1

brahmasUtra vritti by sadAsivendra saraswatibrahmasUtra vritti by sadAsivendra saraswatibrahmasUtra vritti by sadAsivendra saraswatibrahmasUtra vritti by sadAsivendra saraswati

dhyAna shlokas

We meditate on the light of the self which is established only by

Vedanta, which is free from beginning, middle and end, which is full of

happiness and which is complete - shloka 1

Salutations to lion-like Vyasacharya a leading expert in moving in the

forest of Vedanta, killer of the intoxicated elephant like opponents and

who is respectable (virtuous) - shloka 2

We extol that Sankaracharya with holy feet, who has attained the status

of the sun towards the multitude of darkness of delusion of those who

are praising him and who is the foremost doctor of the disease of

transmigration – shloka 3.

We contemplate on our glorious teacher, by whose sun-like speech the

continuation of darkness in the form of delusion is destroyed and who is

like the sun to the lotus-like Vedanta – shloka 4

By the strength of service to the lotus feet of my glorious teacher, I

compose as per the capacity of my mind, a brief commentary on brahma

sutra which is in keeping with bhashyam. (i.e, the main commentary of

Sankaracharyaji) – shloka 5

2

Here indeed glorious Vyasacarya, habitat of Badri forest, composed this sutra to

ascertain logically the group of introductory points, which is superficially known

through the words of Vedanta and which is the means for the activity of thinking

people.

athAto brahmajijnAsA ||1|| (3 words)

atha atah brahmajijnAsA.

Thereafter, therefore the desire to know Brahman.

Here (in this sutra) by the word ‘atha’, the status of the desire to know in the form

of being after the accomplishment of the four-fold qualifications is said. By the word

‘atah ‘ the possibility of accomplishing the four-fold qualifications is said. By the

expression ‘brahma jijnAsa’ the status of unknown Brahman being the subject

matter and the status of known Brahman being the purpose is suggested.

And in this manner being the revealer of a qualified person, etc. which is the basis

of the activity of a thinking person, this sutra is the introduction to the entire

analysis beginning with the chapter of samanvaya. Therefore at the outset itself this

sutra has got a connection to the entire brahma sutra.

Since by the sentences of Vedanta which are the subject of analysis, there is an

expectancy from this sutra for the ascertainment of their meaning, so this sutra

has connection to sruti. In this manner the connection of all sutras to sruti

should be seen.

Particularly, since this sutra is the indicator of the logic which is ascertaining the

commitment of Vedanta sentences dealing with Brahman, therefore this sutra has

got connection to sastram which is in the form of analysis of Brahman. In this

manner, in later ones ( i.e, sutras of this chapter) also the connection to scriptures

should be figured out.

Since by the aphorisms starting with ‘athAto brahmajijnAsa’ are establishing the

convergence in Brahman by revealing that all the sentences of Vedanta are

committed to Brahman, therefore all of the sutras till the end of the chapter have

connection to this chapter dealing with samanvaya (i.e, convergence).

Since in the first quarter, the sentences of Vedanta which are having clear indicator

of Brahman are analysed, therefore all the sutras till the end of this quarter have got

a connection to the quarter.

Because of being the first, connection with any section is not there. However the

connection of later section is of that (section) with this (section). Therefore the

connection of this adhikarana is not mentioned (here).

3

In opponent’s view, because of not starting the analysis, freedom would be

attainable through other means. However, in the final established conclusion, there

is a possibility of starting the analysis. Thereby knowledge based on that analysis is

established. Thus freedom through knowledge alone is established. This is the

difference in result.

Here (in this adhikarana), the subject matter is the analysis of the sentences of

Vedanta. Here the doubt is - whether this (analysis) should not be done or should

be done because of the possibility and impossibility of the subject matter and result.

That alone which is doubtful and purposeful, can be the subject matter of enquiry.

Whereas Brahman being the content of very clear ‘I’ cognition is doubtless. And by

its knowledge, the purpose in the form of freedom not being served, it cannot be the

subject matter of enquiry. Therefore the enquiry of the sentences of vedanta which

is having impossible subject matter, etc. should not be done. This is the

opponent’s stand.

However the established conclusion is – Reality which is Brahman which is non-

seperate from the self and which is known from the sruti is doubtful on account of

not being the content of ‘I’ cognition. And by its realisation, freedom in the form of

removal of evils is tenable. Therefore the analysis of the sentences of Vedanta

having possible subject matter, etc. should be done.

Whereas the meaning of the sutra is – Here (in this sutra) for the purpose of

removal of meaninglessness due to its being just a restatement and also for the

purpose of motivation of people into the activity of study, the word ‘should be done’

has to be added.

Objection – Even then its meaninglessness remains as it is because the words

‘should be done’ cannot be connected to knowledge and desire which are the

meaning of the primary word – ‘jnA ‘(to know) and the affix ‘san’ respectively.

This is not a defect. Here by the original word ‘jnA’ immediate knowledge (of

Brahman) which is the result is indicated by inclusive implication. And by the affix

‘san’ enquiry born of desire is indicated by exclusive implication.

Consequently (as a corollary), the status of immediate knowledge being the means

for freedom and sentences of Vedanta being worthy of enquiry is obtained.

And in this manner through word and implication the meaning of the sutra is –

For a qualified person who is endowed with the four-fold qualifications the analysis

of the sentences of vedanta is to be done for the purpose of direct realisation which

is the means for freedom. Since there is the possibility of logical connection of the

sense of injunction to enquiry.

There is no defect in this interpretation.

4

BRIEF PRESENTATION - Samanvaya adhyaya – jijnasa adhikarana –

brahmavicaratmaka sutra 1 :

1) First adhikarana – One sutra.

Sutra 1Sutra 1Sutra 1Sutra 1 ---- अथातो ��िज�ासा ।। १॥ (2 words) Thereafter therefore the desire to know Brahman.

Visaya vakya –तद ्िविज�ास�व (Tai), स िविज�ािसत� (Ch), आ�मावारे �ोत�ः....। (Br U). Main idea – Three stages to liberation :

i) Prepare yourself for Vedanta analysis by attaining sadhanacatustayasampattih.

ii) Do analysis of Vedanta vakyas to get atma jnanam.

iii) Attain moksha since knowledge alone gives moksha.

This sutra gives the introduction (anubandha) for the entire brahma sutra.

Objection - In this manner, the status of Brahman being the object of enquiry

through the analysis of Vedanta was told ( in sutra 1) . That is meaningless because

of the non-establishment of the very nature of Brahman due to the absence of

distinctive features. Considering this objection, it is said –

janmAdyasya yatah || 2|| (2 words)

janmAdyasya yatah

The creation, etc. of this world is from which,(that is Brahman).

Here (in this adhikarana) , the connection to the previous adhikarana is in the

form of an objection. Here in the objector’s view, there is non-establishment of

freedom due to the non-establishment of the nature of Brahman.Whereas in the

final conclusion, there is establishment of that freedom. This is difference in the

result.

Here, the subject matter is sentences like ‘from which these living beings are born

...’ (Taittriya 3-1)

Whether birth,etc. which is heard there (in that sentence) is the distinctive feature of

Brahman or not? This is the doubt.

5

Features like creation, etc. being located in the world, it cannot have their location in

Brahman. Therefore these (features) cannot be the distinctive features of Brahman.

And truth, etc. mentioned in the sentences ‘truth, consciousness, bliss’ (Taittrita 2-1)

etc. will be the distinctive features of Brahman is also not correct because in the

world they (the words truth,etc.) are established to be having different meanings

and therefore not known to be distinctive features of one Brahman. This is the

opponent’s view.

The established conclusion is – birth, etc. i.e, the group of features beginning

with birth, i.e, birth, sustenance and dissolution of this world which is presented by

the means of knowledge like perception takes place from which Brahman; for that

Brahman causality of birth, etc. of this world is the non-intrinsic feature and truth,

etc. is the intrinsic feature.

It is not proper to say that the words, the meanings of which are established to be

different in the world cannot be the distinctive characteristic of one Brahman as

satyadi, etc are having one unqualified whole as their meaning. Thereby they are

culminating into one Brahman and therefore these words can be the definition of

Brahman.

BRIEF PRESENTATION - Samanvaya adhyaya – janmadi adhikarana – brahma

lakshana sutra 2 :

1) Second adhikarana – One sutra.

Sutra 2 Sutra 2 Sutra 2 Sutra 2 –––– ज�मा��य यतः ॥२॥ (2 words) From which birth, etc. of this (world , that is brahman).

Visaya vakya – यतो वा इमा�न भूता�न जाय�ते .......।(tai U)

Main Idea – Brahman has distinctive features (lakshanam). The tatastha

lakshanam in the form of ‘janmadi’ is given explicitly and the svarupa lakshanam in

the form of ‘satyam, jnanam, anantam’ is given implicitly.

Therefore brahman exists.

6

Objection – In this manner (as a corollary) the omniscience of Brahman being the

cause of the world was suggestively told by you. That is not proper; because Vedas

being eternal, Brahman cannot be the cause of the (entire) world. Considering this

objection, the author says –

sAstrayonitvAt || 3|| (1 word)

First interpretation -

Being the cause of scriptures, Brahman is omniscient.

The connection of this (adhikarana) to the previous adhikarana is in the form of an

objection.

In the opponents view, the result is non-ascertainment of the omniscience of

Brahman. In the final established view, the result is its ascertainment. This is how

the result should be seen.

The sentence beginning with - “ those that are called Rigveda, etc. are just an

exhalation of that great being” - is the subject matter of the discussion. The doubt

is whether that statement does not establish the omniscience of Brahman as the

creator of Vedas or it does establish that (omniscience).

The objectors view is - that sentence does not establish the omniscience (of

Brahman) as the creator of that (veda). Because in another sentence –“O Virupa, by

eternal speech (may u glorify), etc.” the eternality of Vedas is heard.

Whereas the established conclusion is that – Brahman is the cause of the

scriptures i.e, Rigveda, etc. which are equivalent to omniscient. The status of being

that (cause of Vedas) is satrayonitvam. Therefore this sentence establishes the

omniscience of Brahman, because of Brahman being the cause of the Vedas. What

was said by the opponent that – because of the mention of eternality of Vedas in

sruti, ( brahman cannot be omniscient). That is not proper, because the sentence of

sruti talking of eternality of Vedas is supposed to be meant for glorification of Vedas

in keeping with the sentence of sruti –“asya mahato bhutasya” which is talking of

the creation of Vedas.

And it is not proper to say that because Vedas have got a creator, it has the status

of being product of a person, since there is no acceptance of the idea that they were

composed after perceiving the subject matter.

This is the first interpretation.

7

Second interpretation –

Brahman is not available for other means of knowledge because

Brahman is the subject matter of scriptures only.

Or when Brahman is defined as being the cause of the world, then suspecting its

knowability through other means of knowledge, the author says – sAstrayonitvAt.

Since discriminating feature and means of knowledge are both meant for

ascertaining Brahman, therefore the connection between the previous and this

section is in the form of the status of having the same result.

Here (in this adhikarana), the difference in result is – In the objector’s view,

inference alone is established as the object of analysis. Whereas in the final

established view, the sentences of Vedanta are established to be the object of

analysis.

The sentence like –“I am asking you about that being known through the

Upanishads” , etc. – is the subject matter.

Does this sentence establish the knowability of Brahman through scriptures or does

it not establish that, when this is the doubt.

The objector’s view is – Due to brahman being an established thing,

it has the status of being known through other means of knowledge. Therefore this

sentence does not establish that (status of Brahman being known only through

scriptures).

Whereas the final established view is - Scriptures like Rigveda, etc. being the

yoni i.e, means of knowledge for which Brahman is called sastrayoni. Its status is

satrayonitvam. Therefoe (because of that status) i.e, because of having scripture

alone as a means of knowledge, this sentence – tvam tvau aupanishadam purusham

prcchami – is establishing its knowability only through that one (i.e, scriptures only.)

Moreover, the knowability of Brahman through other means of knowledge which

was told (by you) . That is not there. Because Brahman does not have form, etc.,

thereby the status of brahma being known through other means of knowledge is

impossible. Thus ends the established view.

This is the second interpretation.

8

BRIEF PRESENTATION - Samanvaya adhyaya –sastrayonitvAdhikarana –

sarvajnatvam/pramanam sutra 3 :

3) Third (sastrayonitva) adhikarana – One sutra.

Sutra 3 –––– शा�योिन�वात् ॥३॥ (1 word) i) First interpretation - शा���य यो�नः ।

Brahman is the cause of scriptures.

Visaya vakya – अ�य महतो भुत�य िनः�िसतमेव.......। Main idea - Brahman is sarvakaranam being the cause of the world and even Vedas.

So brahman is sarvajnah.

ii) Second interpretation – शा��म ्यो�नः �माणम ्य�य।

Brahman is that for which scriptures is the (only) means of knowledge.

Idea - Brahman being the subject matter (object) of sastra only, it is not available

for other means of knowledge (anadigatam).

Thus by laskhana (sutra 2) and pramanam (sutra 3, 2nd interp.), the existence of

brahman is established.

9

Connection to sutra 4 – This is in the form of an objection.

In this manner the nature of Brahman in the form of being known only through

scriptures was told (by you), but that is not correct, since the scripture is committed

to reveal something else. Considering this objection, the author says –

tat tu samanvayAt ||4|| (3 words)

Tad (brahma) tu (purvapakshavyavrittih) sAstra pramAnakam

samanvayAt.

That brahma is revealed by all Upanishads because all the sentences of

Vedanta have their convergence with commitment to Brahman.

The word ’tu’ is to show dismissal of all opponents.

First interpretation -

The connection (of this adhikarana) to the previous one is in the form of an

objection.

In the objector’s view, untenability of the activity of seeker into Vedanta is the

result. (since Brahman is not known thro’ vedanta.)

In established view, establishment of that activity (into vedanta) is the result. (since

Brahman is known only thro’ vedanta).

Here (in this adhikarana) all the sentences of vedanta are the subject matter.

Are those (sentences of vedanta) committed to reveal doer, etc. which are

subservient to the activity or are they committed to reveal Brahman which is eternal

and ever- established. When this doubt is raised -

The objector’s (mimamsaka’s) view is - If vedanta sentences are committed to

reveal eternal established Brahman which is neither acceptable (fit to be taken) nor

rejectable (fit to be dropped), then there will be a situation of vedanta being useless

and having expectancy of other means of knowledge. Therefore vedanta sentences

are only committed to reveal doer, etc. which are subservient to action.

The established view is – The word ‘tu’ occurring in the sutra is meant for

dismissal (exclusion) of the opponent view. That brahma is presented in vedanta.

Why? Because of convergence. ‘sam’ means very well i.e., with commitment.

anvayAt means because of connection of all vedanta sentences to Brahman;

Therefore sentences of vedanta are committed to revealing ever-existent brahma

and not committed (to revealing) doer, etc. because vedanta sentences are

occurring in different context (or section). And to say that because of non-difference

of context, vedanta sentences are committed to prescribing meditation is not proper;

10

because many sentences like, ‘you are that’, etc. are being found in vedanta which

are devoid of any injunctions (on upasana).

Moreover uselessness which was suspected is improper because there is possibility if

purpose in the form of removal of evil (being served).

And dependency (which was suspected) is not there, because Brahman which is

devoid of form, etc. being not available thro’ other means of knowledge, therefore

it is not possible for vedanta sentences which are revealing that Brahman of having

expectancy of other means of knowledge. Therefore by indicators like beginning,

etc. it is established that the vedanta sentences are committed to revealing Brahman

alone. Thus ends the first interpretation.

Second interpretation -

Or (in the other interpretation) incidentally having referred to the view of partial

supporter even though(he accepts) Brahman being know through sentences of

vedanta as established earlier, but he accepts that through the injunction for

upasana, considering this the author says – tat tu samanvayAt- that Brahman is

definitely the subject matter of scriptures due to convergence.

With the earlier section, there is an incidental connection.

Here in objector’s view (ekadeshi), the result is establishment of freedom through

meditation. In the established view, it (freedom) is by knowledge (of Brahman).

This is the difference in result.

There (that difference in result being so), whether vedanta sentences are revealing

Brahman as the object of injunction or are they presenting directly (independent of

any injunction). When this doubt is raised.

The objector’s view is – Due to absence of indicator in the form of activity, etc.

the grasp of the power of the word to convey any meaning is not possible with

regard to merely existing object. And also that which is intent on prescribing activity

or withdrawal alone is the scripture and therefore if vedanta is merely revealing just

existent Brahman, it will not have the status of being the scripture. Therefore

vedanta is revealing Brahman as the object of injunction of meditation only.

Whereas the established view is – Sentences of vedanta are revealing that

Brahman as such (i.e., independent of injunction). How? because of convergence,

i.e, because with commitment they (vedanta sentences) have connection to

that (independent Brahman).

And what was said (by you) – ‘with regard to merely existent object, there is no

grasping of the power of the word due to the absence of indicator in the form of

11

activity, etc.’ That is not correct. Activity and withdrawal alone are the indicators is

not a binding condition because in expressions like – “A son is born to you !” also

through the indicators in the form of joy, etc. the grasping of word power (to reveal

their meaning) is possible.

But also what was said –‘that which is committed to prescribe activity, etc. alone

can have the status of being called scripture ‘. That is also not correct. Because by

revealing something beneficial, the status of being scripture is tenable for vedanta.

This is the direction of further thinking.

Thus ends the second interpretation.

BRIEF PRESENTATION - Samanvaya adhyaya –samanvayAdhikarana –

svatantra brahma sutra 4 :

4) Fourth (samanvaya) adhikarana – One sutra.

Sutra 4 Sutra 4 Sutra 4 Sutra 4 –––– तत् तु सम�वयात् ।।४॥ (3 words) That brahman is revealed by all vedanta because all vedanta sentences

have their convergence with commitment to independent brahman.

The word ”tu” is to show dismissal of all opponents.

Visaya vakya – all vedanta sentences .

Idea – Dismissal of opponents and establishing the commitment of all upanishads in

brahman.

First interpretation – dismissal of mimamsakas.

Brahman is not subservient to any karma. The taparyam of all Vedanta vakyas

analysed through shadlinga method is to reveal brahman and not karta, doer, etc.

Second interpretation – Dismissal of Ekadeshi.

Brahman is not the object of upasana vidhi. After getting self-knowledge, nothing

has to be done. Aparoksha jnanam itself will give moksha.

The first four sutras give the basic essence of all vedantic teaching –

सव�कारणम्, सव��, ता�पय�न सव�वेदा�त�ितपा� !णः मो"ाय िवचारः कत�$ः। For the sake of liberation, one should do the analysis of brahman which is the cause

of all, omniscient and which is revealed with commitment by all Upanishads.

The idea conveyed here is further elaborated in the rest of the samanvaya adhyaya

upto sutra 134.

12

In this manner by these four aphorisms, it was arrived at that brahman alone is the

cause of the entire world, is omniscient, is the central theme of all vedantas.

Objection - In this regard the Sankhya said that – being immutable (changeless),

brahman cannot have the power of doing and therefore cannot be the cause of the

world. Also then being compromised of the three factors (sattva,rajas and tamas)

pradhana which is endowed with the power of doing is alone the cause of the world.

To dismiss this view, the author says –

IkshaternAshabdam ||5|| (3 WORDS)

(pradhAnam jagat kAranam) na asabdam (avedapramAnakam) Ikshateh

(IkshitrsravanAt) |

Pradhanam (of sankhya) is not the cause of the world because it is not

mentioned in the Upanishads because of the mention of seerness (of the

cause).

The connection of this adhikarana by the previous one is in the form of an

objection.

But the result in objector’s view is – establishment of a special (sampad) kind of

meditation of oneness with pradhanam.

The result in established conclusion is – the establishment of the knowledge of the

oneness with brahman. This is to be noted.

The subject matter is the (Chandogya) sruti sentence starting with “Existence

alone” upto “that deliberated”.

There (in the sruti sentence) whether that cause of the world referred to by the

word ‘Sat’ is it pradhanam or brahman, when this is the doubt.

The opponent’s view is - “This is pradhanam” (which is the cause of the world).

Whereas the established conclusion is – Pradhanam is not the material cause of

the world. Why? It is the one with no word of sruti as support (asabdam); this is an

adjective (pradhanam) containing the sense of reason; thus asabdatvAt i.e, because

it (pradanam) does not have the support of the Vedas as a means of knowledge.

Why does it not have the Vedas as a means of knowledge ? because of seeing

(thinking, deliberating). Here the word ikshati referring to the root ‘to see’ is the

indicator of its meaning (the idea given by the word ikshati) because of the mention

of seerness (in sruti with reference to brahman). And it is well-known that inert

pradhanam cannot have the status of being seer because it is the quality of a

conscious being.

13

And in changeless brahman there is no absence of the power of knowledge and

activity due to the glory of maya, everything being tenable.

Therefore brahman alone which is the existence principle, which is the seer, and a

conscious entity is the cause of the world. This is the meaning.

Doubt – ‘ that fire saw ’ ..’that water saw’, in this manner with regard to even inert

things also seerness was mentioned. Therefore let seerness be there in pradhanam

also in a figurative sense. Having considered this doubt, the author says –

gaunascennAtmashabdAt ||6|| (4 words)

(Ikshati shabda) gaunah cet, na AtmashabdAt.

If you say that the usage of the word ‘seer’ is in a figurative sense; that is

not so because of the word ‘self ’used in sruti.

Like in water and fire, the word ‘seer’ can be applicable to pradhana also in a

figurative sense. If this is what you say, that cannot be so. Why? Because of the

word ‘self’ ‘.

The idea is the ‘seer’, the existence principle which is the subject under discussion

started from the sentence “sat alone” and “it saw” is referred to be the word ‘devata’

through the expression “that this god” and again there is mention of the word ‘self ‘

by the sentence - “through this individual which is the self “ (with regard to that ‘sat’

only ).

Doubt – Let the ‘self’ be used with regard to pradhanam also because of that word

(self) having several meanings. Having considered this doubt, the author says -

tanniShtasya mokshopadeshAt ||7|| (2 words)

tan(sat)niShtasya mokhopadeshAt.

For the one who is abiding in that (sat), there is the mention of

freedom.

(Therefore pradhanam cannot be the meaning of the word ’sat’)

Pradhanam is not the meaning of the word’ self’ because having referred to the

subtle existence principlewhich is under discussion, by the sentence “ that, the

self….” And having taught Svetaketu who is a sentient being the identity with that

(sat) i.e, being of identical nature by the sentence “You are that ” and then through

14

the sentence “then he will be one with brahman” there is mention of freedom after

exhaustion of prarabdha (for that person who is abiding in the self).

Therefore for a conscious entity abindace in insentient is untenable and for one who

is meditating on that oneness due to faith, freedom is not possible. On the contrary

evil can befall him. Thus the word ‘self’ is committed to revealing a conscious being.

This is established.

Doubt – Going by the maxim of showing Arundhati star with the help of big objects,

let there be the teaching of the self through the teaching of pradhanam. Considering

this doubt, the author says –

heyatvAvacanAcca ||8|| (3 words)

(pradhAnasya) heyatva avacanAt ca.

And since there is no mention (in sruti) of the negatibility (of

pradhanam).

If pradhanam alone which is the non-self is denoted by the word ‘sat’, then here ( in

this Upanishad ), pradhanam would be the subject matter of teaching by the

sentence –“that is the self. You are that”.

With the consideration that by listening to that teaching (regarding pradhanam),

that aspirant should not be abiding in that pradhanam due to the ignorance of the

real self, the scripture desirous of teaching the main (real) self would have talked of

the negatability of pradhanam.

Or (swamiji to see which conveys better)

In that case, the scripture desirous of teaching the main (real) self would have

talked of the negatability of pradhanam, with the consideration that by listening to

that teaching (regarding pradhanam), that aspirant should not be abidiing in that

pradhanam due to the ignorance of the real self.

But the scripture does not say so. Therefore because of there being no statement in

the sruti of the negatibility of pradhanam, (pradhanam is not referred to by the

word ‘sat’ ).

By the word ’ca’ (in the sutra, another reason is suggested) – because of the

contradiction to the initial statement – “knowledge of all by the knowledge of one”.

15

Doubt – In this manner (as described in the last four sutras), having negated the

status of pradhanam in the form of being the cause of the world through its

negation of being the gateway for the teaching of the self, the status of selfness (ie,

being denoted by the word ‘self’) and the secondary seerness (ie, status of being the

seer in a figurative sense); Now the author presents three aphorisms to negate the

same (ie, the causal status of pradhanam) through three independent reasons –

svApyayAt || 9|| (1 word)

Because of the merger (of jiva) into one’s own self.

(Therefore brahman alone is referred to by the word ‘sat’ and not

pradhanam.)

Because of merger into one’s own self which is conscious, which is referred to by the

word ’sat’, which is the subject matter under discussion. Because of the mention of

merger by the sruti sentence – “O amiable one, that time in sleep he becomes one

with existence.” Since the root ‘in’ in the prefix ‘api’ is in the sense of merger.

Therefore that (consciousness) in which there is merger of all individuals during

sleep due to the absence of particularization created by limited adjunct and which is

referred to by the word ’sat’; That brahman alone is the cause of the world and not

pradhanam. This is the meaning.

gatisAmAnyAt ||10|| (1 word)

Since there is unanimity of understanding (that sentient brahman is the

cause of the world and not pradhanam.)

Since ‘gati’ means understanding i.e, the knowledge of consciousness being the

cause found in Vedanta sentences like “from the self space is born”, is unanimous.

Therefore pradhana is not the cause of the world. This is the meaning.

shrutatvAcca ||11|| (1 word)

Because it is revealed (so in sruti that brahma alone is jagat karanam).

It is indeed mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishad, after introducing omniscient

brahman –“He is the cause, he is the master of the master of the organs, no one is

his creator and none is his master.”

Therefore omniscient brahman is the cause of the world and not inert pradhanam or

anything else. This is established.

16

(BRIEF PRESENTATION - Samanvaya adhyaya –samanvayAdhikarana –

pradhana nirakara sutras 5 to 11 :

Fifth adhikarana – 7 sutras.

Sankhya and yoga mata believe that pradhanam which has three gunas and has the

capacity to create, is the cause of creation. This is dismissed by vedanti.

Several reasons are given why ‘sat’ cannot be pradhanam.

Main logic is that –

• Only a conscious entity can deliberate and visualise the creation.

• A conscious entity cannot have oneness with an inert entity.

• Due to the strength of sruti which explicitly and implicitly presents the cause

of creation to be a conscious entity. Pradhanam is nowhere mentioned as the

cause.

Chapter 6 of Chandogya Upanishad is the basis of analysis to establish Brahman to

be the cause of creation and not pradhanam.

A brief presentation of the ideas conveyed by these sutras-

Sutra 5 - Sruti mentions ‘sat’ as the cause of the world and that cause to be a seer.

Pradhanam is not that.

Sutra 6 – Pradhanam cannot have seership in the secondary sense also.

Sutra 7 – Moksha is oneness with sat. Jiva can have oneness only with a conscious

entity and not an inert entity.

Sutra 8 – Sruti does not support the idea of oneness with pradhanam leading to

oneness with Brahman.

Sutra 9 – Merging or oneness is only with a conscious entity as indicated in deep

sleep experience.

Sutra 10 – All Upanishads unanimously declare a conscious entity only to be the

cause.

Sutra 11 – Sruti directly presents ‘sat’ as a conscious entity.

17

(BRIEF PRESENTATION - Samanvaya adhyaya –samanvayAdhikarana –

pradhana nirakara sutras 5 to 11 :

Fifth adhikarana – 7 sutras.

Sankhya and yoga mata believe that pradhanam which has three gunas and has the

capacity to create, is the cause of creation. This is dismissed by vedanti.

Several reasons are given why ‘sat’ cannot be pradhanam.

Main logic is that –

• Only a conscious entity can deliberate and visualise the creation.

• A conscious entity cannot have oneness with an inert entity.

• Due to the strength of sruti which explicitly and implicitly presents the cause

of creation to be a conscious entity. Pradhanam is nowhere mentioned as the

cause.

Chapter 6 of Chandogya Upanishad is the basis of analysis to establish Brahman to

be the cause of creation and not pradhanam.

The ideas conveyed by these sutras are as follows-

Sutra 5 - ‘Sat’ is mentioned in Chandogya as the cause of the world. Nowhere does

sruti present pradhanam as the cause of the world because sruti is presenting

seership in the cause which is not there in pradhanam.

Sutra 6 – Also ‘seeing’ in secondary sense as mentioned in the case of fire, water,

food cannot be taken for pradhanam because in the same context, sruti uses the

word ’self’ indicating that the cause is a conscious entity

Sutra 7 – Also sruti gives the teaching of liberation for a jiva who has oneness with

the self thereby indicating that conscious jiva cannot have oneness with an inert

entity, but only with a conscious entity.

Sutra 8 – Also oneness with pradhanam is not a stepping stone for oneness with

Brahman because sruti would have later negated that oneness with pradhanam and

there is no such negation mentioned in sruti.

Sutra 9 – Since in deep sleep, the senses and mind are withdrawn and one merges

with oneself. Merger of jiva can be only with conscious entity.

Sutra 10 – Since there is uniformity in all upanishads of presenting the cause of

creation as a conscious entity.

Sutra 11 – Since there is an upanishad sentence which directly presents ‘sat’ as a

conscious entity.

18

In this manner, even though it is established that all vedanta sentences dealing with

qualified or unqualified Brahman through the injunction on meditation and directly

are committed to unqualified Brahman only, now this section which is in the form of

the analysis of the sentences dealing with unqualified Brahman is started –

AnandamayobhyAsAt ||12|| (2 words)

Anandamayah (brahman) abhyAsat.

Blissful is the supreme self because of te repetition of the word ‘bliss’ (in

sruti).

As in Ikshita adhikarana, the repeated reading of secondary ‘seeing’ by the sentence

“that fire saw” was not the determinant (i.e, not conclusive) of the status of

(pradhanam) being the cause of the world. Unlike that here in the expression

‘anandamaya’ repeated reading is not non-determinant with regard to the suffix

‘mayat’ having the meaning of modification. Thus with the previous section, this

section has a connection in the form of counter-example.

* In the opponent’s view - the result is the establishment of the individual self as

the blissful one.

* According to those who follow the final established view - the established

conclusion is the establishment of the knowledge of oneness with unqualified

Brahman.

* And according to partial supporter – In both the opponent and Siddhanti’s views ,

the establishment of meditation alone on jiva and Brahman is the result.

This is the distinction in interpretation.

In Taittriya Upanishad it is heard – starting form the “product of food” upto “another

inner self is the blissful one”. (This is the subject matter).

There in that sentence whether supreme Brahman - which is the subject of

discussion in the sentence ”truth, consciousness, bliss”, etc., alone is meant by the

word “anandamaya” or like in the case of annamaya, etc. jiva which is something

other than Brahman is meant. When this is the doubt...

The opponent’s view is that some other entity i.e, jiva is meant.

Whereas the established conclusion is – anandamaya is parmatma alone. Why?

Because of repetition, i.e, because there is frequent repetition of the word ‘ananda’

in the sense of Brahman only. This is the meaning.

19

Objection – Since the word ‘Anandamaya’ is in the sense of modification only.

Therefore it cannot mean the supreme self.Having considered this doubt, the author

says –

vikArashabdAnneti cenna prAcuryAt ||13|| (6 words)

vikArashabdat na iti cet na prAcuryAt.

Because of the word (suffix ‘mayat’) having the sense of modification ,

anandamaya is not the supremem self. If this is the argument. This is not

so because there that (suffix ‘mayat ‘) is in the sense of abundance.

Brahman is not referred to by the word ‘anandamaya’. Why? Because of the word

denoting modification i.e, because of the suffix ‘mayat’ denoting modification and

because Brahman cannot be the modification of happiness. If this is the doubt.

That is not so. Why? Because of (the meaning) ‘abundance’. Because the suffix

‘mayat’ in this context is denoting abundance of happiness. This is the meaning.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The author mentions one more reason for the suffix ‘mayat’ being in the sense of

‘abundance’.

taddhetuvyapadeshAtcca || 14|| (2 words)

tadhetuvyapadeshAt ca.

And because of its mention as the source of that ( happiness. Therefore

anandamaya is the supreme self.)

With regard to that happiness, the status of brahman being its cause is mentioned

(in sruti) by the sentences –“ this supreme self makes the people happy”. Therefore

the blissful one is the supreme self alone. This is the meaning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And also because of the following reason, the blissful self is parmatma alone, thus

says the author –

mAntravarNikameva ca gIyate ||15|| (4 words)

mAntravarNikam eva ca gIyate.

And that which is declared in mantra portion, the very same Brahman is

presented (in brahmana portion also).

Having introduced the subject matter with the “knower of brahmanattains the

supreme” and in this mantra “Brahman which is truth, knowledge and limitless” .

20

Thus Brahman which was presented in the form of truth, etc. was presented as

something to be known in the innermost. Moreover the very same Brahman taught

in mantra portion (as satyam, jnanam, anantam) is declared in Brahmana portion as

‘anandamaya’ because the mantra and brahmana portion should have the same

content.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And for this reason also, anandamaya is parmatma (and not jiva), the author says

(in the following aphorism) –

nEtaronupapatteh ||16|| (3 words)

na itarah anupapatteh.

Since there is illogicality of any other (being blissful).

Individual self who is not different form God (Isvara) is not anandamaya. Why?

Because of illogicality of jiva having the status of being the desirer and of being

(manifest) in the form of created things as heard (in the sruti) – “He desired, let me

be many. Let me be born.” This is the meaning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And also because of this reason, anandamaya is not jiva says the author (in the

following aphorism) –

bhedavyapadeshAcca ||17|| (2 words)

bhedavyapadeshAt ca.

And because of the mention of the difference (between individual self and

supreme self, jiva cannot be anandamaya.)

Since the individual self and anandamaya are mentioned with difference because of

their being attainer and attained as mentioned (in same sruti) – “ He is happiness

indeed; for one becomes happy having attained that happiness”. This is the

meaning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubt – then let pradhanam (of sankhya) be meant by the word anandamaya, then

the author (with regard to this doubt) says –

kAmAcca nAanumAnApekshA ||18|| (4 words)

kAmAt ca na anumAnApekshA.

21

And because of (the word) ‘desire’ the acceptance of pradhanam as the

meaning (of the word anandamaya) is not there.

That which is inferred is (called) anumanam i.e, pradhanam which is knowable only

through inference , of that there is no expectation of it ( as the meaning of

anandamaya) i.e, here in this context, there is no acceptance (of pradhanam as

anandamaya).Why ? Because of ‘desire’ i.e, because in that context there is the

mention of desirerness of anandamaya which is Brahman by the sruti sentence –“he

desires”. Here the negation of pradhanam is incidental. This is to be noted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And because of (following reason) bliss is not jiva , thus says the author –

asmin asya ca tadyogam shAshti || 19|| (5 words)

asmin asya ca tadyogam shAsti.

Moreover the scriptures declare the identity with that parmatma of this (enlightened

jiva) in that (blissful Brahman) with reference to parmatma.

‘In this’ means in the blissful self under discussion; ‘of this’ means of this jiva who is

enlightened (with regard to this self). ‘tadyogam’ means the union in the form of

absolute identification (ie,being of that nature), becoming one with that in the form

of liberation. The scripture declares that union beginning with –“ whenever this

aspirant becomes fearlessly established in this (parmatma) which is imperceptible

(ie, free from gross body), bodiless (free from subtle body), undefinable Brahman.

Then itself he attains fearless Brahman”. Therefore anandamaya is not jiva, but teh

very supreme self. This is the meaning. However this is the interpretation of the

partial supporter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22

But in the view of the honourable Sri Sankaracarya the interpretation of

the aphorisms is as follows –

AnandamayobhyAsAt || 13||

Anandamayah (anandamayabrahmapucchashabdah) abhyAsAt

Brahman referred to in the description of anandamaya is independently

presented (in its own right) because of its repetition occurring in the

mantra that follows.

Just as in Ikshati adhikarana, there was ascertainment of Brahman on account of

primary seeing and therefore repeated mention of secondary seeing was non-

determinant ; Unlike that here since there is sameness of the status of the word ‘tail’

in the form of being an indicator of supportness and/or partness. Therefore repeated

reading (mention) of ‘tail’ as a part will not be non-determinant. In this manner, with

that section, this section will have a connection in the form of counter example.

Whereas the result is said earlier.

Here whether by the sentence -“Brahman is the tail which stabilises” - is Brahman

presented here as being a part of anandamaya or as an independent entity, when

this is the doubt.

The objector’s view is – Brahman is presented as a part (of anandamaya).

Whereas the established view is – By the word anandamaya occurring in the

aphorism, the word Brahman mentioned in the sentence ‘brahman puccham’

occurring in anandamaya is indicated. That (word Brahman) is meant to convey

independent Brahman. Why? Because of repetition, i.e, since independent Brahman

alone is repeated in the verse(rig mantra) which follows – “he becomes non-

existent”. This is the meaning.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what was said by you – “that the word ’tail’ is meant to denote a part”, with

regard to that the author says :

vikArashabdAnneti cenna prAcuryAt ||13||

vikArashabdAt (avayavaparabrahmapucchashabdAt) na iti cet, (tat) na, prAcuryAt.

Because of the use of a word denoting a limb (part), that is not so (i.e,

Brahman is not an independent entity). If this be the objection, that is not

correct because the word ‘tail’ is used to denote abundance (i.e, majority

of the usage of the term denoting part).

Because of the word ‘tail’ denoting part, the word Brahman which is in apposition

23

(being in the same case) with the word ’tail’ is not denoting Brahman as an

independent entity. Ifthis is your objection.

Then it is not so. Because of abundance i.e, because of repeated usage of the word

‘part’, Brahman is said to be the tail and not with the intention of revealing it

(Brahman) as a part.

Also on account of mentioning (the word ‘tail’) together with the word ‘stabiliser’, the

word ‘tail is committed to revealing support. And therefore Brahman is presented as

an independent entity.

Because of this following reason also, the word ‘tail’ is denoting support, thus says

the author –

taddetuvyapadeshAcca ||14||

tad hetuh vyapadeshAt ca .

And because of the presentation of that Brahman as the cause of all

products, (Brahman is meant to be an independent entity).

Because of presentation of Brahman as the cause of the group of its products in the

sentence – “ He created all this”, (thereby Brahman is presented independently or

thereby the word ’tail’ denotes support).

____________________________________________________________________

Because of following reason also, Brahman mentioned in the sentence containing the

word ‘tail’ is an independent entity, thus says the author –

mAntravarNikameva ca gIyate || 15||

mAntravarNikam eva ca gIyate.

And the very same Brahman which is presented in mantra is declared here

(in the puccha sentence in the brahmana).

Brahman which is the subject matter of mantra as – truth, consciousness and

infinite, that very same Brahman is presented as an independent entity in the

sentence in the brahmana portion – “Brahman is the tail” because both the mantra

and brahmana portion have the same content. This is the meaning.

____________________________________________________________________

24

Why anandamaya is not presented as an independent entity in the sentence

containing the word ’tail’ (this doubt can be there). Therefore the author says –

netaronupapatteh || 16||

na itarah anupapatteh.

The other one (i.e, anandamaya) cannot be the subject matter because of

untenability.

The other one i.e, anandamaya is not here the main subject matter because of the

untenability of its being the creator, etc. mentioned in the subsequent sentence due

to its having limbs like joy, etc. This is the meaning.

Also because of following reason (anandamaya) is not the central theme here, thus

says the author –

bhedavyapadeshAcca ||17||

bhedavyapadeshAt ca.

Because of the mention of difference (between anandamaya and

Brahman. Anandamaya is not the main subject matter).

Because of the mention of difference between anandamaya and Brahman in the

form of attainer and attained in the sentence – “ Having attained this happiness, this

one (i.e, jiva) becomes happy”. This is the meaning.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doubt – Since in the sentence “ananda is Brahman”, the word ‘ananda ’ refers to

Brahman. Therefore here also anandamaya is inferred to be Brahman (this can be

the doubt). Therefore the author says –

kAmAcca nAnumAnApekshA ||18||

kAmAt ca na anumAnApekshA.

And the expectation of inferring blissful one to be Brahman on account of

the word ‘ananda’ is not there.

That which is sought after is kAmA ie, happiness. Just because it is seen (found) to

be Brahman, therefore Brahman status of even anandamaya thorugh inference

should not be expected because ‘mayat’ is prescribed in the sense of modification.

(ie, just because ‘ananda’ is Brahman does not mean that ‘anandamaya’ is also

Brahman).

25

Also because of the following reason, anandamaya is not the central theme, the

author says –

Asmin asya ca tadyogam shAsti || 19||

The scripture declares oneness with that Brahman of this jiva who is

enlightened with regard to this Brahman.

By the sentence “ whenever alone indeed.........” , the scripture declares the oneness

with that Brahman on the part of this anandamaya which is the individual jiva who is

enlightened with regard to this Brahman which has been talked about in the

sentence containing the word ‘tail’. Therefore i.e, because here anandamaya is not

the central theme, Brahman alone which is mentioned as the ‘tail is an independent

entity which is unqualified and to be known. This is established.

26

BRIEF PRESENTATION - samanvaya adhyaya – anandamaya

adhikarnam – sutras 12 to 19 :

This adhikarana presents 2 aspects – each sutra is interpreted according to ekadeshi

and parama siddhanti with the purvapakshi presenting the opposing stsand.

This analysis is done with the help of the second chapter of Taittriya Upanishad.

Two sentencees are analysed – anyontara atma anandamayah and brahma puccham

pratishta - in the context of the entire chapter to arrive at the tatparyam of this

Upanishad.

Ekadeshi is a partial supporter- The focus of his discussion is on the word

‘anandamaya’ which is the central theme. According to him anandamaya is

brahman. Liberation is oneness with anandamaya brahman thro’ meditation.

Parama Siddhanti’s view is – The focus of the discussion is on the sentence –

‘brahma puccham pratishta’ . Brahman is the central them of the discussion and not

anandamaya. Starting from the beginning of the chapter - brahmavid apnoti param

followed by satyam, jnanam, anantam brahma right upto brahma puccham pratishta

– to the end, the same brahman is talked about. Liberation is oneness with

nirvisesha brahman thro’ self-knowledge.

Depending on which sentence the focus is, the sutras are interpreted –

Sutra 12 – AnandamayobhAsat ||

Ekadeshi view – anandamaya is brahma because the word ananda with reference

to brahman is repeated at several places in Vedanta.

Parama siddhanti – In the sentence ‘brahma puccham pratishta’ , the word

‘brahman’ is the central theme because of the repetition of the word brahman again

in the immediately following rig mantra shloka. The subject matter of the brahmana

section and the mantra section being the same.

Sutra 13 – vikArascenneti cet na prAcuryAt ||

Ekadeshi view – The mayat pratyaya in the word anandamaya cannot be taken in

the sense of vikara i.e, modification, as done for annamaya, etc. It should be taken

in the sense of abundance or plentitude. i.e, brahman is full of abundance of

happiness.

Parama Siddhanti – The word ‘puccham’ in the sense of vikara should not be

taken to mean avayava i.e, part, but should be taken in the sense of abundance of

repetition of the word ‘puccham’ in annamaya, etc., in the sense of support.

Support is different from the supported. Therefore brahman is an independent entity

which is the support of annadamaya alss.

27

Sutra 15 – tadhetuvyapadeshAcca ||

Ekadeshi view – Brahman is mentioned as the source of ananda for all jivas.

Therefore brahman must be full of ananda ie, anandaprAcuryah to be able to give

ananda to jivas.

Parama siddhanti – Brahman is presented as the cause of everything and that

which is the cause is different from anandamaya which is a product.

Sutra 16 – mAntravarNikameva ca gIyate||

Both the mantra and brahman portion of the Upanishad have the same content.

Ekadeshi view – The same parmatma presented earlier in mantra portion – satyam

jnanam anantam - is finally presented as – anyontara atma - in the brahman portion.

Parama Siddhanti – The same parmatma presented in mantra portion as -satyam,

jnanam anantam – is presented as -brahma puccham prathishta -in the anandamaya

section.

Sutra 17 – bhedavyapadesAcca ||

Ekadeshi view – Jiva the experiencer, cannot be anandamaya which is that which

is experienced. Sruti mentions the experiencer to be different from the experienced.

Parama siddhanti – The anandamaya i.e, Jiva is mentioned as the attainer and

brahman as that which is to be attained. What is to be attained is the central theme

not the attainer.

Sutra 18 – kAmAcca nAnumAnapeksha ||

The Sankhya view is refuted by Ekadeshi – there is no acceptance of pradhanam

(which is inferred) to be anandamaya because of the word ‘desire’ which is not

possible in inert pradhanam.

Parama siddhanti – kAmAt has both the meaning ‘desire’ and ‘that which is

desired’. That which is desired by all is ananda. Because of the mention of the word

‘ananda as brahman’ , it cannot be inferred that anandamaya (which has mayat

pratyaya in the sense of modification) is brahman because of the difference in the

meaning. i.e, brahman is anandasvarupa, but brahman is not anandamaya.

Sutra 19 – asmin asya ca tadyogam shAsti ||

Ekadeshi view – sruti mentions oneness of jiva with anandamaya brahman.

Parama siddhanti – sruti mentions oneness of enlightened (anandamaya) jiva with

independent, unqualified brahman and not with brahman which is part of

anandamaya.

Thus it is established that brahman presented by the sentence in anandamaya

portion of Taittriya Upanishad is presenting an independent, unqulaified entity and is

not a part of anandamaya. One has to gain abidance in that brahman for liberation.

28

7) Seventh (antar) adhikarana –(samanvaya adhyaya) – 2 sutras

Now the author mentions an exception to the convergence (of Vedanta sentences)

into unqualified brahman which was established earlier in the manner described –

Sutra 20 - अ�त�त म!पदशेात् ||20|| (2 words) Antah taddharmopadeshAt.

The inside one is parmatma because of the mention of his qualities (or

features).

Just as earlier (in the previous adhikarana), there was establishment of unqualified

brahman because of many evidences consisting of these 3 main ones – the word

brahman, the word anandamaya and the repetition of ananda (or repetition of

brahman referred to as tail in anandamaya portion). Similarly here let the

transmigratory individual be the golden being becasue of many evidences such as

having the form, etc., since in this manner there is emergence of the opponent’s

view with the help of reasoning given by the earlier established view, therefore with

that (earlier) section), this (present) section has connection in the form of

example.

Whereas the difference in result should be seen as - in opponent’s view

ascertainment of meditation on lower (apara) brahman. In established view

ascertainment of meditation on higher (para) brahman.

In Chandogya sruti it is said –“ the being who is inside the sun, who is golden, etc.”

(this is the subject matter).

There (in that statement) whether this ‘being ’ is a transmigratory soul who has

attained excellence because of extraordinary meditation and action or does it mean

the Lord who is ever-established. When this is the doubt –

The opponent’s view is – The inside one is a transmigratory (but exalted) jiva.

The established view is – That which is mentioned as “which is inside the sun”

and “which is inside the eye” is parmeshvara only and not a transmigratory soul.

Why ? because of the mention of the qualities of that i.e, since of that Isvara the

qualities in the form of being free from all sins are mentioned in the sentence. Since

based on maya, for the purpose of favouring the world, it is tenable for Isvara to

have golden beard, etc. Thus there is no contradiction. Therefore the one inside the

sun and eyes is the supreme Lord only. This is the meaning.

29

Alternative translation suggested –

And the quality –like having the golden beard, golden hair, etc. of parameshvara

which is maya-based and for the purpose of favoring the world – is tenable and thus

there is no contradiction.

Moreover (one more reason why the one inside the eye and sun is parameshvara

only) –

Sutra 21 Sutra 21 Sutra 21 Sutra 21 ---- भेद�पदशेा%ा�यः ॥२१॥॥२१॥॥२१॥॥२१॥ (3 words) bhedavyapadeshAt ca anyah.

(The inside being talked about here is different from ‘aditya devata’,)

because of the mention in other scriptures of the difference (between the

inside one and aditya devata).

The being which is heard to be inside the sun and the eye is other than jiva which is

identifying with the body of the sun (solar disc).

Why? Because of the mention of difference i.e, because of the mention of the jiva

identifying with the body of the sun from the parmatma who is presented as the

inner controller in the antaryami (brahmana of Brhdaranyaka upanishad) as – “One

who is remaining in the sun”, etc., since there is mention of difference of those two.

Here also because of the mention of the word “inner’”, there is recollection of that

self. (Therefore, because the supreme self who is different from the individual self

identifying with the solar globe, is mentioned as the inner controller by the

statement “ one who remains in the sun, etc.” and thus there is the mention of their

difference. It is established that parameshvara alone should be meditated on as

being inside the sun and the eye.

8) Eighth (Akasha) adhikarana – samanvaya adhyaya - 1 sutra.

Doubt- Just as in the previous section, the status of having form, etc. was

interpreted differently due to unswerving indicators of brahman such as being free

of sins…; But unlike that here the vedic usage in the form of the word ’space’

cannot be interpreted differently on account of the indicator because sruti is

stronger than the indicator. This can be the doubt . Therefore author says –

Sutra 22 - आकाश�ति%ल'गात ्॥ २२॥ (2 words)

AkAshah tallingAt.

The word ‘space’ denotes brahman because of the indicatory marks of that

brahman.

30

With the previous section, this section has the connection in the form of counter

example.

Whereas the result in the opponent’s view is (ascetainment of) meditation on

udgitha with the idea of elemental space and the result in the established conclusion

is (ascertainment of) meditation with the idea of brahman. This should be seen.

There (in the chandogya sentence) whether elemental space is referred to by the

word ‘space’ or supreme brahman, when this doubt is there –

“It is elemental space “- is the opponent’s view.

Whereas the established view is – By the word ‘space’ brahman alone is

understood. Why? Because of its indicatory marks i.e, because the creation of all

great elemtns, etc which is indicatory marks of that brahman is seen in this

sentence.

And the point objected to that compared to an indicator (clue), sruti is more

powerful is not valid. Because subduing of one vedic word ’space’ is appropriate for

favouring many sruti sentences which are in the form of indicators of brahman.

And so because of the other scriptural sentence –“space alone is greater than all

this”, brahman alone referred to by the word ‘space’ is the object of meditation in

udgitha. This is established.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9) Ninth (prAna) adhikarna – samanvaya adhyaya – 1 sutra .

The author extends the reasoning used with regard to ‘space’ elsewhere (in the

following aphorism) –

Sutra 23 - अत एव �ाणः ॥२३॥ (3 words)

Atah eva praNah.

(The word ‘prana’ refers to brahman alone) because of this very same

reason alone (because of having its indicators in the sentence.)

Here (in this section) a distinct connection is not expected because this section is an

extension (of the previous one). Or just as in the previous section the subduing of

the vedic word ‘space’ was proper because of unswerving indicators of brahman; but

unlike that here the subduing of the word ‘prana’ is not proper because the

indicators like entry, etc. is common with the vital air. Therefore there is no non-

deviation from ( or faithfulness to) brahman on the part of those indicators. Thus

there is a connection in the form of counter example.

31

The result to be seen is: In opponent’s view – ascertainment of meditation on

prastava (which is one part of sama mantra) with the attitude of prana (air-

modification). Whereas in the established view the result (ascertainment of

meditation on prastava) with the attitude of brahman.

In the Chandogya Upanishad in the context of udgitha it is mentioned – “O, priest,

do you know the devata of prastava?” Having started thus and –“ what is that

devata ?” (When that was the question) CAkrayana said –

“It is prana”, etc….(This is the subject matter).

There (in that sentence), by the word ‘prana’ whether brahman is meant or air-

modification, when this is the doubt.

The opponent’s view is –“It is air-product”.

Whereas the established view is – by the word ‘prana’ brahman alone is denoted.

Why ? because of this alone i.e, because of its indicatory mark alone as it was said

in the previous aphorism. The idea is because entry, etc. of all beings mentioned in

the sentence –“ they (beings) enter into vital air alone”. etc. which is the indicator of

that brahman is seen in this sentence.

And it should not be argued that by the sentence (in satapata brahmana)–“then (in

deep sleep) speech merges into vital air”, it is heard (this entry, etc.) into the air-

modification also, because there only the entry of the organs is mentioned ( and not

of all beings).

Therefore i.e, because of non-swerving indicators of brahman, it is established that

brahman alone which is denoted by the word ’prana’ is the object of meditation.

10) Tenth (jyotiscaraNA) adhikarna – samanvaya adhyaya – 4 sutras

Just as in the earlier section dealing with prana because of the presence of

unswerving indicator of brahman, the word (prana) denotes brahman. Unlike that

here in this sentence there is absence of that (indicators of brahman). With the

connection in the form of a counter example, the author says –

Sutra 24 Sutra 24 Sutra 24 Sutra 24 ---- &योित����रणािभधानात् ॥२४॥ (2 words) JyotishcaraNAbhidhAnat | The word ‘light’ (in the sentence 3-13-7 of Chandogya Upanishad) denotes

brahman on account of the mention of feet (in previous section).

Here (in this section) in the opponent’s view the result is ascertainment of the

meditation on the light in stomach (digestive fire) with the idea of sun, etc.

32

In the established view it is with the attitude of brahman.

In Chandogya sruti it is stated – “Now that which shines above this heaven or above

everything, etc. (This is the visaya vakya).

There (in that sentence mentioned), by the word ‘jyotis’ is the light of the sun, etc.

meant or brahman. When this is the doubt.

The opponent’s view is - It is sunlight, etc. (meant by the word jyoti).

Whereas the established view is – By the word ‘jyotis’ in the sentence “above

heaven” , brahman alone is understood. Why? Because of the mention of quarters

i.e, because of the mention of four-footedness in the sentence earlier to this ‘jyotis’

sentence i.e in the sentence – “one quarter of this (brahman) is all beings and its

immortal 3-footed nature is in heaven.” Therefore brahman alone is meant by the

word ‘jyotis’. This is the meaning.

Since by the sentence – “Gayatri indeed is all this”, the metre called Gayatri is

introduced and therefore that alone is the object of meditation and not anything

else. Considering this doubt, the author says –

Sutra 25 – छ�दो0भधा�ने�त च�ेन तथा चतेोप5ण�नगदा6तथा7ह दश5नम ्॥२५॥ (9 words)

chandobhidhAnAt na iti cet na tathA cetorpaNanigadAt tathAhi darshanam.

Because of the mention of the metre called gayatri (brahman is not the

object of meditation) , if this is the doubt. Then (we say) it is not so

because in that way (thro’ the Gayatri metre) there is the mention of the’

application of the mind’ (for meditation). For so, it is seen.

Because of the mention of the metre i.e, because of the mention of only the metre

called Gayatri in the previous section, brahman is not the subject matter of

discussion. If this is the doubt. That is not so. Why? Because that way thro’ the

metre called Gayatri, there is mention of the application of the mind to brahman

which is obtaining in that (metre).

(With regard to that), there is an example – That is how the finding is i.e, elsewhere

also in the sentence – “ the followers of rik veda meditate indeed on the supreme

self as inhering in the great hymn called uktha.” The idea is they meditate on the

self in the great hymn as the one obtaining in it. Thus meditation of brahman thro’

the effect is seen. That which is seen (drshtum) is called seeing (darshanam).

Therefore brahman itself is indicated in the previous sentence (section) and not the

metre. This is established.

33

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also because of following reason, brahman alone is the subject matter in the

sentence talking about Gayatri. Thus says the author –

Sutra 26 - भतूा7दपाद:यपदेशोपप6तेः च एवम ्॥ 26 || (3 words )

bhUtAdipAdavyapadeshopapatteh ca evam.

And this is so also ( brahman is subject matter in Gayatri sentence)

because of the tenablility of the representation (statement) of the beings,

etc. as the feet.

Because only with regard to Brahman, there is tenability of the expression that –

“Gayatri is four-footed” thro’ living beings, earth, body, heart. For the

representation of the beings, etc. as the feet is not possible for Gayatri which is in

the form of the assemblage of letters.

Therefore brahman alone is the subject matter of the Gayatri section and therefore

in the jyoti sentence that very same brahman is recognized because of connection to

“heaven”. This is established.

Earlier the expression “divi” by the 7th case, heaven is indicated as support. And in

the word “divah” by the fifth case, heaven is indicated as the limit. Thus the

recollection which was told by you is not there because of the connection to heaven

mentioned with difference in cases. When this is the doubt, the author says -

Sutra 27 - उपदेशभेदा�ने�त च�ेनोभयि�म��<य=वरोधात ्|| 27|| ( words)

upadeshabhedAt na iti cet na ubhayasmin na api avirodhAt.

Because of the difference in statement due to difference in case endings,

(recollection will not be there) is not correct because in both cases there is

no contradiction.

34