365bet娱乐

[Full title: Sripati鈥檚 Philosophical Standpoint (4): The Nature of the Jiva]

We now pass on to the consideration of the next two topics, the nature of the Jiva and the origin of the Jiva. 705 Srikara reads the Sutra II. 3. 5 Pratignahanir avyatirekat sabdebhyah thus: Pratignahanirvyatirekat sabdebhyah, omitting the negative letter a in the Sutra. Sankara and Anandatirtha read it with the negative a but with the words sabdebhyah, which form a separate Sutra in Ramanuja. 700 Jivas exist; creation cannot be denied to them; jivas prefer to go as they like into creation; Brahman only agrees and brings them into creation, giving them bodily forms and power of free action but remains in them throughout in their individual division. There is no contradiction whatever in the Srutis in regard to this.

The nature of the jiva is discussed in the Amsadhikarana (II. 3. 40-II. 3. 50) more especially in II. 3. 40: Amso nanavyapadesadanyatha dasakitavaditvam adhiyata eke. chapi In the previous Sutras, the atomic character (anutva) of the jiva, its capacity for understanding, its power for realizing Brahman, its power for independent action and the like having been demonstrated, now in this Sutra are discussed at length the Oneness of the jiva (jivaikatva), the Brahmatva of the jiva (jiva brahmatva), the jivas falling off (from Brahman) (jivalikatva), the reflected character of the jiva (jivapratibimbadikam) and other topics and how far they are impossible or inconsistent with the Vedas Anupapannam avaidikatvat). Hundreds of Sruti texts like the following, Yatha sudiptat pavakadvisphulingas sahasrasah prabhavante sarupah; Tatha ksharadvividhas saumyabhavah prajayante tatra chaivapiyanti ;鈩⒙�7 Mayantu prakritim vindyanmayinamtu mahesvaram; Tasyavayava bhutaistu vyaptam sarvamidam jagat, 708 etc., declare the jiva as the amsa of Brahman. It is therefore not right to discuss the question like jivaikatva, etc. For the expression which occurs in the Sutra, Nanavyapadesat, clearly points out the meaning of bheda in Sruti texts like Dvasu parna, 709 etc., which declare that the jiva and Brahman are different. And the expression in the Sutra, Anyatha- 710 etc., chapi, denotes that Sruti texts like Tattvamasi, declare abheda. Therefore it has to be accepted that there exists between the jiva and Brahman bheda and abheda. It is, however, proved by Sruti texts that jivas are amsas (parts) of Brahman. Even though this is so, the expression in the Sutra, Dasakitavaditvam adhiyata eke, points out that the Atharvanikasakhins 11 declare the jivas as a servant class 707 Sveta. Upa., IV. 10. 708 Ibid. 700 Mundaka-upanishad , III. 1. 1. 710 Chchandogya-upanishad , VI. 2. 8. 711 Those who follow the Atharvanasikha Upanishad.

" (Brahmanah dasakitavatvam) of the Brahman, and therefore from the relation "of being a servant and "of offering service" (dasya dasakatvena), they declare that between the jiva and Brahman there is bheda. Sruti texts like Brahmadasa Brahmadasa Brahmaiveme kitavah, 712 etc., incontestably prove that jivas even in their mukti stage, having attained Brahma sarupya, offer, by reason of their being servants, (holy) services and submit in their subordination to Brahman. The word Eke in the Sutra particularizes Eke sakhinah, i.e., those belonging to the Atharvanasakha. That doctrine is proved to hold good and is held to be in conformity with the Vedic doctrine. It is therefore to be accepted as proved that those jivas who being released from the bondage of the world and of family ties and who become quite pure and are fit for mukti, they, in their mukti stage also, still hold to their status of subordination and by reason of fear (by fear of such subordination) (bhayahetu. tvena) offer their services (to Brahman) in the relationship of Paramesvara sesha and seshi (Paramesvara as the remainder and the jiva as the part taken away from the whole) (Paramesvara sesha seshitvadikam upapannam). If it is urged, as against this, that Sruti texts like Yatha nadyadi etc., in which the identity of the jiva and Brahman (jiva Brahmanossvarupaikyatva) is declared, we suggest we always argue as those who act in conformity with the (teachings of the) Sruti texts. But as the saying goes Na yuktim bahumanmahe, intelligence in argument is not the only thing that deserves respect. As at length proved in the Jijnasadhikaranam, intelligence should always be used in conformity with the teachings of the Srutis combined with experience. Even in the Advaita and the Visishtadvaita doctrines, on account of the want of harmony created by them as between Sruti texts as interpreted by them, they cling for a support to the shadow of the bhedabheda doctrine. If, as they say, they depend (for the truth of their teaching) on the harmony as between all the Sruti texts (sarva Sruti samanvaya) then 712 Atharvasiras.

As they should be held to indirectly accept bhedabheda. regards the highly argumentative followers of the Madhva school of teaching, who utterly hold to bhedavada, they cannot be said to have harmonised all the Srutis-in so much as they practically reject all the Advaita Srutis,-just as Bauddhas who discard all the Srutis, both bheda and abheda. That such a doctrine should not be accepted is what is indicated as the gist of the Sutra. Now, who is this jiva? Is he absolutely different from Brahman (Parasmadatyantabhinnah)? Or is he Parabrahman alone in this false form (Parameva Brahmabhrantam)? Further, if we postulate that the jiva is only Brahman in disguise (upadhi) or only a part (amsa) of Brahman, in either case it would be a contradiction of the Srutis. According to the Sutras, Tadananyatvam arambhanasabdadibhyah (II. 1. 14) and Adhikantu bhedanirdesat (II. 1.22), etc., this conclusion is established in truth, He is the same. Some Srutis declare plurality; others identity (with Brahman). If we examine these two sets of contradictory Srutis, then we will naturally arrive with the better conclusion that the jiva is a part (amsa) of Brahman. So long as it is not clearly established that the jiva is an amsa of Brahman, till then it is to be understood that jiva is not different from Brahman. At any rate nothing beyond Brahman is established. Then, what is the result? Is it to be inferred that the jiva is absolutely different from Brahman. How? Sruti texts like Gna gnau dvau ajavisanisau, 713 etc., clearly point to difference (that Brahman and the jiva are different). It cannot be held out according to the Sruti text Gna gnau, 714 etc., that the jiva and Brahman are one. The Sruti text Agnina sinchati, etc., declares metaphorically that the jiva is an amsa of Brahman. This cannot be proved. means part and parcel of a certain thing. said to be an amsa of Brahman and forms a part of Brahman, The word amsa If jiva is then 713 Sveta. Upa., I. 9. 714 Ibid.

then it is to be understood that whatever faults exist in jiva also exist in Brahman. At any rate, the view that Brahman is a khanda or part of jiva is not supported by reason. As Brahman cannot deservedly be characterized as a part of jiva, we arrive again at the same contradiction as before. Therefore, for one who is out and out different from Brahman (atyanta bhinnatvam), to call him an amsa is really difficult of proof. If we postulate that the jiva is Brahman alone in a false form, on the support of the Sruti texts like Tattvamasi, 715 Ayamatma Brahma,718 etc., which explain the jiva as Brahmatmabhava (as a form of Brahman in the form of jiva), then according to those who hold to the nanatva principle, 717 the result is that we arrive at a position which falsifies what is borne testimony to by pratyaksha, anumana and agama, which endeavour to prove the Advaita standpoint. According to Advaita, the pratyakshadi (anumana, agama, etc.) argument tries to prove the avidya which lies in Brahman. Therefore it holds that Brahman is inseparably connected with upadhi which ends in the manifestation of the jiva. And, therefore, it holds that Brahmatmabhava is to be seen in the state of the jiva. But it is certain that it cannot as a fact be concluded that the jiva is a disguised form of Brahman or his false form. Because it is through Brahman that bondage, release, etc., is to be finally secured (by the jiva). So we again arrive at the conclusion that the jiva is an amsa of Brahman, for, according to the expression in the Sutra, Nanavyapadesadanyatha chaikatvena, the jiva holds the double state of jiva and Brahman in its respective amsas. The nanatva of the jiva is exhibited in the power of creation, and controlling (niyantrutva), and commanding 715 Chchandogya-upanishad , VI. 2. 8. 716 Brihadaranyaka-upanishad , IV. 5. 19. 717 Nanatva vadins as opposed to ekatva vadins; pluralists as opposed to monists. Nanatva vadins: Those who maintain the Sankhya doctrine that each individual has a soul distinct from the Universal Spirit.

(niyamyatva) and all-knowing (sarvagnatva) and also not knowing (agnatva), both svaadhinatva and paradhinatva (independence and subordination), suddhatva and asuddhatva (purity and non-purity), kalyanagunakaratva and its viparitatva (good qualities and bad qualities), etc., are also seen in these dual states. In the Sutra, the expression Anyathacha is used. It is seen that the jiva behaves to exist identically with Brahman according to the Sruti texts Tattvamasi, 118 Ayamatma Brahma, 719 etc. In the Sutra, moreover, the expression Dasakitavaditvamadhiyata eke explains the Atharvanika Sruti text Brahmadasa Brahmadasa Brahmaiveme kitavah, etc., which means that Brahman holds the forms of dasa and kitava (servant form and the form of the rogue). Then all the jivas generally hold this different form from that of Brahman. Thus, if we have to conclude by accepting the double state of the existence of the jiva and Brahman forms, then we must conclude that this jiva is only an amsa of Brahman. This is clearly accepting the opinions held by those who postulate that the jiva is different from Brahman. And it cannot well be otherwise. Then if Brahman is accepted to possess the powers of creation (srujyatva), control (niyamyatva), remaindership (tatseshatva), support (tadadharatva), maintenance (tatpalyatva), destruction (tatsamharatva), meditating upon him (tadupasakatva) and to obtain through his grace the enjoyment of dharmartha kama moksha and release therefrom, then, jiva and Brahman are absolutely different from each other. And therefore it is clearly proved through pratyakshanumanagama that the jiva is other than Brahman and therefore so long as the powers of jagat srishti, etc., cannot be proved for him, so far it cannot be proved that the jiva is only a disguised form of Brahman. Nor can he be affirmed to be akhanda, i.e., an indivisible part of Brahman in a different state (akhandaika rasa chinmatra svarupena). 718 Chchandogya-upanishad , VI. 2. 8. 719 Brihadaranyaka-upanishad , IV. 5. 19.

If, against this, it is held that the jiva enters this world of bondage in the panchabhuta srishti stage; after thus entering into existence under a certain nomenclature and undergoing in this world all the results of bondage by experiencing in experiencing in a mixed form, sometimes happiness and sometimes misery and then meditating upon that form of Brahman who brought him into creation and striving for moksha according to the principles of the Sastra as explained to him by his guru; and all the while that he should be in the jiva form, himself Brahman in disguise, all this would clearly show in truth the ravings of a mad man in the height of his madness (tathasati unmatta pralapitatvapatat). And therefore it can never be maintained, however much you might try, with the support of the Srutis, that the jiva is only Brahman in disguise (upadhyavachchinnam Brahma jiva ityapi nasadhiyyah), because the powers of creation, and command clearly go against such a view (purva nirdishta niyamyatva niyantratvadi vyapadesa badhadeva). It cannot be held to be a proved fact that Devadatta, being only some identical person, not only possessed the powers of creation, control, etc., of the world but also underwent all the miseries of a family man through his ignorance. Nor is it possible by any Sastraic device to combine in one and the same person the attributes of the jiva and an amsa of Brahman (jivoyam Brahmanomsah) unless we grant that the import of all the Sruti texts which proclaim the dvaita and advaita doctrines are in agreement on the fundamental points. And this is the conclusion. Sruti and Smriti texts such as Sivah satyam jagat satyam jivah satyam svabhavatah; Tesham abhedassatyova krimibhramarayoriva, etc., declare that the existence of Siva is true; that the existence of the world is true and that the existence of the jiva is true generally. Whether it is a fact that they are one and the same (tesham abhedassatyova), can only be understood in the manner in which we understand the relation of the krimi to the bhramara (krimi bhramara-

yoriva). Those who think thus with the Smriti text that Siva is to the jagat and jiva as the krimi is to the bhramara and Brahman-think in a handsome manner. Sruti texts like Ayamatma Brahma, 720 etc., also declare of the jiva in terms of the Brahman (jivasyaiva Brahmatvopadesat). If that be so, then do Bheda Sruti texts like Brahmadasa Brahmadasa, etc., which declare in the manner exemplified in the invented difference which mistakes the rope for the snake, lead us to a doubt as to how these two different sets of Sruti texts can be reconciled. The answer to this doubt is propounded in the next Sutra, Mantravarnat (II. 3. 41). 721. Sruti texts like the following explain the gist of the Mantravarna, which declares that the jiva is an amsa of Siva (Sivamso jivah):-Mayantu prakritim vindyat mayinantu mahesvaram | Tasyavayavabhutottham vyaptam sarvamidam jagat 21; Pado'sya visva bhutani tripadasyamritam divi, 722 etc. These texts clearly show that Maya possesses the character of prakriti and Mahesvara is separated from it and therefore the whole world is stated to be something that has been born out of a membrane of his body. Therefore jiva also is a part of Maya, which is a small part of Paramapurusha Siva. never Moreover, the term amsa is synonymous with the word pada. Paramasiva represents the visvabhuta and jivas, who are innumerable and thus spoken of in the plural number, represent only a part or an amsa. Both in the Mantras and in the Sutras, the word amsa is used only in the singular, in order to show that as a class, jivas form only a part of Paramasiva, who represents visvabhuta. In the Sruti text Atma sruteh, the word Sruti is used in the singular number only, thereby conveying the idea of jivas belonging to a "class". Sruti texts like Nityo'nityanam chetanaschetananam eko bahunam yo 720 Brihadaranyaka-upanishad , IV. 5. 19. 721 Sveta. Upa., IV. 10. 722 Taittiriya-upanishad , III. 12.

vidadhati kaman, 723 etc., all go to prove that Isvara is seen in jivas in his entirety and eternality though the jivas are many. This sufficiently establishes the fact that in His jnana svarupa, He is one in all the jivas (though they are) quite separate from each other and Himself absolutely separate from them. This is the chief reason for the separate existence of each in different forms. This is what those well versed in the knowledge of the real nature of atman (atma yathatmya) hold as a settled fact.*24 723 Katha-upanishad , II. 18. 724 Cf. Jayatirtha in his Nyaya Sudha, I. 1. 1 (Nirnaya Sagara edition, page 18), dealing with mukti, after postulating that mukti is possible only through the grace of Hari, says that mere. jnana without a settled knowledge of Hari cannot help one to attain moksha ; that moksha is the result of Hari's grace; and that Hari's grace is subject to atma yathatmya jnana. He then observes :-Atmayathatmya jnanalanatmani sariradavatmatvarope sati hi tadanukula pratikulayoh ragadveshau bhavatah tabhaya prayuktah punyapapa lakshanam pravruttimachinute tatascha sura nara tiryagadi nanayonishu navina sarirendriyadi samyoga lakshanam janmasya bhavati. [If there is no knowledge of the exact atma yathatmya svarupa, then it results in raga and dresha, and these two latter lead to commission of sin and subsequently end in birth and rebirth among. the human and inferior (tiryagyom) species.] Then Tikacharya writes: Tasmachcha duhkhanubhava ityanadirayam karyakaranapravahah samsara tyuchyate Atma tallva jnanachcha ajnana viparyayau nivartete | Tattvajnanasya samanasraya vishayajnana mithyajnana nivartana svabhavyat | Suktika tattva jnanasya tadajnana rajataropa mvartakatva darsanat | Mithyajnananivrittau cha raga dveshanudayah karanabhavat 1 Tayorabhave cha na pravrutter utpattih tata cva prak upachitayaschotabhogena prakshayah| Pravruttyabhavecha janmantarabhavo hetvabhavadeva vartamana sariradescha arambhakakshaye sati nivruttih | Janmabhave cha na nirbijasya duhkhasyotpada ityevam atyantiki duhkhanivruttir muktih. (And this ends in involving himself in the rotatory series of births and rebirths which is signified by the flow of samsara. And therefore in order to free himself from such a flow of the bondage of life, atma tattvajnana is the only means- -to remove him out of this illusion of ignorance. And this atmatattvajnana has the natural power of removing him out of the hold of ajnana and mithyajnana. Then, he will have been delivered from the ignorance which made him to imagine rajata in sukti. Thus ignorance being lost, he will

The Sutra, Asantateschavyatikarah (II. 3. 46), clearly states that the plurality of atman (atma bahutva) is brought to manifestation only subsequently. And therefore it is not a pleasure to discuss further the dvaita phase of the argument as Atmaikatva is also supported. Here Sripati passes on passes on to the view. In this view, further proofs Advaita point of (for this position) are pointed out in the next Sutra, Api cha smaryate (II. 3. 42). (Moreover it is so stated in Smriti.) There is in the Sivagita the text, Satyajnanatmako'nanto vibhuratma mahesvarah Tasyaivamso jivaloko hrudaye praninam sthitah Visphulinga yatha vahnau jayante kashthayogatah Anadivasanayuktah kshetragna iti te smritahiti. And also in the Krishna-Giu, there is the text: Mamaivamso jivaloko jivabhutassanatanah Isvarassarvabhutanam hruddese'rjuna tishthati Bhramayan sarvabhutani yantrarundhani mayaya | Tameva saranam yahi sarvabhavena bharata | iti. Both of these texts declare that jivas in their plurality also possess Isvaratva. Similarly in the Taittiriya Sruti text, Yatova imani bhutani jayante Yena jatani jivanti iti and others of the same import, there is clear proof of the plural existence (jiva bahutvam) of the jiva. And hence the pretended vaikatva and jiva-Brahmatva disputation have no more cause for rotatory births, which, when it ceases, there will be no more seed left for sorrow to rise. And this state of being absolutely rid of any shadow of sorrow is called mukti, Atyantiki duhkhanivruttir muktih. The Sruti text, Yasya prasadat paramarti rupat asmat samsaran muchyate naparena, declares that by nothing else but by Paramatma's grace can the jiva be removed out of the bondage of samsara and made to attain mukti, which is true jnana. Cf. Gnani priyatamo'to me tam vidvaneva chamritah Vrunuteyam tenalabhyah (Smriti text). Yamaivesha vrunute tena labhyah tasyaisha atma vrunute tanum svam (Sruti text). Quoted by Jayatirtha in Nyaya Sudha (p. 17). (A gnani should necessarily endear himself. to me. Then only he is considered by me as one deserving of my grace and will thereby obtain it.) The Sruti declares: He whom he aspires for, through Him only could he attain mukti. And He will grant His grace in His personal Self in token of mukti.

is also possible. Verily, it is seen in the Purusha Sukta text Pado'sya visvabhutani, etc., that Vishnu is the sole regulator of srishti, etc. And also in the Krishna-Gita there is the text Mamaivamso jivalokah, etc., which denotes that Krishna himself in his amsa represents the jiva. And further from the invocation of Vishnu as Harih Om, etc., which is prescribed as the starting point in the Vedas and Vedantas generally and from the Kapila Smriti, it is seen from the text, Vedavakyani sarvani Harinamani vai smritah, 725 that all the words used in the Veda throughout are capable of being interpreted only in terms of Hari. If from this it is doubted whether the jivas are the amsas of Vishnu only, our answer is "It is not so". Because this is a clear contradiction to several Sruti and Smriti texts previously quoted. The same thing is dealt with at great length in the Purusha Sukta I. i. as well as in the Krishna-Gita. It is a contradiction of all Sruti texts if Narayana, who is one of the embodiments of the three deities, who make up the Trinity (murtitraya antarbhutasya), alone forms the amsa of all jivas and to appropriate for himself the use of that term (Vishnu amsa). In the Sruti text Eko vishnur mahadbhutam pruthak bhutanyanekasah it is said that Vishnu is one great being who pervades severally in several forms all the different beings of creation. Also in the Sruti text Vishnvadyuttama deheshu pravishto daivata bhavet Manushyadyadhama deheshu pravishto manavobhavet\|| etc., it is declared that having entered into the highest class of beings like Vishnu and others, they become beings of high order; and having entered into the lowest class such as human beings, etc., they become beings of lower order such as human beings, etc. Thus Vishnu is stated to have assumed the jiva form. Vishnu is not explicitly proved throughout the Srutis that he is beyond the pale of the three forms of the Trinity, just as Siva is. Siva is present in all beings (sarvatmaka), and is the underlying | 725 Cf. the following citation of this Sruti text taken from Anandatirtha's Sutra-Bhashya, I. 1. 6 :-Namani sarvani yamavisanti tam vai Vishnum paramam udaharanti.

spirit in all words (sarvasabda vachya). That Vishnu should, in a substituted sense, be represented, in the place of Siva, as the highest deity, with the emblems of Sankha and chakra and the marks of urdhva pundra and as keeping the whole world under his delusive sway, is an impropriety. It is generally stated that Siva is the amsa of the jiva. The phrase Harih Om with which Vedic texts begin, in token of offering praise to Vishnu and thereby suggesting that throughout all the Vedas Vishnu is the supreme underlying deity, is an unfounded statement which is not pleasant to discuss (avicharita ramaniyam). In hundreds of Sruti texts like Sarvo vai Rudrah; Sivomameva pitarah; Isanassarvavidyanam; etc., and also in hundreds of Smriti texts as well like Veda sivah sivo vedah; Vedadhyayi sadasivah; Narudrah kramapathaka iti, etc., it is clearly proved that Siva only is sarvatmaka (one pervading all); sarvasrutijanaka (one who is the origin of all the Sruti texts); and sarvavedaniyamaka (one who controls all the Vedic dharma). And thus all these powers cannot be claimed by any one else. Therefore in the expression Harih Om, the word Hari, which is associated with the invocatory suffix Om, only implies Siva in its utterance. For it is stated in the Sruti text, Yo vedadau svarah prokto vedantecha pratishthitah, 720 etc. (He who is invoked by the utterance of omkara in the beginning of the Vedas and also who establishes himself till the end of it). It is clearly shown that according to the Srauta vidhi (Vedic practice), the expression Om only, unqualifiedly, is what should be uttered in the beginning as well as at the end of the Veda.727 The Mandukya Sruti text beginning with Om ityetadaksharamidam sarvam iti and ending with Prapanchopa- samassivodvaita evamomkarah samvisatyatmanatmanam ya evam veda iti, declares that Om is the chief symbolic utterance expressive of the whole of the Veda and denotes Maha-upanishad , X. 24. 726 727 That is, without the name Harih being prefixed. See Note at the end of this Volume on p. 438 of the text on this topic.

528 " " INTRODUCTION " " Siva as the Supreme deity of the pranava. The word 'Siva also expresses the primary meaning which the "pranava" claims to express. And beyond pranava there is no one. This is the chief idea underlying the pranava. Also the Taittiriya text Brahmadhi patir Brahmanodhipatir Brahma Sivome astu Sadasivom iti and the Sama Sruti text Akaro Brahma ukaro Vishnuh makaro kalakalohyardha matrah Paramasivastasmadomkaram lingamahuriti, declare clearly the gist of the pranava. And the Sruti text Parat parataro Brahma tatparat parato Harih Yatparat paratodhisastanme manassivasankalpam astviti bears witness to the fact that the pranava Omkara can, without objection, be used as a prefix to the term Harih but not as a suffix. Because the term "Siva" should be expressed as being above that of "Vishnu" as embodied in the pranava. The Sruti text Ardhova patni eshatmano griheshu iti clearly shows and the Smriti text Sivaya Vishnurupaya Sivarupaya Vishnave and the Kurmasvara Gita text Mamaisha parama murtir Narayana samahvaya declare that in the body of Vishnu the body of Siva also is incontrovertibly contained. It is also stated in the Sama Sakha in the text Sivasya saktirviniyogakale chaturvidhabhuchchiva satprasadat Bhoge bhavani samarecha durga krodhecha kali purushecha Vishnuh | iti | that Vishnu is represented as belonging to the amsa of Parvati (Vishnoh Parvatyamsopadesat). In the Sivashtottarasatanamavali there occurs the text Sankarassulapanischa khatvangi Vishnuvallabhah iti, etc. i Also in the Skanda, we have the text Vande surya sasanka vahninayanam vande mukundapriyam iti, etc. The ascriptions in these texts of Vishnuvallabhatva and priyatva bear witness to the ardhangatva to Vishnu. In the same way, as moon and moonlight are related to each other, Siva who is the embodiment of the pranava and Vishnu are so related (as Chandrika cannot be separated from Chandra, Siva cannot be separated from Vishnu). 728 In the Vaiyasika Skanda, there is the text Sivakesava sambhutam kalaye Kalabhairavam iti, etc. It is generally stated in the 728 We seem to have a glimpse of the Hariharesvara doctrine here.

Puranas that Siva is incontrovertibly spoken of in terms of Vishnuvallabhatva. If it is questioned that while the term Gowripati is accepted as the principal expression for Siva, then at both the beginning and the end of the Vedas and Vedanta there ought to have been used the expression (implying Gowripatitva). According to the saying current in the world Yosha jaramiva priyam, so in the Veda, in order to exhibit the natural tendency for a man to incline more towards his paramour in order to indicate his intenser love for her, clandestinely than naturally, so in the Vedas also, the expression Harik Om is considered to be proper, because that term is, even though inextricably woven with the name of Vishnu, a source of pleasure. 729 Thus jivas, being the amsa of Brahman in an infinitesimally small portion, whatever deficiency attaches to them should naturally apply to Brahman also in common. In order to remove this doubt the next Sutra is propounded. Prakasadivattu naivam parah (II. 3. 43). (But as in the case of light and so on. Not so is the highest.) In this Sutra, the indeclinable tu (sabda) indicates the exclusion of the discrepancy suggested at the end of the comments on the last Sutra (Prakasadivat+tu+na+evam+ parah). Like the brightness of a light, jiva is the amsa of Paramatma. Just as a fire, while it is burning with bright light, reflects brightness all about it, and thereby exhibits its amsas and just as cows and horses of different colourswhite, black, etc.-possess certain common features between them as discriminating characteristics; and just as human beings and divine beings possess a carnal body, similarly amsa means a feature common to both. 730 In certain things, there are a larger number of characteristics which could be compared with any one of them in common with others. Similarly discriminating people explain by comparing certain features common to the two things for purposes of 729 See Text note on page 438 on this topic. 730 Ekavastvekadesatvamhi amsatvam: i.e., Where in one particular point, there is Oneness, there is amsatva. Being common in one part is amsatva. 34 F

comparison. Thus the amsa and amsi become matters for comparison with their common features in them as their natural characteristics. In this manner, the jiva and the Parabrahman are thus compared with their common natural features as amsa and amsi in drawing up a comparison between the two. Thus, in the Sutra, it is said naivam parah, thereby meaning that the jiva only could be compared with Parabrahman and that Parabrahman could not be compared with anything else. What the jiva is as a being, the Parabrahman is not (as a being). In the same manner, the brightness also is of a different nature in these beings. And therefore the ananda of jiva is something quite different from the incomparable ananda of Siva Parabrahman. In this way, the jiva and the Parabrahman stand, for comparison's sake, having these qualifying characteristics. And thus these natural differences in character stand as the fundamental basis for bheda between Isa and jiva. And these qualities naturally support the argument for bheda. As for proving abheda, there are not attributive expressions of a fitting kind that can help to establish it. And such expressions which can establish abheda are not available in particular (abheda nirdesastu pruthak siddhyanarha viseshananam viseshyaparyantatvam asritya mukhyatvenopapadyante). In the texts Tattvamasi; 1 Ayamatma Brahma," 732 etc., and in the expression Ayamatmeti, the words Tat, Brahma and Atma all clearly show that they are the controlling agency in the jiva and thus it is impossible to postulate ekatva as between jiva and Brahman. This has been already made known above. The Smritis also lay stress on the fact that the unhappy state of the jiva is not to be seen in Siva Parabrahman. This is more clearly set forth in the next Sutra, Smaranti cha (II. 3. 44). (And Smriti texts declare this.) The Smritis strongly support the above view. The indeclinable cha denotes the Smritis taken as Take such Smriti texts a whole-chasabdassamuchchaye. 781 Chch. Uta., IV. 8. 7. 732 Brihadaranyaka-upanishad , IV. 5. 19.

531 as the following: Tatra yah paramatmasau sa satyo nirgunassmritah Nalipyate phalaischapi padmapatramivambhasa Karmatmatvaparoyosau mokshabandhaih sayujyate Vigraham devadevasya jagadetachcharacharam Etadartham na jananti pasavah papagauravat iti etc. This Paramatma is eternal and true and devoid of gunas. He is never desirous of realizing any phala for himself, just as a lotus leaf on the surface of water. All jivas endeavour by their actions to realize Parabrahman and thereby get themselves freed from bondage and obtain Moksha. In trying to obtain Moksha, the jivas undergo a great struggle in this mundane world. Many a sinful creature does not know this real truth in what he is aiming at. Thus the Sritis clearly declare that the clear glow of light of Parabrahman attracts the jivas; to obtain it they put forth all their efforts in their amsa form. And this relative feature of jiva and Brahman is sufficiently explained in the Smritis by Parasara and other Rishis. The Smriti text Ekadesasthitasyagner jyotsna vistarini yatha Parasya Brahmanassaktistathe- | dam akhilam jagat etc., declares that though fire burns in one particular place, it throws its light over a large area around it, similarly the glow of brightness of the sakti of Parabrahman is radiated throughout the world. Thus Isvara partakes absolutely nothing of the miseries found in the jivas. So proclaim the Smritis. The indeclinable cha lays stress absolute absence of duhkha in Parabrahman. This is clearly declared in the Sruti text Tayoranyah pippalam svadvattyanasnan anyo abhichakasiti, 33 which declares that one of the two, viz., the anyo jivakhya bird enjoys its fruit of previous actions in its former births, while the Paramatma bird (anasnan anyo) enjoys its eternal undiminished joy. In this way, the Srutis and Smritis clearly explain the widely differing features which contrast the jiva from the Brahman. Thus it is seen throughout the Vedanta that in certain respects the jiva and Parabrahman stand 788 Sveta. Upa., IV. 6. on the

as objects for comparison-such as amsa, jnana, samana, etc., and these widely contrast with what is mentioned in other Smritis, their inequalities and improbabilities which cast the doubt as to how the Sastra should be harmonised. In order to clear this doubt, the following Sutra (II. 3. 45) is propounded: Anugna pariharau dehasambandhajjyotiradivat. (Accepting and rejecting goes with the nature of the body with which it is connected, as we accept or reject fire, etc.) Even though as a fact, all jivas possess an amsa of Brahman and have knowledge about him, yet they being located differently among sects differing as those of Brahma, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra, with whom cleanliness and dirt (Suchyasuchirdehasambandha) are a matter of like and dislike and are tied up with their respective habits and practices. Just as fire which though it is the same everywhere it is found, is yet always preferred from the household of a Brahman well versed in sacred learning (Srotriyagarat agnirahriyate, smasanadestu parihriyate ") being discarded at the same time the fire, from the cremation ground and just as a person prefers to beg his food from the house of a learned Brahman and discards it even when offered at the house of a fighting enemy, even so it is in the matter of jivas who possess bodily forms. Thus the acts done by Devadatta and those done by Yagnadatta widely differ in their characteristics and in their results."31 If it is asked why this is so, it is explained in the next Sutra: Asantateschavyatikarah (II. 3. 46). (Being different in descent, they are not reciprocal.) Though it is true that the amsa of Brahman is the same in all jivas, yet it shows a difference in every individual body by reason of the difference that exists mutually between different bodies. The experience of these different bodies cannot 734 This is an elaboration by Sripati of Srikantha's short comment on this Sutra. Both do not explain the term adi in the Sutra. Nor does Ramanuja bring out the force of this word. (See SriBhashya, III. 3. 48). Sripati herein seeks to establish the dualistic position between jiva and jiva throughout creation.

be blended together. Judging from the (Advaita) theory which propounds the doctrine that bhranti makes us differentiate the jiva from the Brahman, from the jiva point of view, the differences that exist between jivas seem as though they were inherent in the jivas severally. In the experience of the jivas severally, there is found to be difference; this seems a defect in them. And these defects cannot, as among the jivas themselves, be harmonised. In order to establish that such a natural defect in the jivas cannot be harmoniously blended, the word avyatikarah has been fittingly used in the Sutra. It cannot be said that the acts of Devadatta can make Yagnadatta responsible (for them), as both Yagnadatta and Devadatta are bodily absolutely different from generations and therefore the character of the one cannot be blended with that of the other. Those jivas who are naturally wise and fit for realizing moksha, until they have reached that stage they change their bodily form, behave differently from the other jivas who are affected by upadhi; and these two cannot be harmoniously blended either. Just as a jiva in bondage (baddha jiva), which undergoes both happiness and misery as decreed to it by its fate, cannot be blended with one that is not so subject to bondage, 735 by possessing a profound knowledge regarding Siva Parabrahman, a jiva will be free from all family and other illusory bondages. To this effect, it is clearly said in the Sivagama:-Baddha suddhadi bhedena jivatrayam idam smritam | Gurudiksha vihinascha Sivabhakti vivarjitah Svakartrushvabhimanitu baddhassa pasuruchyate | Gurudiksham param labdhva kaimkaryatraya samyutah | Santyadi sadgunopeto mumukshu raga varjitah Sivadhina sudhi bhaktas suddha jiva iti smritah Sivayoga Sivajnana vibhavananda samyutah Prachandatapa madhyastha suddha karpura dipavat | Sivakare parakase kotisurya prakasake i 735 Does Sripati believe in the theory of Anandatirtha: Trividha jiva sanghastu deva manusha danavah? According to Anandatirtha, these cannot be blended together. See Tatparya Nirnaya, 1 st Adhyaya (T. R. Krishnachar's Edition). See Note 740 on page 536.

Vilina chittavrittistu mukta jiva iti smritah Sa jivan mukta ityukto ragadvesha vivarjitah The jivas are said to be of three kinds: baddha, suddha and others. He who is void of faith in his guru and bereft of faith in Siva Parabrahman belongs to one class. And he who esteems himself as his own lord and is self-conceited is considered to be one in bondage like a pasu. He who is always conscientiously serving his guru, who unites in himself the triple qualities of servitude, who possesses the qualities of humility and other good qualities fit for being a mumukshu, who is bereft of personal ties and who always realizes that he is dependent on Siva, is said to be a suddha jiva. He who is associated with Siva, who is full of knowledge of Siva, who enjoys in himself the company of Siva in his undiminished joy and who is always standing in the burning sun fearlessly like a piece of burning camphor, and realizes Siva Parabrahman in the open space in his resplendent brilliance of a thousand suns, keeping his mind dissolved, is called a mukta jiva. He is said to be a jivanmukta who is absolutely free from either friendship or enmity (raga and dvesha) of any kind. Moreover, if the doubt be raised whether such differences (as above) among jivas and their enjoyment, etc., hold good in the case of the Bhranta-Brahma-jiva-vadins, who postulate that such differences are due only to avidya caused by upadhi and that there could not naturally be such differences, it is cleared in the next Sutra: Abhasa eva cha (II. 3. 47). (It is only fallacious appearance.) Brahman, who is absolutely akhandaikarasaprakasa (all fluid-like lustre) in his svarupa but who on account of upadhi (disguise), which is a material which supports the cause of bheda between jiva and himself, is only heturabhasa (an unsupportable cause or argument).730 736 Brahman is absolutely akhandaikarasaprakasa in his svarupa. But upadhi, the material which makes the reflection or deceitful appearance possible, on account of which he is made to appear as different from the jiva, is a false material and cannot support the abhasahetu for asserting that difference.

For it is said in the Smritis: Prakasaika svarupasya prakasaka tirodhanam prakasana eva iti prageva upapaditam. [Brahman is all prakasa (resplendent lustre) only in svarupa and upadhi is a material which obstructs the appearance. This was originally discussed and brought to light.] The Sutra can also be read as Abhasa eva; the indeclinable cha denotes only heturabhasa, i.e., the falsity of the material which causes the false appearance by its obstruction. But Sruti texts such as Pruthagatmanam preritaramcha matva | Gna gnau dvau ajavisanisau 17 | Tayoranyah pippalam svadvatti | iti,738 etc., quite contradict the above argument and avidya becomes kalpita upadhi, i.e., an invented disguise, which brings into existence an idea of difference (bheda) affecting the svarupaikya (the union of appearance) contradicting the bheda. The state of opposite experiences, as happiness and misery, which is constant between the two, i.e., Brahman and jiva-is made to appear as only one. Moreover, if as is clearly proved in the Sruti, it is conceded that bimba and pratibimba, forming the Brahman and jiva, always live together each possessing a separate conscience of its own,-as declared in the Sruti text, Guham pratishthe parame parardhe739-and Sutra texts like Guham pratishthavatmanau hi taddarsanat (I. 2. 11) etc., do contradict the position that bimba and pratibimba are one in their nature. This is a subject that it is pleasant not to discuss further. If this contention, however, regarding Brahman and the jiva, relating to the highest truth, as being enveloped by upadhi, raises the doubt whether such a difference is merely illusory and cannot be said to be real, as it is not clearly seen and declared to be so by the Sastras, the next Sutra meets it: Adrishtaniyamat (II. 2. 48). (And on account of the non-determination of the adrishtas.) As the real nature of upadhi and its series of changes are not clearly understood when coming into contact with Brahmasvarupa, therefore no definite conclusion has been arrived at 787 Sveta. Upa., I. 9. 788 Ibid., IV. 6. 789 Katha-upanishad , III. 1.

nor declared and thus stands an unsettled fact. On account of this unknown upadhi coming into contact with Brahmasvarupa, the position becomes one of an extirpator or an eradicator (of Brahmasvarupa itself). Moreover, according to the Advaita system, the jivas being alike in their vibhutva (lordliness), in spite of all of them being pratibimbas, it is also not determined in the Sastras that these pratibimbas who appear different from each other are one in their original form. There is also no declaration about the nature of punya and papa with which these different pratibimbas are connected. The Sastras do not clearly lay bare which class of pratibimbas are naturally of the poorer class and which of the richer class. And therefore we have to concede necessarily that jivas, even in their minute form, are innumerable (bahutvam) and are by their very nature different from each other (pratisarira svabhavika bhinnatvam cha angikartavyam).710 If it is doubted whether in such a case the jivas as pratibimbas are of different kinds-saying "Verily I may obtain this fruit"; "I can get rid of this fruit"; "I will do this"; "I will not do this" and so on-thus exhibiting the jivas as being in a confused state and making it impossible to determine their nature or the classes to which they really belong, etc., the next Sutra clears the doubt. Commenting on Abhisandhyadishvapi chaivam (II. 3. 49) (And it is thus also in the case of purposes and so on), Sripati remarks that it is also equally undetermined as to which class of jivas could be stated to be possessed of raga (love) and which of dvesha (enmity). And therefore, under such indeterminable circumstances, it cannot be exactly stated in clear terms the distinction between the two classes of jivas. Verily, it is said in the Sruti text, Esha eva sadhu karma karayati, 741 etc., that the jiva is absolutely devoid of independence and whatever is achieved by it as punya or papa becomes attributable in its birth to Isvara. If 740 Sripati accepts that the jivas are different from each other. Cf. Anandatirtha's Jivesayorbhidachaiva jiva bheda parasparam.- Tatva Viveka. (T. R. Krishnachar's Edition.) 741 Brihadaranyaka-upanishad , VI. 4. 22.

.742 INTRODUCTION 537 it is said that karma is subordinate to Isvara's promptings, that Isvara is its prompter, and that karma itself (which prompts action) is eternal (anadi) and that the result of actions done by both classes of jivas goes to none other than Isvara, then the answer is "It is not so". Because the jivas unlike Isvara, though devoid of all knowledge and all power, yet they are not as lifeless as ghata and pata and are not jadapadarthas (motionless matter). But still as a servant behaves towards his king in his subordination, and acts agreeably to the king's commands, though his power of action within the pale of a servant cannot be denied to him; in the same manner, within the pale of their subordinate position, even though their liberty of action be very small, jivas do enjoy the effects of their actions resulting in punya and papa. The Sruti texts Jyotishtomena svargakamo yajeta; Karmachito lokah kshiyate, punyachito lokah kshiyate Parikshya lokan karmachitan Brahmano nirvedamayat; Satyam vada dharmam chara, 743 etc., and hundreds of others similar to them declare clearly that the jiva is one having some small right to action (kinchit kartrutva), some small knowledge (kinchid jnanatva), and possessing a body fettered in eternal subordination (kinchit kartrutva, kinchid jnanatva baddhanaditva sarirah). Sruti texts like Ikshanadi pravesantam srishtirisena kalpita Jagradadi prapanchasya srishtir jivena kalpita | iti, etc., clearly state that beginning from the time the jiva desired to view the world, etc., until the jiva enters the final stage (ikshanadi pravesantam), his creation rested in the responsibility of Isa. Thereafter his (the jiva's) wakefulness (jagrati), etc., (i.e., after he came into the world) was of his own responsibility. This shows clearly that jivas have their part of kartrutva, though it is minute in its character. The Sun whose action results in the day dawning and the night following and also the actions of pasu, pakshi and mriga and the smaller creatures such as insects, etc., have within their own sphere their independence of action, 742 Mundaka-upanishad , I. 2. 12. 743 Taittiriya-upanishad , I. 15.

which are not denied to them. In the same way, Isvara has prescribed to the different classes of jivas their limited nature of independence of action and there is, according to the Srutis and Smritis, no contradiction in this statement. If this were not so, the aforesaid Srutis and Smritis would become seriously opposed to each other. Therefore, the Srutis which grant the double kartrutva -the unlimited and the limited (ubhaya kartrutva)-are not contradictory to each other. It is therefore seen that jivas, on account of their Brahmamsa, are in a divided form from Brahman (Brahmamsatvena parichchinnatvat), even though amsa and amsi are not different. *** Therefore if the doubt is raised whether sukha and duhkha are not clearly determined, then the next Sutra explains it :Pravesabhedaditichennantarbhavat (II. 3. 50). [Should it be said (that this is possible) owing to the difference of place; we deny this, on account of (all upadhis) being within (all places).] (The word jiva is understood here.) If it is said that whatever it may be, Brahman is one and it is not possible for him to go into a divided condition by reason of his coming into contact with upadhi of various kinds in various different places, the answer is that Brahman himself does not come into contact with different kinds of upadhi. On the other hand, he closely accompanies the jiva in order to give the latter the experience of the different states. Therefore it is that the jiva is said to be subordinate. By Brahman following the jiva to make it undergo the different changes, Brahman remains in the jiva controlling it, himself absolutely unaffected by upadhi. This state of altered existence is always, in every state of existence, permanent to the Brahman and the jiva for all time. But since Brahman wanders in every place, together with the jiva, the experience gained by such connection also proceeds solely from the jiva and has nothing to do with the Brahman. Therefore, the statement that the jiva is the result of the upadhi of Brahman and that it is 74 Bheda and Abheda are both provided for here by Sripati.

subordinate to upadhi is not a matter relevant to the present subject to discuss. Sruti texts like Yato va imani bhutani jayante ; 745 Gna gnau dvau ajavisanisau iti,74 etc., clearly contradict the position that Brahman is affected by upadhi. [They in fact declare that Brahman is absolutely free from upadhi.] In the Sutra, Utpattirasambhavat, the venerable Badarayana has clearly said before that the jivas are not brought into existence afresh. [Both Brahman and the jiva are nitya, eternal.] In the present Adhikarana in the Sutra, Amso nana vyapadesat, etc., it is clearly stated that some of the jivas, who are eligible for realizing Brahmapada, do so at the pralaya by entering into Brahman (Brahmanu pravishtanam) in a naturally divided condition (svabhavabhinnanam) and occupy their respective reserved places (pada). At the time of the next creation when they come into existence, jivas who are naturally divided (svabhavabhinna) appear again in their amsa form only, even though they belong to Brahman's creation and they cannot, on any account, be called as belonging to Brahmamsa in their origin (i.e., they are born in their own amsas and not Brahman's, though the srishti is Brahman's). In this world, by reason of the knowledge derived from the memory of several different previous births, men generally come into existence, just as a son is born out of the womb of a member of the female sex, and then are called, according to the Sruti text, Atma vai putra namasi iti saying that "Thou art born to me as my son out of my atma", thereby proving that the son is of the amsa (svamsatvam) of the father. Therefore, in our opinion, those several kinds of jiva who entered Brahman in the previous pralaya went in their own amsa form. And this has been accepted as a proof of amsa and amsi always going in conformity. The Sutras and Sruti texts do not contradict each other when they declare that some jivas are eligible for coming into creation while others are not. The Sruti text, Tayor anyah pippalam svaddvatti 745 Sveta. Upa., I. 9. 746 Taittiriya-upanishad , III. 1.

iti, etc., clearly proves that of anasnan anyo abhichakasiti the two (vakhya pakshi and paramakhya pakshi), the former (the jivakhya fakshi) always seeks to enjoy the results of the actions of its previous births, whereas the latter (the paramakhya pakshi) which is always unaffected in its joys, exults in its transcendent splendour. This proves that there is no contradiction when it is said that the jiva always enjoys the results of its previous births. The theory, therefore, that for the mere reason that the jiva comes into Brahman's creation, he is of Brahman's amsa and because he is subject to sorrow and joy, such sorrow and joy belong to Para- siva Brahman, stands rejected. Sruti texts like So'ntaradantaram pravisat 148 Antah pravishtah sasta jananam 1 i Isanassarvavidyanam Isvarassarvabhutanam, etc., in their spirit clearly declare that Isvara is all the while in the heart of the jivas controlling them and directing them towards the results of their previous actions, which theory has been agreed to and accepted. And therefore it is established that whatever the jiva does, according to the results of its previous acts, be it sorrow or joy, the enjoyment of it cannot go to Isvara.