clarity and more than clarity it is
conviction. Because, in the following portions we are going to see several
systems of philosophy and also we learn how to negate those systems. And
when we learn this method of negating other systems, we learn to answer any
question in Vēdānta. So we get such a thoroughness that any question that
anybody can raise we will be able to answer and not only answer form one
angle, we get a capacity to answer any question from any angle. It is like a
knowing a particular place. So this place is Āstika samājam. Some of you may
know one route to reach āstika samāja. That if you know only one route then
you have to come by that route alone if you are elsewhere then you do not
know how to reach. But imagine a person who knows all the routes of chēnnai
up and down at the back of his hand. Then you leave him anywhere he knows

how to reach. So how he will comfortable in any part of chēnnai; like that we will
feel so comfortable, so steady, so thorough, so convinced, that any system of
philosophy or any person cannot shake our knowledge. Therefore, the capacity
to answer any question I call as clarity. Therefore, clarity, more clarity, more
clarity, more clarity, more clarity that alone is the purpose this study.
And also incidentally, we learn how to think also. The method of thinking,
we think we know; but actually, we do not know. In fact, after learning Vēdānta,
when you hear other people talking anything casually or on stage you can see
how illogical or how loop holes are there, or how they are meandering for
getting the central-theme. A title will be given except that topic they will talk
everything else. I don’t say everyone, but many people have that vagueness and
after this Vēdāntic-study, just like the musician notes the apaśruti every stage,
similarly his deficiencies in thinking will become very clear and this clarity of
thinking is not only useful in Vēdānta but even in day-to-day life it will be useful.
Therefore, even catussūtri is comprehensive; one need not study further; but if
we study further it does give us a lot of benefits. And therefore, I propose to
continue and go to the next sūtra also.

Brahma Sutra Catusutri

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brahma Sutra Catusutri

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTE:

1. Swami Paramarthananda has not verified the transcription of these

2. Arsha Avinash Foundation has user-license from copyright-Owner Vedanta

Copyright Notices On behalf of the copyright owner Vedanta Vidyarthi

Copyright management (books © & digital streaming) ©Yogamalika and Mantra.

Swami Paramarthananda's talks are digitally recorded, mastered, archived and

Terms & Conditions and User License of Discourses by Swami

For any reporting please contact the administrator at mantraglobus@gmail.com.

Verbatim Transcription of Swamiji’s Classes

Note: Swami Paramarthananda has not verified the transcription of talks.

Arsha Avinash Foundation

His Holiness Swami Paramarthananda, disciple of His Holiness Dayananda Saraswati

001 General Introduction ............................................................................................ 3

006 Outline Of Brahma sūtras .................................................................................. 67

Table of Contents www.arshaavinash.in Page 1

020 Sūtra 1.1.2 Janmādhyadhikaraṇam .................................................................228

Table of Contents www.arshaavinash.in Page 2

001 General Introduction

Brahma Sūtra is a vēdāntic-work written by Vyāsācārya. The word Sūtra, very

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 3

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 4

upaniṣads, especially the 10 upaniṣads we saw and he analyses these important

So extracting the vēdāntic-teaching through upaniṣadic interpretation,

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 5

Once the question of interpretation comes, naturally, you know hair-splitting is

Now the second-qualification is a study of at least 10 upaniṣad will be required

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 6

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 7

The second-intention is because I am teaching Gīta and Upaniṣad repeatedly, I

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 8

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 9

ॐ पूर्यमदः पूर्यममदम् पूर्ायत्पूर्म

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 10

002 Introduction II.

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 11

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 12

another tomorrow; unlike some believers of God. In Maharashtra, a political

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 13

First is called Carūvaka darśanam or materialism. The source of this philosophy

यािज्जीिेत् सुखं जीिे रिणं कृत्िा िृतं नपबेत् ।

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 14

founder is Brihaspathi. This cāruvāka darśana is not discussed in Brahma sūtra,

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 15

युक्त-आहार-निहारस्य युक्त-चेष्टस्य कमनसु । ॥ ६-१७ ॥

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 16

Six āsthika darśanas.

 The first one is the Sāìkhya darśanaṁ of Kapila muni.

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 17

Of these, Purva-mimāmsa is based on Vēda-purva-bāgha or karma-kānḍa based

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 18

viśēṣika-sūtrani, pūrva-mimāmsa-sūtrani, and uttara –mimāmsa-sūtrani. And all

 One is the advaitam, nirviṣēṣa-advaitam as revealed by Śankarācārya’s

And nirviṣēṣādvaitam through (there is no name) it is only Śankarācārya’s

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 20

General Introduction www.arshaavinash.in Page 21

003 Daśa śānti mantras

ॐ सह िािितु । सह िौ भुिक्तु । सह िीयं करिािहै । तेजस्स्ि िाििीतमस्तु । मा निनद्वषािहै ॥ ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः

Daśa śānti mantras www.arshaavinash.in Page 22

ॐ पूणनमदाः पूणनधमदम् पूणानत्पूणम

ॐ भद्रं िो अनप िातय मिाः । ॐ शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः शानन्द्ताः ॥ ऋग्िेद १०-२५-१ ॥

Daśa śānti mantras www.arshaavinash.in Page 23

ōm̐ namō brahmādibhyō brahmavidyāsampradāyakartrbhyō vaṁśarṣibhyō mahadbhyō

यस्यैि स्फुरणं सदात्मकम