365bet娱乐

[Full title: Sripati鈥檚 Philosophical Standpoint (1): His Conception of the Material World]

Sripati's Philosophical Standpoint. It will thus be seen that Sripati makes the Dvaitadvaita theory the central point in his interpretation of Svakiya but avara, i.e., his own but less than and dependent on him. Avara means an younger in years, follower, or an inferior, less, etc. Cf. Masenavarah, purvajenavarah. 656 657 Jayatirtha, Nyaya Sudha, IV. 4. 17.

492 Badarayana's Sutras. INTRODUCTION Round it he builds up a system of philosophy, to which we may now turn our attention. We may conveniently study it under the following heads :- (a) The material world, (6) Brahman and the material world, (c) The purpose of material creation, (d) The nature of the jiva, (e) The origin of the jiva, and (f) The attainment of mukti. His Conception of the Material World. Sripati's conception of the material world is elaborated by him in II. 1. 26 to 33. The world existed in the minutest form of matter (paramanvadinam jagatkaranatvam upapannam) and this was developed into Brahmanda through the infinite power and uncontrolled independence of Siva Parabrahman. He quotes the Sruti texts Alastasya sarva- saktitvat sarvasvatantratvat (And therefore he is of infinite power and uncontrolled independence) and Sa sarvam asrujata 658 (He created all) in support to show that there can be no limiting of the Parabrahman's power. He quotes further the texts Nachasti vetta mama chit sadaham (There is no one who can know my will); Vedairanekaih ahameva vedyo (Throughout all the Vedas I alone am extolled); Vedantakrit vedavido vachaham (I am the author of the Vedas and can be understood through Vedic expressions). These show, he adds, that Parasiva Brahman, without having a bodily form, consisting of the bodily organs, can exhibit his infinite powers. This is thus the wonderful power of Brahman in being the cause for the creation of the jagat. But how could the Brahman, destitute of bodily form, become the creator of a jagat which has a bodily form? This doubt is answered by him in II. 1. 28, Atmani chaivam vichitrascha hi. [And in the Atman only are such wonderful (powers). The power of Atman (Parasiva Brahman) is thus indescribably wonderful. Though bodiless, Parasiva Brahman, in the form of Atman, has always confined in 658 Brihadaranyaka-upanishad , I. 4. 4.

him the infinite, variegated power of creating, through his Maya, countless things which are possessed of bodily form (Parichchinna sakti visishte niravayave jivatmani svamanas- saktya vichitra nanavidha Brahmanda kalpana mupapannam).59 Such a Sentient Being is visible in such inanimate bodily forms as hair, nails and other lifeless objects; also in the forms of water and fire which are dissimilar to each other. This same thing is seen actually in an ocean in the form of heat and water co-existing without any opposition to each other, just as darkness and light are seen in the same manner. Also, in the same way in the interior of the body of living beings, the digestive fire (jatharagni) is observed (without burning the beings themselves). Therefore to Parasiva Brahman, who is beyond all the worlds (lokatita) and who is possessed of all wonderful powers, there is nothing impossible. (That is, he can reconcile even irreconcilable opposites.) It is for this reason, that the venerable Badarayana in answering the following query of his disciples, viz., How did Lord Brahman, who is nirguna and aprameya and faultlessly suddha, 600 acquire the power of creation (kartrutva, etc.)? said: Lord Brahman's powers are so great and so many, beyond one's comprehension or knowledge. And for the same reason the capacity for such variegated creation, etc., is quite natural and possible to him, just as fire is naturally associated with (the resultant) heat. The Srutis also support his (Badarayana's) statement: Q. Kimsvidvanam kam usa vriksha asid yato dyava pritivi nishtatakshuh 659 Manishino manasa prichchatetu tadyadadhyatishthad bhuvanani dharayan" Sripati's use of the word "creating" (kalpanam) here should be noted, for that is the key, as it would seem, for reconciling the bheda and abheda theories in his own theory of bhedabheda. The word "creation" here is meant to convey both the idea of "creation" and the capacity of making visible that which was invisible before. 660 Devoid of qualities, immeasurable and faultlessly pure.

A. Brahmavanam Brahma sa vriksha asid yato dyava pritivi nishtatakshuh Manishino manasa vibravimi voo Brahmadhyatishthad bhuvanani dharayan || iti.661 Q. What was that water and which was that tree that then existed whereon the Heaven and worlds depended? Thus inquired the great beings to know how so many worlds held together. A. Brahma as water and Brahma with the tree existed whereon the Heaven and the worlds depended. Thus know, O holy Beings! in this manner Brahma existed sustaining all these different worlds. Even according to the Srutis and Smritis, the bodiless form of Parasiva Brahman possesses this power of creation. This is to be seen in them (Srutis and Smritis) and this is to be expected from them as natural. If it is then questioned whether Parasiva Brahman is influenced by Mayasakti just as ordinary jivas, Badarayana answers the query in the next Sutra (II. 1. 29), Svapakshadoshachcha (And because of the defects of his view also). Agreeably to the maxim, that the needle is attracted to the magnet, if Nirguna Brahman is attracted by sat in order to render Prakriti the agent for creation, then the Advaita position is made faulty inasmuch as niravayava Prakriti is made to appear as possessing the power of creation. Or, in other words, even though the inanimate Pradhana-Prakriti 602 is incapable of creating the world, the very fact of the nearness of Nirguna Brahman makes it appear to possess that power of creation just as the loadstone attracts the needle. This obviously breaks down the theory of nirviseshatva. According to the maxim Tachchakteh tadadhinatvat, (To that power it is subservient, i.e., To its own power it is subject to), the conclusion that Brahman is Saguna, becomes unavoidable. It is also agreed to by 661 Taitt. Bra. Upa., II. 8. 9. 602 Prakriti considered as the first evolver, originator or source of the material world; according to the Sankhya system, Pradhana is the primary germ out of which all material appearances are evolved.

the Sankhya School that niravayava Pradhana in the form of Akasa, etc. (mahadadi) has wonderful powers of transformation in developing the form of the world (visvakara parinamatvam). Similarly, the Kanadas agree that niravayava niramsa nishpradesa Pradhana-Prakriti, coming in contact with the inanimate minutest atom (paramanu) attains the power of developing into the form of the world (jagadakara).陋³ Even though the inanimate Pradhana is devoid of having any free action independently, yet, that it is, by the help of Brahman, by its very proximity, capable of developing wonderful transformations, is self-evident. Therefore, such a contradiction of one's own position (svapaksha doshah) in the case of Advaita, is inevitable (durvarah). As the etymological derivation of the word Maya, in the compound ya ma sa maya, would have it, the existence of Maya is seen to be (as real) as the horns of a rabbit (ya ma sa mayeti vyutpattya mayayah sasasringatvat). In the same way, the nature of the inanimate and the animate, Maya and Brahman, satyatva and asatyatva, become like the pot (ghata) and the cloth (pata), destitute of their characteristic marks. If such a combination does not exist, the development of the world or its cause would not be possible. Else Brahman, who is never changeable (nirvikarasya), could not have associated with Maya. If it is doubted whether Brahman is enveloped in Maya, just as the rope (rajju) throws the illusion of the serpent (sarpa), the next Sutra. Sarvopeta cha taddarsanat, meets the doubt. [And (the Supreme Deity is) endowed with all powers, because that is borne testimony to.] 663 The name of the founder of the Vaiseshika system of philosophy is preserved in his nickname Kanada-sometimes styled derisively Kanabhuj or Kanabhakshana, Kanabhakshaka, etc., i.e., atom-eater. Kanah means a grain, an atom or particle. Kanada propounded the Vaiseshika system of philosophy, which may be shortly described as the "doctrine of atoms". The Vaiseshika is so called from the category of "particularity" (visesha) on which considerable stress is laid in its theory of atoms,

Parasiva Brahman is possessed of is possessed of every power (sarvasakti) including the world-creating powers, etc., (jagad-janmadi) and thus is seen as parasakti, for it is so experienced (taddarsanachcha) and proved by Srutis. And this is plainly observed in Parasiva Brahman and often expressly declared by Sruti texts such as Parasya Saktir vividhaiva sruyate,604 Svabhaviki jnana bala kriya cha, Mayantu prakritim vindyat mayinantu mahesvaram ; Indro mayabhih pururupa iryate,666 etc., which declare that the bodiless (niravayavasya) Paramesvara naturally possesses all kinds of powers (sarvasakti). Therefore he possesses also the complete trigunatmaka hetubhuta pradhana Sakti (the operative part of the three-fold creative power). This sakti is called bhinna sakti and the chit-sakti in him is called the abhinna sakti. Thus, Isvara possesses these two kinds of sakti in their entirety. Possessing these two these two varieties of Sakti, which are opposite to each other, Siva Parabrahman on all three occasions (srishti, sthiti and laya) remains in the same unaltered identical state (kalatrayepi ekarupataya sthitah). Then, if Parasiva Brahman is possessed of nirviseshatva, then there is no need for creation (jagat-karanatva na sambhavati) as it is clearly contradictory to Sruti, Smriti and Purana which state expressly that Siva Parabrahman is naturally possessed of the power of creation (svabhavika saktimattva sarvakaranatvadi). And it is not just to ignore these facts and argue the adhyasta mithyavada (i.e., that whatever we perceive is an illusion and is untrue). If, then, Brahman is conceived of as possessed of sarva-Sakti, we have to accept that he is the creator of the world (jagat-karanatvangikare); concurrently we have also to accept that he undergoes change into earth and the like (mrudadivat). Thus a great contradiction results. In order to harmonise this (apparent contradiction), the next Sutra is propounded: Vikaranatvanneti chettaduktam. 004 Sveta. Upa., VI. 8. 665 Ibid. 666 Rig-Veda, IV. 3. 1.

[Not on account of the absence of organs; this has been explained (before).] The texts Achakshussrotram tadapani padam, etc., define the term vikaranatvat. This means that it is the state of being destitute of body, sensory organs, etc., which are the means for accomplishing the desired object. The term neti chet indicates that Brahman cannot become the cause of the creation of the world, etc. (jagat-karanatvam). If that be so, the reply is to be found in the texts Sabda mulatvat and Vichitrascha hi. (Sabda-i.e., Veda-is the fundamental cause and sakti is remarkably variegated in character.) Brahman, who is testified to by the Vedas alone, is, even though destitute of body and sensory organs, capable of accomplishing every kind of act. Thus the Sruti declares . Apani pado javano grihita pasyatyachakshuh sa srunotyakarnah. (Though destitute of hands and legs, Brahman can catch hold of and walk; and can see without a pair of eyes; and can also hear without ears.) This Sruti text thus testifies to the powers of the Brahman. There are other texts. like Parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate,067 Pado'sya visvabhutani tripadasya amrutam divi, 668 etc., which explain the variegated powers of Siva Parabrahman and which also declare that a minute part of his sakti can dominate the whole world with all its wonderful characteristics. It is seen in the Siva Purana-Visvottarottara vichitra manorathasya yasyaikasaktisakale sakalah samaptah | Adhyayam adhva patim adhvavido vadanti tasmai namah sakalaloka vilakshanaya. (I bow down to Him whom those learned in the Veda, those who possess the knowledge of the Brahman, and those who have realized Him declare that He is capable, by the minutest fraction of His will, of creating, protecting and destroying a succession of worlds; and who is possessed of characteristics which are beyond the reach of comparision in all the three worlds.) 667 Sveta. Upa., VI. 8. 668 32 Rig-Veda, II. 7. 18.

Therefore, it should be understood that Sarvesvara, who is possessed of sarvasakti, should be made to be the refuge of all who might seek moksha (mumukshus). Therefore Brahman, who is nirvisesha and nirvikara, has to undergo vikaratva if the creation of the world is to be brought about; and therefore, if in the circumstances, the doubt arises whether Brahman becomes mayasabalita (spotted with Maya), then such a view stands contradicted by the next Sutra: Na prayojanavattvat (None, there being no motive). The Sruti bears witness thus: Para'sya saktih vividhaiva sruyate svabhaviki jnanabalakriya cha iti. [His Sakti is of an indescribably variegated character. And jnana, bala and kriya (knowledge power and action) are absolutely natural to Him.] Brahman thus can never be of a nirvisesha character (i.e., a character which is without or destitute of distinction). The Sruti texts Yato va imani bhutani jayante; Yena jatani jivanti; Yat prayantyabhisamvisanti, 889 etc., bear testimony to the fact that creation (jagat-janmadi) is all the aim of Brahman. This is the significance of the word prayojanavattvat in the Sutra. Moreover, the Smriti texts Pradhana kshetragnapatir guneso samsara moksha sthiti bandha hetuh, etc., declare that Brahman has an aim and end in creation, protection and destruction. Again, Sruti texts like Amritasya devadharano bhuyasam; Sariram me vicharshanam ; Sarvalingam sthapayati panimantram pavitram, etc., declare that in order to save the community of bhaktas, Brahman assumes the sthula and sukshma causative bodily forms in the symbols of ishta, prana, and bhava and releases them through moksha ; this therefore is the manner in which Brahman has made himself useful to them (prayojanavattvat). Here prayojanavattvat means prakarshena ubjapat prayojanam, i.e., the extended application of srishti, sthiti and laya in all possible ways is called prayojanam. Since he possesses this sort of power (prayojanam), he is called 669 Taittiriya-upanishad , III. 1.

prayojanavan. The quality of having this power (prayojanavato bhavah) is prayojanavattvam. For that reason he is called prayojanavattvat. By the extended use of his power, by reason of the spirit of utter love he bears, there is yojanam, prayojanam, samyojanam (of his power) (i.e., by the mere combination of love to Prakriti he can produce the world). The meaning is that Brahman reproduces 070 himself in the self-chosen symbolical gross and other bodily forms. As As the maxim prayojanam anuddisya na mando'pi pravartate goes (even an ignorant man does not undertake anything without profit), if those desirous of moksha had no benefit to be derived from Parabrahman, they would not have meditated on him. Bhaktas, who are well acquainted with the Vedas and Vedantas, who meditate on him for the realization of their long-cherished wish in this and the next world, will acquire them in their unqualified entirety (phala prayojanam nirviseshe nopapadyate). Therefore the argument that Parabrahman in association with Maya (Mayasabalita Brahma) is the cause of creation, is as manifestly objectless and aimless as the mistaking of the rope for the snake (and basing an argument on such mistaken identity). Just as the likeness of an object seen in water and other like fluids is untrue, the creation that is as the result of the reflection of Maya is also an incongruity. Nishkalam nishkriyam santam niravadyam niranjanam; 1 Na tasya karyam karanam cha vidyate ; 72 Etasmaj jayate prano manas sarvendriyani cha;873 Satyakamah satyasankalpah so'nveshtavyah sa vijignasitavyah; 674 and other Sruti texts declare that Parabrahman possesses the attributes of nishkriyatvam (redemption) and kriyasrayatvam (being connected 671 670 Sambhava: gives himself birth to; gives himself existence to; etc. 671 Sveta. Upa., VI. 19. 672 Sveta. Upa., VI. 8. 678 Mundaka-upanishad , II. 1. 3. 674 Chchandogya-upanishad , VIII. 7. 1.

with the execution of deeds). The doubt thus arises whether Nirvisesha Brahman, by reason of being connected with jagad-janmadi, etc., is the Savisesha sabala Brahman. If Nirvisesha Brahman consisting of Pure Intelligence (Supreme Spirit) is never capable of being the cause of jagad-janmadi, on account of his being nirvikara, nishkriya and nissaktika, then the assumption that mayakalpita sabalesvara is the cause of the jagat (jagatkaranatvam) is a false one (aropa). This being so, the established conclusion (siddhanta) is as propounded in the text na prayojanavattvat. We have the Sruti text Para'sya saktih vividhaiva sruyate. This text shows that Nirvisesha springs up in connection with Brahman. How? Prayojanavattvat,- because of his being capable of being useful to everybody, without any benefit to himself. Savi- sesha Brahman alone is abundantly beneficial in granting devas and manushas mentioned in the Vedantas all their desires in their entirety by the mere fact of his being prayojanavattvat. This doctrine is disregarded by Mayavadins and Adhyatmavadins (those who believe Brahman as the Supreme Spirit manifested as the individual life). Verily can Nirviseshavastuvadins 676 postulate the existence in reality of a vastu existing without distinction-and yet having a difference (Tatha hi nirviseshavadibhih nirviseshe vastuni idam pramanam iti katham vaktum sakyate). (Because) every vastu is combined with its distinction. It is his own avowed doctrine that that vastu is real which is, from every known source of proof, within one's own personal experience. Even so is atma such a vastu (so'pyatma). But such a vastu has been contradicted, though actually seen and experienced to be savisesha, by mere (barren) argument."77 When it is said "This (vastu) I saw it is within the experience of every one that the object seen bears. " 675 The word used is anadaraniyam, which would suggest that those who should naturally defend are found to be the opposers of the doctrine in question. 676 Mayavadins who argue the Nirvisesha Brahman. 677 Sakshika saviseshanubhava vadena nirastah.

certain peculiar distinctive attributes (kenachidviseshavisishta vishayatvat). (Such being the position), how can we say, by the exercise of untrue ingenuity, that it (the vastu) is destitute of distinction (nirvisesha)? In order to disassociate Nirvisesha Brahman, we have to draw him out as the excess of actual Reality (sattatireka) and as one unlike in character to things (vastu) which undergo constant changes as the result of their natural qualities. All these means of extracting Nirvisesha Brahman from the Reality with which he is connected, the Reality itself, and the characteristics natural to it are in themselves the attributes of Brahman. Therefore by whomsoever would it be possible to deny the qualities of an object in order to establish it as being quite distinct from them? The answer is that it is never possible to postulate a nirvisesha vastu as having been proved to exist. When once knowledge is in disguise, ignorance is dispelled by self-illumination which is acquired through practice. That those who are in a state of a mental delusion, due to ignorance for the time being, get the same dispelled in course of time is in every one's experience. The reason for this could be explained at length. This is, indeed, in every one's daily experience. Such experience does not relate to the vastu alone; it is possible to demonstrate this by arguments. In order to establish the existence of a vastu as absolutely true, beyond every argument brought forward against it, it is necessary to employ every argument in order to dispel doubts so that it might not be mistaken from those similar to it. Therefore, we have to bring in descriptive attributes (viseshairvisishtasyaiva) of the particular vastu along with proofs and establish its existence. Generally knowledge of a vastu is acquired by the use of the descriptive expression appropriate to knowing it. For what is padatva? It is the formation of a pada with its prakriti and pratyaya (the root of the word with its prefix or suffix) connected with it. If prakriti and pratyaya are to be considered as being without distinction, the meaning of the pada formed by such prakriti and pratyaya cannot be

disregarded. Prefixes and suffixes are only intended to denote distinctions in the application of the padas. The difference as between padas necessarily connotes a difference in what they denote. A series of different padas combined together in the form of a sentence cannot possibly describe a nirvisesha vastu. And therefore if you try to establish a nirvisesha vastu, you are left without a sabda to prove it (Na nirvisesha vastuni sabdah pramanam). A vastu which is before our very eyes, which is separated by differentiation and which is either conditioned (nirvikal paka) or is accompanied with doubt (savikalpaka) cannot be proved to be without attribute (nirvisesha). Savikalpaka means belonging to a class possessed of a particular distinction; this distinction differentiates it from many other objects of its class taken together with all their different distinctions. Now, as to the nirvikalpaka class. It is the opposite of those objects which in our experience 078 come under the head of those which are possessed of distinctions. Knowledge (of one of the four kinds) testifies to this fact. Then what is nirvikalpaka? How can such a thing which is improved be grasped by knowledge? knowledge? Therefore an object which is so void of all distinctions can at no time be one capable of understanding. As such a thing devoid of attributes cannot be determined with exactness, it must be declared to be impossible of being spoken of thus with definiteness. As it is not possible to describe such an object with exactness, it becomes utterly un intelligible and untrustworthy. Therefore the conclusion previously arrived at should be held to be the reasonable one. If it is doubted and asked wherefore does Mahadeva, who is ever of the paramananda and niravayava nature, bring into existence the creation of the world, etc., without any benefit to Himself, the next Sutra, Lokavattu lilakaivalyam (II. 1. 33), explains it. In commenting on this 678 In our experience: The word used is svasvanubhuta. Anubhuti means knowledge derived from four sources, viz., direct perception, inference, comparison and verbal knowledge.

Sutra, Sripati says that Siva Parabrahman is seen at times in perfect isolation by way of pastime. Being thus in perfect isolation on an occasion is His peculiar native habit. His thus abiding in Himself is so determined for Him. This is parallel with what is experienced in this world. Just as we see in this world a great monarch, who is the lord of all the seven islands subject to his sceptre, with all his wealth, his prowess, his courage, his heroism, and powerfulness and capacity to bear the burden of sovereignty, determines once upon a time, by way of sport, to begin some work; and sometimes sits quiet in silent contentment. Moreover, all beings are naturally animated by their vital breaths; in a like manner Paramasiva who is glowing in his bliss, brings into existence creation, etc., out of his native sportive nature in consonance with his determination. Therefore it is seen that creation, etc., is a mere sport for Siva, who has attained all his desires and is characterised by his native joy. After the destruction of creation and upto the time that creation is again undertaken, He is in His unblameable, habitual situation of sitting quiet in silent contentment. If it is doubted whether Paramasiva, who is nirguna and nirlipta (without qualities and unsullied), being the cause of creation, etc., is responsible for health and sickness, wealth and poverty, righteousness and unrighteousness, among created beings, such devas, animals and men and the rest, having created them into superior (uttama), middle (mathyama) and inferior (adhama) classes, the answer is that it is inevitable that there should result among them, souls in bondage, jealousy, cruelty and other sinful qualities. Passing on to the Sutra (II. 1. 34), Vaishamya nairghrinyena sapekshatvat tatha hi darsayati, Sripati asks, Are inequality and cruelty qualities attributable to Brahman? It is seen that they are the qualities of jivas who get them bestowed on them by Brahman just as they desired them. In this world, jivas are seen enjoying happiness or as

undergoing misery which cannot reflect upon Parabrahman as attributable to him, because He has no share in the inequalities and cruelties seen in it. Why is this so? Because these are due to the desires of the jivas themselves. Their desires are in consonance with the good and evil deeds wrought by themselves. This is seen (from the Srutis). This truth is brought to light in the Srutis. This is the gist of the Sutra. Nevertheless, Paramapurusha Siva, out of His natural power of chitsakti, even though He is bodiless in form, may be capable of being the cause of creating, etc., many different kinds of wonderful things (in this world) and thereby give room for the charge of partiality against Himself by the inequalities, etc., seen among the superior, middle and inferior classes of beings into which men, animals and the rest of the beings in bondage are found divided. This shows that these beings are bound to undergo the essential qualities appertaining to their doings by enjoyment in Svarga and suffering in Naraka, and by happiness and affliction (in this world). And if it is asked whether by His grace, they could escape the suffering from the cruelty, etc., inseparable from their own actions, the answer is, it is impossible. The expression sapekshatvat will rule the Sutra, thereby meaning that " inequality" and "cruelty" (discernible) in creation, etc., will have to prevail because they are the peculiar results of the jiva's own karma. At the time the world was to be created, in the case of the devas and the rest, the creation had to become unequal because of the different desires expressed the jivas in accordance with their different karmas. The Srutis also point to the fact that the devas and the rest (in all their gradations-higher, middle and inferior) desire that which is in accordance with their respective karmas: Sadhukari sadhurbhavati (the righteous person will be created righteous); Papakari papo bhavati (the sinful person will be created sinful); Punyah punyena karmana bhavati (the virtuous person by virtue of his virtuous deed will be born virtuous); Papah papena karmana

bhavati (the sinful person by virtue of his sinful deeds. will be born sinful), etc. Agreeably to these (texts) is the text of Vyasa :-Nimittamatram evasau srijyanam svarga karmani Pradhana karanibhuta yato vai srijya- saktayah Nimitta matram muktvaiva nanyat kinchit apekshate | Niyyate tapatam sreshtha svasaktya vastu vastutam This (Parabrahman) is only instrumental in bringing into existence svarga, while the karmins (beings) are really the chief causes (of their own beings); for that very reason they are capable of (helping) creation. Those beings, oh great among those who have done penance !, like muktas who ask for nothing more than what they desire, start in proportion to their strength, (for) vastu vastutam (niyyate), i.e., a thing is controlled by its own properties. In this way Parabrahman as kshetragna, who knows the different classes of persons from the devas and others who for different reasons are to come into the wonderful creation, allows them to go into it agreeably to their past karma. Therefore there is no contradiction. In secondary creation, the desire for doing acts involving punya and papa on the part of one falls to the share of Siva; in primary creation, it is otherwise, as there are no jivas who are involved in acts involving punya and papa. In the agency of Nirguna Brahman, inequality, cruelty and such other defects are unavoidable. Consequently, jagat being unreal (mithyabhuta), we have the result that Brahman's variegated creation itself is unreal. To meet this doubt, the next Sutra is propounded: Na karmavibhagaditi chennanaditvapyupapadyate chapyupalabhyate cha (II. 1.35). (If it be said 'Not so on account of non-differentiation of deeds,' we say, 'Not so, on account of beginninglessness.' This is reasonable, and it is also observed.) Before creation there was no karma for jivas. Why? Because they were all undivided from the rest. When the world consisting of chetanas and achetanas was dissolved at its destruction, karma was also destroyed. Such a line of argumentation will not hold. Because the Sutra says

"anaditvat" meaning "without beginning or end". Agreeably to the pravahataranga nyaya-the maxim of the current and the waves which are endless-creation and dissolution are endless and occur in constant rotation without break. And hence the existence of the world is also endless. And it follows that the result of karma done by the jiva previous to the dissolution will remain in a dormant state at the time of dissolution. And again re-appears at the time of re-creation as the previously accrued karma of the jiva, merit or demerit according as it might have been desired by it with the re-creation. of the jagat. Moreover, at the time of next dissolution, it remains over and is dormant in a sukshma form according to the will of Paramesvara. And therefore the reality of the world is inevitable. This (prapanchasatyatvam) accordingly must be accepted without question, for it is unavoidable (anivaryam). This is the inner meaning of the Sutra as suggested by the words upapadyate and upalabhyate used in it. 680 Before creation, the jivas were in the minutest undivided form in a dormant condition in Brahman. How? In what form? Visible only Visible only in an undivided form. Countless hundreds of Sruti texts like the following bear testimony to the fact that in the beginning nothing like karma nor the fruits thereof existed :Brahma va idamagra asit; 679 Atma va idamagra asit ; Sadeva saumyedamagra asit; 81 Yada tamastam na diva na ratrir na sanna chasachchiva eva kevalah, 682 etc. How then can karma and its fruits of the jivas become their respective desires at the time of creation unless it be due to (a sense of) injustice (on the part of) Brahman? The answer is, it is not so. For the Sutra text declares Anaditvat (from without beginning). Agreeably to the pravaha taranga nyaya, the jivas and their karmas and the fruits thereof are flowing in a current without beginning or end in 679 Aitareya Upa., I. 1. 681 Chchandogya-upanishad , VI. 2. creation; 680 therefore, whenever Ibid. 682 Sveta. Upa., IV. 18.

opportunity permits, these jivas come into existence during creation, according to the results of their previous karmas, just as during summer time seeds sown are seen in situ in the earth in tiny little forms of different kinds. In the same way, we have to accept that among jivas, karma and its fruits are seen in an identical manner. If we do not accept such a conclusion, a great contradiction will result in the Agama and its proofs. Hence the text of the Sutra uses the word upalabhyatecha (results in). Therefore souls with their karma and the fruits thereof have inevitably no beginning or end. Accordingly, Sruti texts like the following, Srishteh pravaharupena satyatvamu padisyate;68³ Gna gnau dvavajavisanisau,"8¹ declare that souls have no beginning or end and their karmas and their fruits have to be held as established from the context (of the Sutras) to be even so. etc., Assuming, then, that jivas have in them the results of their beginningless karma. Though this be so, yet Parasiva has to provide them with their several encasements (bodies) and this forms his principal duty (during creation). To impart to the achetana bodily form that active principle which renders it useful by reason of its karma, is the great capacity of Isvara. How is it that some jivas which have abided (in the Parabrahman) in a dormant condition in the most happy manner at the time of creation have come into this world in a bodily receptacle meant for affliction (klesayatana sarira)? This shows that He is ill-disposed towards some of the jivas. Jivas being unable (of their own accord) to enter their bodies, were quite free from all affliction; except for His (Brahman's) will they would not have come into existence at creation. This is no doubt so; but why then does not Brahman give those jivas, who are simultaneously eligible for release and who are fit for eternal happiness, the same without bringing them 683 This is quoted by Anandatirtha in his Mahabharata Tatparyanirnaya thus:-Jagat pravahassatyoyam naiva mithya kathanchana || 684 Sveta. Upa., I. 9.

into creation which involves the bondage of karma? Because Siva, even though He is All-Grace and capable of granting salvation simultaneously to all jivas who deserve it, yet, just as the overlord of a kingdom, kingdom, who feeling glad over the faithful manner in which his subordinate has discharged the duties of his office, in strict accordance with the laws of the realm, releases him from his obligations, so does the Lord Siva dissolve the fetters that tie the jivas to their karma, when they come to fruition. Just as a father, in this world, seeing his son behave in an unruly manner, does not receive him into his grace, without first duly punishing him, even so is it with Paramesvara. Without administering (the fruits) of meritorious and evil deeds done by jivas, Isvara does not grant His grace (svapraptim na dasyati). Even the rays of the sun only open up the petals of the unblossomed lotus (and not others); even so even so Isvara releases only such jivas from the ties of bondage who meditate upon and worship him with sama, dama and bhakti combined. Moreover, it would follow from Sruti texts such as Esha eva sadhu karma karayati tam urdhvalokam ninishayati; Esha evasadhu karma karayati tam adholokam ninishayati, 885 etc., that it is Paramesvara alone that determines the fate of the jivas and jivas themselves individually hold no responsibility. But if it is said that the sins of vaishamya and nairghrinya appertain not to the jivas concerned but to Paramesvara, the reply is: "It is not correct to say so." Even though jivas are not allcapable and all-knowing like Paramesvara, yet the jivas because of their capacity, it so happens, possess a little of the responsibility and freewill (kinchit kartrutvamcha svechchaya sambhavati) (appertaining to them); the result of the actions done out of their responsibility and freewill cannot be denied to the jivas. Just as men and other beings in this world take to their avocations as the sun puts forth his rays of light at day-break, even so jivas in keeping with the results of their respective karmas and by reason of 685 Brihadaranyaka-upanishad , VI. 4. 22.

Paramesvara's existence in them, accomplish their respective karmas. Therefore as the Sruti text Dhyatva munirgachchati bhutayonim samasta sakshim tamasah parastat, etc., declares, Paramesvara like the Sun will be witnessing all that the jivas do. And therefore no taint of sin, etc., attaches to Him. Therefore, also jiva, jagat and karma are proved to be not only eternal but also are demonstrated to be always subordinate to Paramesvara. Numerous Sruti texts like the following, Surya chandramasau dhata yathapurvamakalpayat ;" ; 686 Na jayate na mriyate va vipaschit; 687 Taddhedam tarhyavyakritamasit; Tannamarupabhyam kriyate; Gna gnau dvavajavisanisau ;潞 688 Pradhana kshetragnapatirguneso samsara moksha sthiti bandhahetuh, 680 etc.; texts like Satya" jnanatmako'ranto vibhuratma mahesvarah; Tasyaivamso jivalokah praninam hridaye sthitah; Visphulinga yatha vahnau jayante kashthayogatah; Anadi karma sambandhat tadvadamsa mahesituh; Anadivasanayuktah kshetragna iti kirtitah; Sivabhaktischa sarvesham sarvada sarvato mukhi; Tasyantu vidyamanayam yastu martyah pramuchchyate; Samsara bandhanat tasmat anyah ko vasti mudhadhih; Anadarena sathyena parihasena mayaya; Sivabhakti ratiryasya so'ntyajo'pi vimuchyate; etc., appearing in the Sivagita; Prakritim purushamchaiva vidyavadi ubhavapi, a text which appears in the Krishna-gita; and Nishkalam nishkriyam santami,000 tam, 600 etc., Sruti texts while they lay down nishkriyatva and other attributes of Brahman, also fix the standing responsibility which attaches to him in the sphere of creation. Satyakamah, satyasankalpah and other Sruti texts have to be assumed in the light of the variegated Brahman who is reflected by Maya (mayapratiphalita sabalabrahmaparatvam- evangikartavyam). If we do not do so, great mutual contradictions in the whole of the Vedanta will result and prove impossible of eradication. In order to remove this doubt, the next Sutra is propounded: Sarvadharmopapattescha (II. 1. 36). [And all the dharmas are proved (to be present in Brahman).] In accordance with the Sutra, 686 Maha-upanishad , I. 38. 688 Sveta. Upa., I. 9. 687 Bhagavad-Gita, II. 20. 689 Ibid., VI. 16. 090 Ibid., VI. 19.

Lokavattu lilakaivalyam, it is now demonstrated that the sport of Brahman ends at times in such results (as aforesaid); and at other times, ends in his perfect isolation. Sruti texts like Yassarvagnah sarvaviti Vamadevaya namo iyeshthaya namah sreshthaya namo rudraya namah kalaya namah kalavikaranaya namo balavikaranaya namo balaya namo balapramathanaya namah sarvabhutadamanaya namo manonmanaya namah 1892 Na tasya karyam karanam cha vidyate, etc., declare that the dharma of Paramesvara lies in the fact of his sarvagnatva in respect to lilakalaparatva and nishkriyatva, which are respectively exhibited through creation and its results and in his perfect isolation. And therefore all his sagunatva and nirgunatva dharma have their birth in Parabrahma Siva himself. And Sruti texts like Eka eva rudro na dvitiyaya tasthe Ekamevadvitiyam Brahma, etc., prove that Brahman is the sole author; through the agency of his supreme power, he appears in combination in the form of a reflected image of his variegated self fashioned after himself. Allpervasive yet bodiless, and not possessed of a reflected form, yet by reason of the mere agency reflected through the opening and the shutting of his eyes, all dharma (such as creation, etc.) proceed from him. These appear manifestly contradictory to what is declared both in the Srutis and Smritis, and are argued to be by Gautama, Dadhichi, Vyasa and Siva and Kesava, who are agreeable to imprecations, and others as false doctrines (mohasastrani) wherein jiva and Isvara appear as inventions (i.e., as separate entities) and the world as false. This view should be discarded and unheeded by Sivabhaktas who seek moksha. This is the established truth. " "Some cat-like disputants, 09+ seeking support from the Advaita doctrine, state that they stand on an equality with 691 Mundaka-upanishad , I. 1. 9. 693 Sveta. Upa., VI. 8. 694 692 Namaka Chamaka. Kechidadvaitamasritya bidalapratima narah. The latter words appear to be used in a deprecatory sense and probably indicate " spiteful disputants.

Rudra "; Those Brahmans who were cursed by Dadhichi and Gautama, having come into existence in the Kali age have become objects of censure"; Dadhichi, Vyasa and Durvasa and others having received curses have held the world as false (jaganmithyatvam asritya), and expounded such a doctrine will attain the region of hell"; "having preached to the world about the world (jagat) and Isvara in a false manner and being devoid of devotion, will necessarily enter the kingdom of Yama"; "One who declares 'I am Brahman' (aham Brahma) will by such an assertion enter the most fearful eternal Hell "-these and other declarations are seen clearly in the Skanda, Laingya and Kurma Puranas, where the discussion of jagat being false is contradicted and discarded. And hence those who desire moksha should without any doubt whatever hold that Siva Parabrahman is the sole cause of creation, etc., as the net result of Vedantic discussion and follow it as their main support.