·Printed by plautlal Itclatit Desat at
THE NEWS PRINTING PRESS OF THE GUJARATI
Bake-House Lane, Fort,
BOMBAY
AND
Published by Ranchliordas V. Petladı
Madhay Bhoran, Kandenadi,
BOMBAY

·INDEX
SUBJECT.
PAGE,
+
***
1- 4
4- 7
11
...
...
7-31
31-54
(1) Adhikâra
(2) Veda
...
(3) Brahman
(4) Human Soul
5) Jagat
(6) Liberation ...
(7) Conclusion
...
(8) A Sketch of the author's life
54-72
72-82
..
82-93
...
1-24

·PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION This is one of the two essays selected by the Bombay University for the Sujna Gokulji Zala Vedant Prize 1915. The essay was submitted in June 1915; and the resul was declared in December 1917. Except Appendix A and a footnote on page 90, no nevy matter has been added to the original, and no material change made. I have to thank Mr. Tribhuvandas Pitambardas Shah of Nadiad, for defraying the expenses of printing this essay from the Nadiad Pushti-margiya Library Funds, and Mr. D. V. Sankalia, B.A., LL, B., for revising it and reading the proofs. Bombay. 15-4-18. } MT. TELIYALA. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. This is a reprint of the first Edition. A short sketch of the life of the departed scholar has been added and proofs corrected by his colleagues and friends Messrs. Dhirajlal Sankalia, Vadilal Shah, Jamnadas Morporia, Gordbandas Pragji, Hiralal Mulji and Purushottam Morporia. Bombay. } 20-7-1928. RANOHHODDAS VARJIWANDAS.

·"धासा स्वेन सदा निरस्तकुदकं सत्यं परं धीमहि". "Discuss how far Sankaracharya trúly represents the view of the author of Brahmasutras." The Sujna Gokulji Zala Vedanta Prize Essay for the Year 1915, Before taking up the main subject, let us advert to some preliminary points, which are worked out by commentators of the Brahma-sútras. The first of theso is:-who is the Adhikarin of this S'Astra ? In the S'ugadhikarana (1-3-34-38, B, S.), the Sätrakara declares that, among mortals, S'adras have no Adhikara in this Vedic S'istra, though a god has. Among the members of tho first three castos who is the Adhikarin? Of course the Traivarnika must be learned in the Vedas, he must be capable of undortaking Sravana, manana etc., be must bo possessed of some desire for spiritual elovation. Theso requirements are necessary, they are suggested, arthd- Ashipta, but beyond this, in the whole of the Brulinamitiast, the Satrakåra does not consider tho question of Adhikara. Horover, Sankara maintains that bofore ona andertakos Brahma Jijndsd, lo ought to be possessed of tho four requirements, viz. (1) fettfreunulas, () 14- aam, (3) anti, and (4) R. These four requirements aro, according to Sankara, sine qua non to the inquiry of Brahman, and these arc, he thinka, Anggested by thc Sûtrakůra by the word 'HY' in the met salamat". This 'at' is used in the scase of strata, nad ·2 presupposes the existence of the four requirements mentioned above, and not a threater..' A knowledge of the Karma.mimånså is no condition precedent to the study of Brahma-miminsa. This is the view of Sankaracharya as regards अधिकार. Bhaskara? and Ramàuuja? both waintain thing, and reject the area of the above-mentioned four requirements. It appears that the Satrakara has in his mind neither of the two views. The 'star' suggests neither this nor that. utat atat' is the first Sätra of the Brahmamimânsi introducing the reader to the S'Astra. S'ankaracharya rejects ginnas on the grounds that TESETTT may precede formats of one who has studied Vedanta, and that there is nothing to establish the custom that they must be studied before Haathiet. By similar arguments Vallabhas also comes to the same conclusion. To add to this, Badarå. yaņa and Jaimini are opposed in their views on this point, and as Prof. A.B. Dhruva remarked in his recent University lectures, a reader cannot be expected to study the works of the opponent before he studies his own, 80 a student of ब्रह्ममीमांसा does not necessarily need study धर्ममीमासा before ब्रह्ममीमांसा. It is not disputed that some of the पूर्वमीमांसान्याय are referred to here, bnt that does not compel us to come to the conclusion that a knowledge of T&#Thiar is a condi.. tión precedent, Bhaskara accepts mamaya, and says that. this is the view of Bâdarayaņa expressed in fugata 1. 'नित्यानित्यविवेकादयः अन् करणधर्मा. पूर्वाप्रकृताः स्वशब्देन चानिर्दिष्टाः कथमिव सूत्रकारस्य विवक्षिता इति प्रतिपर्तुं शक्यते' मा. भा. p. 4. मपिच नित्यानित्यवस्तुविवेकादय. मामासाश्रवणमन्तरेण न संपत्स्यन्ते, फलप्रकरणेति कर्तव्यताधिकारिविशेषनिश्चयाहते कास्वरूपतरफ हतस्थिरत्वारिधरस्वामनित्यत्वादीनां दुरवरोधात' 147161. p. 19. 3. 'न तावदानन्दर्यम् , विपर्ययसंभवात् , न च पाठतो नियमः, तत्रापि तथा, न च भाचाराद् anal, and waar#215, 529714147HT' A. B. pp. 26-27. T f ·Brahman seem to be sine qua non to the study of water. A Nimbarka writer comes very near this viow when he says:--'किं तवस्तु यदनन्तरं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा विधीयते इत्यपेक्षायां मुमुक्षेति तत्सहकारीणि च श्रद्धोपपत्तिपूर्वक्गुरूपसत्यादीनीति' (परपक्षगिरिवघ्न p. 18). Hence if the startet is insisted upon, we cannot go further than the suggestion made above. Vallabhs seems to be driving at the truth when he accepts aferartü after examining and rejecting the granitats, saying that it is full of objections 'अतोऽनेक्दोषदुष्टत्वादधिकारार्थ एव श्रेयान्' (अ. भा. B, S. S. p. 33.). The Veda. The method of composition adopted by Bidarayana leads one to suppose that the Satralara had a double object in view, viz, to remove doubts, and at the same time to summarise the teachings of the Upanishads. It is therefore necessary to consider in what light he views the Vedas. After undertaking an inquiry of Brahman in Seperat after' 1•1-1, and giving the definition of Brahman in 'TIERI TA', he goes on to say that Brahman is reveal. ed from the S'Istra i, e. Veda. He means thereby to say that his conception of Brahman is based on Veda alóne. sankara says in tertificaa 1-1-3, that this Satra has been written with a view to emphasize the omniscience of Brahman, which has been suggested in the definition of Brahman in 'FAITE4 99.'. This may be as Sankara says, or may not be as Jayatirtha sıys. It is clear that when once Brahman is defined to be one from which origination, existence and absorption take place, when it is said to be the creator of the universe, its omniscience is established, and no further Satra is needed_to repeat it. Whatever it may be, this Satra alfacare' gives us an opportunity ·J to consider the attitude of the Satrai dra and S'ankarı to. wards the Veda. By declaring the rule of Brahman, the Satrakûra declares that his conception of Brahman is entirely based on Veda He further on declares that i is mula Independent reasoning has nothing to do with his conception of Brahman All contradictions are romoved by tabing shelter in the word of the ga Sankara's attitude on the whole is undetermined Once he says आगममानसमधिगम्य एव त्वयमर्थ धर्मवत् । 2 1 6 BS but on good many occasions he deprrts from this rule In den lehenga 2 1 27, we have a very clear instance, Bidariyana removes the difficulty raised by Sankhya in his usual wny, viz taking shelter in the text of the la, bub Sankara goes further and says 'ननु शब्देनापि न शक्यते विरुद्ध अर्थ प्रतिपत्तुम्' Sapkara's shelter is अविद्या (अविद्याकल्पितभेदाभ्यु- 909) Throughout the whole of the Brahma mininsa the Satralara never rcsorts to any other authority except that und Bygta which respectively mean yfa and a which is egenfteit Independent ratiocination has no place in his system. S'apkara falls very badly 10 representing the viery of the Satrakira in pot submitting himself to the ideal of the Satrakara Even if Sankara': attitude may be justa fied on philosophical grounds independent of ra, the fact remains that, that is not the way in which the Satralara would look at it, and so long as he would not, it is useless to discuss that question here To the Sátrakára, any reason ing, not in strict harmony with the letter of the Veda, is useless (तर्काप्रतिष्ठानादप्यन्यथानुमेयमिति चेदेवमपि अविमोक्षप्रसग 12 111) To the Satrılara, Veda is eternal (2171 PRETH 13 29). From the words of the Satra we do not learn much further than this, but it is quite clear that the attitude of the Sätrakara is very devout. Like Sankarı he has no courage to say-'भविपयत्वे ब्रह्मण शास्त्रयोनित्वानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्, में, ·6 अविद्याकल्पितमेदनिवृत्तिपरत्यात शाखस्य, न हि शास्त्रं इदंतया विषयमृतं ब्रह्मप्रतिपादयति, किं तर्हि, प्रत्यगात्मत्वेन भविपयतया प्रतिपादयदविद्याकल्पितं वेद्यवेदितृवेदनादिभेदमप. rife' 1-1-4, V.S. From the very undertaking of investigation and definition of Brahman by the Sûtrakâra, it is quite clear that Sankara is not justified in making the above remark. Badariyana's whole system is entirely based on the words of xfa, so the duty of his commentator is not to modify or correct his statements, but simply to put them in their true light. The aim of the S'astra is not merely the removal of afarsfuite but the relisation of Brahman. Except yfè, and aeguifiezla, the Satrakära does not take the aid of any other m in support of his system. S'aņkara also does not say that be accept any more HMS. The later S'ânkara writers accept six Pranåņas, but with that we are not concerned. If S'apkara had maintained the position as declared by him in magi (2-1-6) throughout, we should have seen him entirely at one with the Satrakâra. Looking at Sankara's Bhashya as a whole, one sees a sort of contradiction running throughout, so far as his attitude to the S'astra is concerned, While meeting the Mimaosakas, he draws a distinction? between पुरुपतत्रत्व and वस्तुतन्त्रत्व. धर्म is पुरुषतत्र, and as such does not admit of any reasoning independent of Veda, while Brahman is gegaa, and as such, admits the claims of reasoning, But when the Sankhya opposes him, he declares, as is said above, that the conception of Brahman like rast is based on Scripture alone, and does not admit of any 5th independent of Veda (2-1-6). If S'apkara had 1. 'यत्तू परिनिष्पन्नाथद् ब्रह्माण प्रमाणावराण , सभवेयुरिति, वापि मनोरथमात्रम् , रूपाधभावात् हि नार्य मर्थः प्रत्यक्षस्य गोचरः, लिंग धमावाच नानुमानादीनाम् , मागममात्र. समधिगम्य एव तु भयमों धर्मवर xxx श्रुत्यनुगृहीत एव यत्र तर्कोऽनुभवागवेन wystad i 2-1, G. 2. तो न पुरुषव्यापारतन्त्रा ब्रह्मविद्या, कि तरि, प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणविषयवस्तुशानव वस्तुतन्त्रा 891 1-1-4-6. B.

·7 avoided this contradiction, and adhered to the view expressed in 2-1-6,'his faithfalness to the Satrakâra would have been greatly enhanced. Badarayaņa's attitude towards his opponents, though queer, is justified on the ground that it is consistent. When difficulties are raised against his system by a Sankhya or a Vaišesbika, he says his system is based on yfà alone, and as such has nothing to do with reasoning, 2-1-29. But his opponents, as they accept af, cannot take advantage of this position. As they resort to me, he challenges their position by tel. S'ankara fitly remarks on this point thus:--'अपि च आगमवलेन ब्रह्मवादी कारणादिस्वरूपं निरूपयतीति नावश्यं तस्य यथारटमेव सर्वमभ्युपगन्तव्यमिति नियमोऽस्ति, परस्य तु दृष्टान्तवलेन कारणादिस्वरूप निरुपयतो यथादृष्टमेव सर्वमभ्युपगन्तव्यमित्यस्त्यतिशयः 2-2-38. This is a very faithful way of expressing the Sitrakara's view, and had Sankara followed the same, he would not havo embodied two contradictory interpretations as in 1-1-11-18, 2-1-27, 2-1.29, etc. etc. Brahman. Brahman is the centre round which the whole philosophy and theology of the Upanishads turn. In the first Sútra, starat salater, the Sätrakára undertakes an investigation of Brahman, and then immediately in the next Sutra gives the definition of Brahman, 'FAR Ti', as that in which the world has origination, existence and absorption. It is worthy of note that the Satrakara, instead of defining Brahman as 'सत्यं ज्ञानं अनन्तं ब्रह्म' 'सत्य ज्ञान By the pret," instead of giving 649mm, gives to, by declaring that the Brahman of which he has undertaken investigation, is the creator of the Universe. [d maraficate', he declares further that his definition of Brahman is ·8 entirely based on Scripture. Brahman is en FETIF. The Satra Crauen 2a:' is very important, S'aņkara also says that it gives the definition of Brahman. This on must be referred to the, Brahman whose faitent has been under taken in the first Sutra. Instead of defining Brahman as kafermar'Bådarayana declares Brahman as that which creates, sustains and absorbs the universe, the reason for this being that the Sütrakâra has not in his mind only the summary of the leading tenets of the Upanishads, but a desire to clear every Vedio passage of importance of any doubt or difficulty by giving its interpretation. To the mind of the Sûtrakara, the tenets of the Sankhyas" were most prominent. This fact can be inferred from the boundless zenl with which he refutes the principal dogmas of the Sinkhyas, On every occasion, he makes a polemic remark against the Sânkhya. Now thesc Sankhyas attributed activity not to Brahman-or more correctly to Purusha, but to jada szta, while the 944 was chetana but faltes etc., Arany of the Vedic thinkers themselves were under the spell of the Sankhyas. Thus, this was the crucial point, on which it was ossential for the Sûtrakara, interpreter as he was of the Upanishads, to pronounce a very definite opinion, and this the Satrakira has done by declaring that Brabpan is that which creates, sustains, and resolves the world in itself, thereby tacitly rojecting the Sankbya, doctrines of gar's being falary and fais being at. Simi. larly, by writing the Satra teatforcara!, hc boldly declares that his definition of Brahman is ontirely based on scrip. ture, moaning thereby that the S'astra teaches the sea of Brahmad and not of wala. Thus it appears that the learned Satrakåra at onc stroke achieves two objects, viz. le sota aside the doubts of the Vedio passages, and thon yith it pronounces a definito view that, Brahman, the ·9 higbest entity of the Upanishads, is possessed of activity, and therefore of knowledge also. Thus in "STATUE4 20:,' Brahman as sad is shown to be the cause. la feroferatur, Brahman, as chetano, is shown to be the cause of the universe. In STRAINATUT, the same Brahman, as "Anandámaya, is declared to be the cause. In the ARUT Brahman as sad, in Stralerau as chetana, and in 4462441 cu as ánanda, is declared to be the cause of the universe, Ikshati and kama being the attributes of chetana something, the causality of the non-intelligent prakrity etc., is out of question. Similarly actgniti:" sets aside the causality of the human soul, though he is chetana. Thus, the learned Satrakâra, while setting aside the doubt as to win and FETETT of the universe, suggests and establishes that the same Kartri and Karana Brabman is afgelope. In other words, सच्चिदानन्द Brahman as सन् ,चित् and आनन्द is the material and efficient cause of the universe, and not jada Prakrity por chetana jira. Thus by showing the causality of Brahman alone, and suggesting thereby Brahman's unfettered activity, the Satrakára has established that the same Brahman is afh. After once declaring in brief his conception of Brabman, the Sůtrakâra proceeds to show that, words bearing other senses elsewhere, refer to Brahman alone in the Upanishads, apd even while doing so, he does bring out some essential charioteristics of Brahman, With this doublo end in view,'. ho sooms to arrange his latter portion of the first chapter. Hence, **HA, Satamar4, 177, 17, i fat ज्योतिः, प्राण, मनोमय प्राणशरीर, अत्ता, अन्तर, अन्तयामिन् अदृश्य, वैश्वानर,, धुभ्वाचायतन, भूमन्, भक्षर, दहर, अंगुठमात्र, प्राण, ज्योतिः, आकाश and विज्ञान- 49 are all Brahman. 'Tai alatt refers to Brahman and jivåtman, Samprasada refers to Brahman. One clearly sees here that the aim of the Satrakâra is not only to say that these words refer to Brabman, but that they do 2 ·10 individually bring out a certain attribute of Brahman. The Satrakfira, by following this method, develops, and perfects his conception of Brahman, the investigation of which he has proposed to undertake in 'अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा, and whose definition he has given in 'जन्मायस्य यत'. Sankara in 'जन्मायस्य यत' 1-1-2. observes as follows 'यत इति कारणानिर्देश , अस्य जगतो नामरूपाभ्यां व्याहनम्य अनेकदृमोक्तमयुरुस्य प्रतिनियतदेशकारनिमित्तमियापलाश्रयरय मनसायचिन्त्यरचनाम्पस्य जन्मस्थितिभा यत सर्वज्ञात् सर्वशक्के कारणाद् भवति तद् ब्रह्मेति वास्योप'. From this at can be seen that Brahman wuch is being investigated by the Sutrakira is sarvana, sarmashaktimat, and, therefore, harını also according to his view as interpreted by Sanbara hore The Satrakára's jyndsá thus refers to Brahman which 19 सर्वज्ञ, सर्वशक्तिमत् , वर्नु etc., and शास्त्रसमन्वय, established in the following Satras, refers to the same Brahman; while according to Sankara, the जिज्ञासा and the समन्वय both refer to निर्विशेप Brahman. In "तत्तु समन्वयात्' (1-1-4), Sankarm observes -'इद तु पारमार्थिक कूटस्थ नित्य व्योमवत् सर्वव्यापि सर्वविक्रियारहित नित्यतृप्त निरवयव स्वयंज्योति स्वभाव xxx अतस्तद् ब्रह्म यस्य जिज्ञासा प्रस्तुता' In 'तदनन्यत्वमारभणशब्दादिम्य' (21-14), S'ankara labours to show that, in adopting the ideal of अत्यन्त निर्विशेष Brahman, he does not violate the pratina of the Sutrakhra expressed in 'जन्माद्यस्य यत' 1-1-2. The fact that throughout the latter portion of the Brahmamiminsi, Brahman is described as possessed of some attributes, confirms the view that the Sätrakara has not in his mind the जिज्ञासा and शास्त्रसमन्वय that sankara wants to impose upon him in the समन्वयसून, 1-1-4. Vallabha also says, 'नच येन रूपेण समन्वयो मतान्तरस्थै विचारित. तथाग्रे सुने निर्णयोऽस्ति,' 1-1-4 p. 115 Kes'ava Bhatta Kas'mırıp, after showing the contradiction betwcen the views of the Sutrakåra and S'ankara, observes that, according to the reasoning of Sankara, there can neither be anything like जिज्ञास्यब्रह्मन् , eren शास्त्रारभ 'परमते तु जिज्ञास्यो दुरुपपाद xxx परमते तु nor ·II -अपि च यत्र तु विषयस्य दुनिरूपत्वेन शास्त्रारभोऽसभव एव ४४ विकल्पासहत्वात् ' etc, 111, मानवत्ति, pp. 22, 23, निम्बार्कभाष्य Thus the ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा of the Satralara, and that of S'anlara are different. S'an kara's well ETET does rot refer to Satrakära's Brahman strietly speaking Sankara tries to bridge over this difficulty by splitting the Sutrakira's conception of one Brahman into twofold S'ankara's introduction to आनन्दमयाभिकरण gives a very clear insight into his new of two Brahmans According to S ankara's own statement, the first ten Sätras of Bidariyana refer to Brahman which Is सर्वज्ञ, सर्वशक्तिमत्, ईश्वर and जन्मस्थितिलयकारण of जगत्, and that it 13 chetana, and not jada palrtt The scope of the l'edanta sätras then following is thus explained by him 'द्विरूप हि ब्रह्मावगम्यते, नामरूपविकारभेदोपाधिविशिष्ट, तद्विपरीतं च सर्वोपाधिविव जित xxx एकमेकमपि ब्रह्म अपेक्षितोपाधिसबद्ध निरस्तोपाधिसबद्ध चोपास्य त्वेन ज्ञेयत्वेन च वेदान्तेषूपदिश्यते इति प्रदर्शयितु परो प्रन्थ आरभ्यते Again in the nest adhikarana-'अन्तस्तद्धर्मोपदेशात्, he says - निरस्तसर्वविशेष पारमेश्वर रूप उपदिश्यते भवति तत्र शास्त्रम् , 'अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूप मव्ययमित्यादि, सर्वकारणत्वात्तु विकारधभैरपि वैश्चिद्विशिष्ट परमेश्वर उपास्यत्वेन निर्दिश्यते सर्वकर्मा सर्वकाम सर्वगन्ध सर्वरस इत्यादिना This is how Sankarndravsadistinction between निर्गुण ब्रह्मन and सगुण ब्रह्मन् So far as his निर्विशेष ब्रह्मन् 1s concerned, the lakshana of Brahi man, given by the Sutrakhra in 'जन्माद्यस्य यत , has no bearing whatever In भारभणाधिकरण, Sankara says that जन्माद्यस्य यत' etc , has been written by the Sttraktra to refute the Sankhyns and others, but that definition has only reference to the सगुण Brahman Its ईश्वरत्व सर्वज्ञत्व, सर्वशक्तिमत्त्व otc , not to be attributed to Brahman in the highest seose (परमार्यत) Brahman is called ईश्वर, सर्वज्ञ सर्वशक्तिमत्, so far as there as अविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेद 'तदेव अविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वर स्येश्वरत्व सर्वत्व सर्वशक्तिमत्व च, न परमार्थतो विद्ययापास्तसर्वोपाधिस्वरूपे आत्मनि ईशित्रीशितव्यसर्वज्ञत्वादिव्यवहार उपपद्यत' 21-14 Thus according to Sankara's viow, the Brahman, whose definition is given by the Sutrakira, refers only to the eye ait, and the . åre ·12 concluding Satra, 'starfa: Tate marele: 'T7re,' teaching the non-roturn of those who bare reached Brabman, would, by a parity of rcasoning, refer to the lowor or saguna Brahmon, a creature of avidya. We fail to trace this viery to any Sätra, noither does Saņkara support it by any Satra, lience, in the absonco of any convincing proof, rre cannot take this to be tho view of the Satrakara. Looking at the Vedanta Mimiasi as a whole, one sees that, in 'TUTET TITUT', tho Sutrakära undertakes the investigation of the Brahman, in जन्माद्यस्य यतः, etc., declares that जगत्कारणत्व i8 Braliman's serraturToT, in Satras like sedai24', 'कामाघ नानुमानापेक्षा, he removes the प्रकृतिकारणता of जगत्, and in Sutras like 'नेनरोऽनुपपत्ते, he removes the कर्तृत्व of jivatman; in the second chapter, the Satrakära declares that even though Brahman Jivatman are ananya, still Brahman is adhila, this being the reason why uplike Brahman he doos sometimes ahita to himself; that Jivatman is the ansa of Brahman, that his Brahmanhood, omnipresence, etc., are through his relation with Brahman, that the Jivåtman is a kartņi under the control and guidance of para Brahman; in the third chapter, the atrakära teaches how faths secure a body fit for the acquirement of Fun, and in the fourth chapter, this Jivâtman, by the aid of eeTTA FATH, reaches Brabman by qforfant from where he does not return; vido Anubhashya 2-3-29. Dr. Deussen, in his "System of the Ve dinta', on pp. 98–99, thus summarises the teachings of the Brahmasätras: The first part contains, in Adhyâya I, the theology, which, on the basis of seven times four passages of the Upanishads, discusses the essence of the Brahman, its relation to the world as creator, ruler, destrozer, its relation to the soul, and its yarivus Tum DS and attributes. This is followed, in Adhyaya 'II, by cosmology which is concerned with the relation of the ·13 world to the Brahman as cause, its gradual evolution from and reabsorption in it, and, from II-3-15 on, the psychology, in which are thoroughly discussed the nature of the soul and its organs, its relation to God, to the body, and to its own deeds, In Adhyaya III, comes first the doctrine of transmigration, then a supplement to psychology (III, 2, 1-10), another to the theology (III, 2, 11-41); the rest of the Adhyâya contains a miscellaneous assemblage of discussions, for the most part oxegetic in charpcter, as the chief content of which we can, in any case, with Śankara, consider the teaching of the means (HAS) to attain the higher and lower doctrine, that is the knowledge and worship of the Brahman. For the most part these discussions deal with the strange question whether certain passages of the Veda are to be comprehended in one Vidya or to be separated, a question which has a meaning only for the lower doctrine, with its aim of worship. Finally, the conclusion of the work, Adhyâya IV contains eschatology; it sketches in detail the departure of the soul after death, and how some souls follow the way of the Fathers (fig47a) to a new incarnation, while, on the contrary, others, the worshippers of the Brabman, are led along the way of gods (2441) higher and higher upwards to the Brahman, 'whence there is no return' according to the Upanishads. After thus summarising the system, he goes on to say “but not without further conditions, according to the reasoning of our (Sankara's) system, for this Brahman is only the 'lower' Brahman, that is, as considered as possessing attributes 'guna, it is the object of worsbip, and not of “perfect knowledge terapia; only after this latter, that is, the esoteric doctrine is imparter to the pious in the world of Brahman, is he also liberated; until then, although he is in the world of Brahman, and a partaker of ·14 Lordship Dia' "his darkness is not yet driven away', This ignorance not yet destroyed', that is, he possesses only the lovor doctrine otra farm', whose content consists of all that has hitherto been mentioned, not the opposed bigher doctrine, the per faun or yeah, that is, the pure philosophic, esoteric doctrine, which, in every part of this picture of the world with its empiric colouring, crops up in contradiction with it, and whose results, according to the metaphysical standpoint which we occury, ve may find strange, or admirable. Thus Dr, Deussen says that there is a contradiction between the system which is deduced from the express Satras of Bådarüyaņa, and the esoteric doctrine of Sankara, and ther pracoon's thus tu explaia faşkan's esuteria doctrine:—'In the department of Theology it teaches that the Brahman is not thus or thus, but altogether without attributes Ta' distinctions fakta'and limitations 347,' and therefore in no way capable of being defined or concoirod. And this Brabman, devoid of all limitations, is only being, outside which nothing is; therefore in the department of cosmology, there can be as little question of the origin of the world as of its existence, but only of there boing neither anything different "T' from tho Bralımas, nor any plurality of things '9', and that the lyorld extended in names and forms is non-existent '8961', is only a glamour AFET Fhich Brahman of course 'wyn, as master-magician Freifar, projects 'marcefà,' as the drcamer projects dream. forms. In the same way all further Psychology falls away after the saying 'a eft', 'that thou art' is com. prehendod, according to which the soul of cach human being is not an emanation, not a part of the Brahman, but fully and completely tho Brahman. For lin who knows this, there is no more migration for the soul, nor even libcration; for he is already liberated; the con- ·15 tinued existence of the world and of his own body appears to him only as an illusion, the appearance of which he cannot remore, but which cannot further deceive him, till the time when, after the decease of the body, he wanders not forth, as the others but remains where he is and what he is and eternally was the first principle of all things, 'the originally eternal pure, free, Brohman This is a very fairly accurate view of Sankara as laid down by Dr Deussen Sankara's views about cosmology, psychology and eschatology are examined in the sections of Jagat, Jivâtman and Moksha respectively, and have been shown not to flow naturally from the Sutras of Badarayana as they stand at present. Here We are concerned with the consideration of Brahman, so we shall examine here his view as to whether Sankara's distinction of higher and lower Brahman can naturally be worked out from the Satras of Bidarayana It has been suggested above that so far as our casual survey of the Brahmashtras is concerned, sankara's distinction, between the higher fafarta Farfor fabafe and the lower, afasta huu alie Brahman, is not found to be counte nanced by the Satras of Bådarayana The most important Satras, on this point, are to be found in the second pâda of the third Adhyâya The adhi karana, beginning with a curas CET HYPétain fe,' and ending with the sutra FIAT (3211 21) deals with the question, whether Brahman 1s सविशेष or निर्विशेष or both Thenextadhikarana, beginning with adalara de afactura ant प्रवीति च भूय' and ending with the Satra प्रतिषेधाच(82 23 30), deals with the question of fata which refers to the final of Brahman, and not to Brahman itself, or in the words of Deusson, deals with the question of the possibility of kooring the fattata Brahman or esoteric Brahman This is the scope of these stitias as stated by Sankara.

·16 At the outset, it may be remarked that it is rather somewhat strange to find these Sätras (3-2, 11 30) in the third chapter, which, as its very name suggests, purports to deal with the question of så lhanas, But as none of the Vedanta doctors have questioned their legiti. macy, we shall deal with them as they are to be seen at prosent. These Sätras seem to be rather obscure, and this seems to account for the vast divergence to be noticed in the existing Bhashyas regarding the sense of these Sútras,' as well as the arrangemeat of them into the adhikaranas. From the first adhikaraṇa (3-2 11-21), Sankara thus works out the farines of his Brahman. According to ſankara, the human soul, when freed from all 391f3, becomes identical with Brahman in stages like dreamless sleep. In his Bhashya on the Chhandagga also, Sankara says that by the word 'En' the fà suggests the identity of the jivåtman and Brahman. The Swarnpa of this Brahman is being investigated in this section by the aid of the Vedio passages. Concerning Brahman, says S'ankara, there are Vedic passages of two kinds. One set of Vedic passages like 'सर्वकर्मा, सर्वकामः, सर्वगन्ध., सर्वरस' teaches that Brahman is waite, while another set of Vedic passages like 'अस्थूलमनण्वहस्वमदीर्घम्' teaches the निर्विशेषत्व of Brahman. Now the Brahman in itself, continues S'apkara, cannot be both, for it is not possible that one and the same thing in itself should be सविशेष and निर्विशेष. It is true that we might think that Brahman in itself is fafaring, and becomes सविशेष by उपाधिs. But one thing cannot become another by the fact tbat it appears to be connected with limitations (943)the crystal remains clear even when it has ognitum; as it is an error to take it red in itself, 8o in case of Brahman also, the afatit is due to limitations etc., and rests only on Ignorance (Typeftatefacereafercare). Therefore S'apkara concludes that Brahman is free from } ·17 etc, out? all differences and porfectly unchangeable, and not the contrary, 'अतश्चान्यतरलिगपरिग्रहेऽपि समस्तविशेषरहित निर्विकल्पकमेव प्रम प्रतिपत्तव्य न तद्विपरीतम्,' the reason being that in all the passages like "plore' eto., where the starapa of Brahman is taught, it is declared to be devoid of all limitations 'अपास्तसमस्तविशेष' Having worked out the निर्विशेषत्व of Brahman thus, in the next Satra, 7 fara a socio- TER' 3–2-12, S'ankara further elaborates the same by declaring that Brahmin 18 faccrotte How does it happen then that in many passages of scripture, manifold forms are attributed to Brahman? Should we not admit that by such passages a difference of form actually brought 'तस्मात् सविशेषत्वमपि ब्रह्मणोऽभ्युपगन्तव्यम् ' Tor otherwise what 18 the purpose of the passages of scripture which attribute the differentiation to Brahman? To this it 18 replied that in overy passage where limitations ppear, it is further said that Brihman is not affected by tliem, ay पाधिभेद ह्यभेदमेव ब्रह्मण बोधयति शास्त्रम्' Having thus emphasised the निर्विशेषत्व of Brahman, Sankirt remarks, 'अतश्च न भिनाकार- योगो ब्रह्मण शास्त्रीय इति शक्यते वक्तुम् , भेदस्योपासनार्थत्वादभेदे तात्पर्यात् .. The next Satri, fantas,' has been written to terch the cognition of abheda which is proceded by a censure of the perception of bheda How is it that only the 39771978 Brahman is insisted upon when the Vedic passages describe Brahman as both ? To this question, an answer is furnished by 'yaca fe USATEL 3 2 14 Brahman is not Finifah, because Vedic passages like to eto, expressly declare that fara si Biahman 18 FIFT Then what about the Vedic passages teaching Brahman as free? To this an answer is gren in Frantaez faz 2 3 15. As the Doght of the sua tan the moon, when it falls on the finger, shares in the finger's limitations, and in conformity with it, seems crooked, whon at 13 crooked, strught, when it is strught, so also Brahmın, when it is united with gazetare 3 ·• 18 anaume "ila forma. Such an erfaringin' in not fire, for it is taught for the purpose of room. It is therefore by no means purposcler. All the words of the Upanislında davo a purpose, and arc authoritative, but this does not prevent this vicw of Brahman's afrit ctc., from resting on Ignoranco all the same, for on inborn Ignorance depends worldly adion ns woll as those prescribed by the Vaia. Thc Sutra, *3972 9 FATTI 3-2-16, also teaches the निविशेषत्व of Brahman. The Shtra 'दर्शयति चायोऽपि स्नयते' 3.2.17, cmphasises tho Porting of Brahman by quotations from fa and pfa. After cıplaining the Satras, 'ta 7 réf77', and '79013 7 997943–2–18–19, in the same strain, Sankara remarks in 'Tatar TryHi- TETETTİK:47594' 3-2-20 :---Just as the Fraueraffor increases with the increase of water, moves with its motion, is जलपर्मानुविधायि, in the same way, the one अविकूनमद् Brahman assumes tho más of suf. In the last Satra, Presara' 3-2-21, Sankara concludes again emphasising the same vior on the authority of certain passages of the Veda. In the end, Sankara gives it as his opinion that Brahunan is निर्विकल्पक. 'तामा निर्विकल्प कलिंगमेव ब्रह्म म उभयलिंग, न विपरीतलिंग चेति सिसम्' 3-2-21. The intorpretation of these Sätras by Sankara cannot be taken to be convincing, because it is not consistent with that the Sätrakira has said before, and even if we do not mind this inconsistency with the previous Satras, the interpretation of the Satrag and Vedic passages cannot be denied to be very forced. In 'न स्थानतोऽपि परस्योभयलिंग सर्वत्र हि,' Sankara explains the words 'सर्वत्र हि' by 'ब्रह्मस्वरूप- प्रतिपादनपरेषु अशब्दमस्पशेमरूपमव्ययमित्यादिषु निर्विशेषस्यैवोपदेशात! The wording of the Satra docs not in the least suggest this mcaning, nor is it to be found in this third chapter, nor in the whole of the Mimapsi Sastra. The word Sarvatra is ·19 once found before in the day 1-2-1, and there also, do suggestion is to be found in favour of S'anlara's interpretation Hence that explanation owes its existence to S'anlarn's zeal for the Nirvisesha Brahman Even the latter halves of the sentences, quoted by Sankara in support of Nurvisesha Brahmin, do not support his view, but go against him The first sentence quoted is this 'भशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययं तथाऽरस निलमगन्धवच यत् । अनादनन्तं महत पर ध्रुव निचाय्य तन्मृत्युमुखातू प्रमुव्यते कळ० 3-13 In this passage the samo Biahman which is Asabdam etc is described to be Anddyananta, mahalah para and dhuvi, which, in their turn, imply the savrseshatva of Brahmin Moreover, when it is established here, that Brahman is Nurvisesha, the following Sätra, nyan rencana,' becomes redundant. To consider that this doctrine, which is to be proved there, 18 proved here is also rather incongruous Again, the interpretation of the Satra, 4ael arrancar does not appear to be supported by the very texts, which S'aņkara, quotes in his support The first text, quoted by Sankara, 13 ' eto , • 38 8. This sentence has been spolen by the sage Yajnavalkya to explain to Gargi the nature of Brahman, so first he says Asthilan etc, and then at once teaches the prašâsırtva, ambar Antadhâi akatua, beginning with drashtritva, and ending with ahasopůdânatva. Hence to lay unnecessary stress on the negative words hke asthalam etc, and to say that the nuruisesha Brah man alone is taught, and to disregard completely the contest teaching divine attributes of Brahmin like prasa sitratia etc , is not fair Asthilan etc , can be reconciled by saying that the nishedha, there referred to, is only the negation of what is to be found in the world of prakriti, it is only a nishedha of prâlntu or laukaha things, and not a wholesale negation of everything including even attrı butes divine libe prasåsıtritux etc The second Athala ·20 + sentence 'propre etc., does not, asalready shown above, support S'aņkara's contention that Brabman is absolutely devoid of any attributes, anfartigiana'. The third quotation is from the Chbândogya, nante 7746 Telitalar à me ne,' 8-14.1. This sentence is very clear. It distinctly teaches that the revelation of names and forms is an (719kylaqleri) attribute of Brahman, It teaches Brahman as possessed of attributes, savisesha, and it is rather strange to find Sankara quoting it in luis support. The fourth is quoted from Mundaka 'faut utá: gen: a10=4T UT (2-1-12). That also cannot be taken to teach the out and out nirvisesharva of Brahman., By calling the purusha amůrta, it does not deny murti absolutely, it may be iyattá-parimana, for it, at the same time, says that purusha Brahman is divine-divya, TurFARETTET or atanapilh4. But the passage quoted goes further, and declares that the purusha is greater than the great ahshara Brahman, BYTYTO .. Thus this passage also goos against the nirviseshatia of Brahman. The last sentence quoted by Sankara is from the Brihadiranyaka 'nangan अपूर्वमनपरमनन्तरमगह्ममयमात्मा ब्रह्म सर्वानुमः' 2-5-19,' Even when we consider this sentence without any reference to the context, the very word sarvánubhah suggests an inference against Sankara's absolute negation of any attributes in Brahman, If there was no sarva, hoy vas Bralıman to be sarvấnubhůh? FOUTE a algumaupta'. Taken with the context it further goes against Sankara's viow. This quotation is at the end of the Vadhu-Bral. miana. In the beginning of tho Madhu vidya 'waaa ns. यभात्मेदममृतमिदं ब्रह्मेदं सर्वम्' is repeated fourteen times in order to teach the sarvatva of Brahman. Then there is further taught the 'सर्वभूताधिपतित्व, then as an explanation to 'रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बभूव' is added 'अयं हरयोऽयं वै दश च सहस्राणि न बहूनि 'च ·21 E' which directly declaros not the absolute negation in Sankara's seoso, but the anantarilpatá or sarvatva of Brahman. Hence the so-called prominence-praclhdnatá of nirvišesla Brabman, according to śankara, cannot be fairly worked out here. Sankara's very appropriate remark 'नहि वेदवाक्यानां क्स्यचिदर्थवत्त्वं कस्यचिदनर्थवत्त्वमिति युक्तं प्रतिपत्तुं, AMYSaitara loses much of its force, when he says that the आकारविशेषोपदेश of Brahman is due to उपाधि, because according to him, what is due to 39177, cannot be said to belong to the thing itself, and also because all the syfers are आविद्यक, 'उपाधिनिमित्तस्य वस्तुधर्मत्वानुपपत्ते.' 'उपाधीनामाविद्यकत्वात्,' Even Vedic passages like 'यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान् न विभेति पुतश्चन' at best teach the वाङ्मनसातीतत्व and Brahmavid's भयाभाव and not its अत्यन्तनिर्विशेषत्व. The quotation from Geeta 'ज्ञेयं यत् तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वाऽमृतमश्नुते, अनादि- मत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तनासदुच्यते' 13-12, refers to व्याकृत and अव्याकृत stages of Brahman on the authority of 2-1-17-B. S. Moreover this conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the Geeta further describes Brahman as सर्वतः पाणिपादान्तम् etc. Attributes like fasa:niformariia' eto., cannot be prakrita laukika, heya. The illustrations given in the 'FEETA' Satra 3-2-20, can be explained by the fact that there is no difference in the fifa either in less or more water. 1548919. pp. 945-946, B.S.S. Thus it has been shown that so far as the Sutras and the texts of the Upanishads are concerned, Sankara's effort to work out the absolute famena of Brahman in this epfer FRU ( 3-2-11-21 ) cannot be justified. Now in the next efirmu (3-2-22-30 he works out his interpretation in the same strain, and concludes:- 799 941215 ale qu', 7 अभावावसान इत्यध्यवस्यामः' ( 3-2-22). The Sutra 'प्रकृततावत्त्वं हि sfattafo ant zetlen a :" 3-2-22 is thus explained by Saņkara. The विपयवाक्य 'नेति नेति' etc., here chosen, is from the qहदारण्यक, ·22 In the passage in question, and follows a statement of the two rnpas of Brahman viz., ma and ad. Both thiese forms, according to Sankara, are denied of Brahman by fa af. It is by the aid of this Satra that śankara establishes his strict war. By denying everything except Brahman which is 'ry," he distinguishes his system from the rate of the Bauddhas. Everything except the Brahman is to be denied, and the Brabman itself is to be, if at all, described by all negations. This is the essence of the Veda nta according to him. Thus his system should be very aptly called, not the state' the doctrine of non-duality, but 'gante' or 'singularism' in the words of Sir Ramkşishna Bhandarkar. Thus there are two sorts of passages to be found in the Upanishads, one teaching the Brahman as afar14, and the other teaching it as fafata. Sankara subordinates, nay rejects, the Vedic passages teaching Brahman as afqata, as shown above, calling them useful only in 34787IS, which in their turn, are products of fast, according to him. On what authority Sankara bases this theory of his, we are unable to trace. No Satra of Bidariyana can with certainty be taken as an authority for drawing this distinotion. In doing so, he, it appears, departs from the lines of the Satrakira. In (8-2-15), le remarks of वेदवाक्यानां कस्यचिदर्थवत्त्वं कस्यचिदनर्थवाचमिति युक्तं प्रतिप प्रमाणत्वाविशेषात.' Thus according to the principle laid down by Sankara himself (and this seems to be the view of the Satrakára who, as a truc Vaidika, has undertaken to set aside fata, and to work out harmony, of the conflicting Vedic passages) the party would not be set aside, if some passages are subordinated or deprived, as is done by bim of their primary importance and significance. Being passages of the Veda, their authoritativeness is equal, and ·23 they deserve to be equally respected. The difficulty of contradiction should have been set aside on the principle Jaid down by Bidarayaas in "श्रुतस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात्,' 2-1-27. This seems to be a very strong piece of argument to refute Sankara's theory of अत्यन्त निविशेष Brahman. The argument that, because the 'एकवाक्यता' is to be worked out, Sankara is justified in subordinating, or rather rejecting सविशेष Vedic passages to निर्विशेष ones, and thereby removing the faste between them, would not stand a moment's consideration; the hollowness of this argument is not difficult to be seen. The forma as such, cao rightly be said to be reconciled, when both sorts of Vedio passages deserving of equal weight as they are, are given their due and equal weight and scope. S'aņkara's way of looking at the श्रुतिs, one must admit, rot only subordinates the सविशेष श्रुतिs, but renders them meaningless ultimately. What prevented S'ankara from an unqualified submission to the letter of the Veda, in complete disregard of the so-called युक्तिविरोध, as was done by the learned Sttraktra in2-1-26-27, is & question, which cannot be satisfactorily solvod. S'ankara ought to have accepted tho principle, which he himself exprosses so very tersely in2-1-27. 'शब्दमूलं च मदा, शब्दप्रमाणकं, नेन्द्रियप्रमाण, तद् यथारायदमभ्युपगन्तव्यम्, पान्दश्च उभयमपि ब्रह्मणः प्रतिपादयति, आत्मभराति निरवयवत्वं घ, लौकिकानामपि मणिमनोपधि- प्रभृतीनां देशकालनिमित्तवैचित्र्यवशात् शक्तयो विरुद्धानेककार्यविषया दृश्यन्ते, ता अपि सावनोपदेशमन्तरेण केवलेन तणावगन्तुं शक्यन्ते, अस्य वस्तुन एतावत्य एतत्सहाया एतद्विषया एतत्प्रयोजनाश्च शक्तय इति, विमुताचिन्त्यस्वभावस्य ब्राणो रूपं विना शब्देन न निरूप्येत, तथा बाहुः पौराणिकाः 'अचिन्त्याः सल ये भावा न तांस्तण योजयेत्, प्रकृतिभ्यः परं यच्च तदचिन्त्यस्य लक्षणम्' इति, तस्मात् शब्दमुल एवं अतीन्द्रियार्थयाथात्म्याधिगमः' Thus Brahman's स्वरूप being अचिन्त्यस्वभावयुक्त there is no विरोध. Whab seems impossible to us becomes possible in the case of Brahman, Thus has the satrakara set aside कार्यकारणविरोध; so, follow ·26 This view, thus it appears, is in perfect harmony with the Satras of Badarågana. Nimbärka and Råminnja also favour this view, S'apkara's fafestnih does not seem to have any connection with the Sätras of Bådarayana. This view is supported by the fact that none of the Vedân ta writers accept S'ankara's view of fata Brahman to be the view of the Sætrakûra. Thus, according to Badarayaņa, the same Brahman is both निर्विशेष and सर्वधर्मयुक्त. Sankara's theory of निर्गुण पर and yumu Brahman is further shaken off by Rådaraana in 3-2-21, and the Satras following. There the question js raised whether there is any a greater Brahman than which has been described before. The answer given to this question in the following Sätras is in the negative. Not only is this Brahman the highest, but another its equal is prohibited. Thus the same Brahınan which is उभयलिग is the highest. 'परमनः सेतून्मानसम्बन्धभेदव्यपदेशेभ्य' x x 9147' X X de atrasfattin' 3-2-31, 32,032,34 35,36). Dr, Thibaut? agrees with the view that S'aņk ira'a theory of Saguna and Nirguna Brahmen is not recognized by the Satrakara, but he thinks that Sunkarı by rcoog. niziog Snguni and Nirguna Hrahmans gives scopu to all sorts of divergently couflcting fa tex(s. But this sounds rather strange. To say that S'ankara understood or harmonised the Upanishads better than Bidarîsaņa is plncing the cart before the horse. S'onkara's lover Brahman being a creature of pescience, & non-tntity in the highest sense, the scopo given to afara yfas is also illusive. Badariyapa does not even dreim of such a method, a fact evidenced by the absence of any Sutra quoted by Sanlara in support of this theory. If in 1. Vide Vedanta Satra 1. Introduction, p. 128. Sacred Books of the East.

·27 numerous places the Upanieliada describe Brahman by contrary attributes, Bidarayana libe a true Vardic, with the great regard that he had for the letter of the Vedı, without subjecting one set to another, or accepting one set and rejecting another, refers both the sets to the same Brıbman, and 628 that it 13 the highest When the factor is pressed against him, lie falis back on the letter of the Veda as in 2-1 27, TIR,' saying that Brah. man as to be learnt only from scriptures, and that indepen. dent resoning as such has nothing to do with it. Thus it will be seen that Dr. Thibaut's claim for S'anhara that ho gives scope to all the ylds is very werk. Bid iniyip decidedly has done better justice to all the yfàs by referring them to one and the same Brohman, while S'aphara's inyistence on the fram yfàs alone has rendered his concep tion of Brahmın opon to the charge that it ones its origia not to Veda or Satras of Bidarayana but to Buddbism (Vide Bhashara's 17754 p. 121) Thus it will be seen that the investigation of the Satrahara refers to Brahman which is right and re- शज्युपेत und therefore कh, but not to निर्विशेष Brahman as S'apburn repeatedly says Lxcept Bhaskara, all the Biashgihäris are almost a rood with the 1101 espressed abore, and even Bhixkara's farmak is very mild as cotup rd to that of S'oņkara, Vallabbi's commentator truly remarks - 'अतोऽन्यनिपेयो यो वर्तते स सर्व प्रमगोऽन्तनिवेश्येतर पेधति, न तु सर्वे मिथ्यात्येति सुधीभिरवधेयम्,' p. 953, Anu Bhashya Prinss B.SS. Hîlarilyn a las establislıcd that Brilmın rhose investigatiin he is undertaken, an I those definition he has given in stare 99' is possessed of wonderful po vers, crentes the univers: cto for its sport, 19 S'ambara wants t refer the thing not to Isratiman but to afara, the 1 ·2S SO This seems Of course be reasons for this being fachat and freuen Here also he departs from the lines of the Sutrakıra The Sutrakara considers this question in 'वैषम्यनैपुण्ये न सापेक्षत्वात तथाहि दर्शयति' 32 27 Badar iyan& says that Brahman is not to be charged with partiality or cruelty, for it allots fruits according to safa, Brahman is , Vedz terches Though here the Satrabîra gives that is the reason why Brahman is neither face nor frigor, he feels conscious of the difficulty that if Brahman were to allot fruits according to tra ita ca vould to that extent be controlled by it and so for its ईश्वरत्व 'सर्वस्य वशी, सवस्येशान etc, would be limited Hence to avoid this objection he says in a 3947 that Brahman alone allots fruits and not YR Giving fruits according to YATS Bribman is not controlled by them to be the reasoning of Badariyanı says GOCHOTĘ 13 efalle, and hence it is possible for Brahman to nllot fruits according to but then the difficulty arisesif the STEFTE IS OTT how is Brilman to crerte it ? To this buis reply is that sta and pula teach both After remov ing this doubt, he cuts short the argument by the Sotra awaiteetti meaning thereby that Brahman is possessed of all râs, and that is in fitness of things yta word is Badrilyana s shelter in caso of difficulty, while Sankar's Sanhara's interpretation of tLeec Satrs is correct, though according to the reasoning of S anbara's system the answer Fould be different According to Sanlam's reasoning there is no question of any and figura Brahman's कतृत्व Is आविद्यक hence its फलदातृत्व much more so, lappiness and misery are stilaat, and the human soul is also crenture of Descience How docs Brahmin become joined with faut? Of this the Sotris giro no trace Even S anbarı does not give any reason for this, as 18 rc marbed by Dr Deussen -"In reality (,) thero 13 Is अविद्या ·29 nothing else basades Brahman alone If we imagiue ve perceive a transformation (Fant) of Him into the world, a division (2) of Him into a plurality of individual souls, this depends on the But how does this liappen? How do we manage to decorve ourselves into secrog atrinsformation and a plurality, where in reality Brahman alone is? On this question our authors give us no information Systen of Vedanta p 302 Bidarayana does not give any information on this point, because as shown above, he does not hold this view, and S aplara does not give any roison because it is not possible to do so Hence Dr Deussen's remark "But the system gives no real ground for this Assumption' (S V. P 303) can be applicable only to S'ankara’s reasoning When Jiva's fira 13 due to Bralı man (PETEO pe ) when Brahman is itself the source from which all activities flow, how can Brahman be 3471? Since Bralıman 18 unfettered by anything like afarum, -48417, aft etc, at will it becomes mor 97 Hence Badariyana s system is not to be charged with faufam neither bis Bralıman 19 to be charged •vith partiality or cruelty, for Brahman s erestion Isआत्मसृष्टि आत्मकृति or लीलासृष्टि One can not be unjust to one s self one cannot be said to be unjust or cruel, if one were to do anything for the sake of fun, eftet, Bimilarly Brahman cannot be said to be unjust or cruel to wards its own creation created for the sake of ziet only Thus the Brahman whose investigation Bidariyana has undertaken is-possossed of all 431 all wonderful porters,it is independent door, att3, * it is untouched by the short-comings of the Justman, it resides in the heart, BAVATTYON 2-1-37 : सोपता च तदर्शनात् 2-1-30 नामा पस्यय 1-124 भता चराचरपरमा 129 5 मेमोगातितरवि चे शेपान 1221 6 Otsitat al 1211 ·30 it is अगुश्मान, 15 it is अदृश्यत्वादिगुणक,110 1s रूपवत् It 15 अन्तर्यामिन् , it ts मूमन्,' 5 it is वैश्वानर, it 15 प्रादेशमान' and व्यापक, it is दहर, it is सत् चिद्,10 आनन्द 11 It is everything 12 ftists beyond प्रकृति,माया, अविद्या, शरीर, शक्ति, etc Gunas of प्रकृति, 14 etc. have no सम्बन्ध withi st, tence It Is निर्गुण It is जगत्पनकर्तृ,' It is आनन्दमय,11 it is the support18 of heaven and earth, these attributes are divine The subject 14 of negative श्रुतिs has reference to attributes of प्रकृति etc The negative fas do not deny the divine attributes of Brahman spohen of in otlier Vedic passages. This Brahman whose investigation Bidardyana has undertaken, and in whom harmony of all the Vedic passages (समन्वय17) has been worked out by him, for its own sport, is develops19 itself into Jadajıı ıtmaka upi terse, without undergoing the least change, 90 and with out censing to be forczyn It alone shapes, 31 and names the Jadajiritmaka universe making it Nämarupatmaka also Just as Brahman, by its mysterious poners, makes सदश 2nd चिदश perceptible, while आनन्दाश imperceptible, thus developing itself into जडनीवात्मकप्रपञ्च, similarly by making 1 दृश्य दिगुणको धोने 1221 2 रूप यासाच 1228 म्यधिदेवादिषु सद्धर्मव्यपदेशात् 12-18 4 भूमा सप्रसादादध्युपदेशात् 138 देव प्रमित 1324 6 वैश्वानर साधारणशम्दविशेषार 1224 7 आमनन्ति चैनमस्मिन् 122 8 दहर उत्तरभ्य 13 14 9 जमाघस्य यत 112 10 ईक्ष तेनशिग्दम् 115 11 मान दमयोऽभ्याम 11 11 12 सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धोपदेशात 12-1 18 गोगश्चेन्नामशब्दाद 1 17 14 प्रतैनावत्वं हि प्रतिषति ततो ब्रवीति च भूय 1222 15 कम्पना1339 16 घुम्बाचायनन स्वशदात् 131 In धानराधिकरण, वैवानर Is described as मादेशमात्र snd अभिमान according to scripture 1232 This also goes to show that there is no विराध in Brahman it the ontradictions are sanctioned by Veda because the 1984 of Brahman Is शालेकसम शाम्य Sankera sinterpretation of these two rords as foreed and consequently 11 rejected by Ramanuji Bhaskara Vallablia Madhya Deossen and other 17 तत्तु समस्यात् 114 18 लोकवतु होला बवल्यम् : 133 19 मारमकृते परिणामात् 1426 20 तेस्तु शब्दमूलस्वाद 2127 2A सामूर्तिलक्षितु त्रिवृत उपदेशा24 20 s सन्ता ·31 Imperceptible the सर्वरूपत्व and सर्वनामत्व, develops एकरूपत्व and PAR producing thus an infinite benutiful variety. Giving fruits to Jivas according to their Ås, Brahman is not controlled by them. In becoming ga, it does not become partial or cruel. Brahman is T446. Ratiocination has nothing to do with it. On the strength of the letter of the Veda, this Brahman, all-pervnding? as it is, is to be reached from whence there is no return. It is one and infinte. It is everything. S'ankara's theory negativing everything in Brahman cannot be supported by any of the Sätras of Bad iriyanı. Bådardyana's view seems to be to affirm that Brahmın is everything, rather than to deny everything of Brahman. HUMAN SOUL. It has been shown that so far as the Satras of Bidara yana are concerned, one fails to find any trace of the theory of 'falang higher Brahmin and afazia lorer HT! Brabm in, that all the passages of the Upanishads describing Brahman os sa ala' or 'uf, etc., refer to the same Bohinan, and the fasta between these two sets of Vedic passages, transforms itself into a facterit the moment af as such is dismissed from our consideration, and the letter of the Veda is with Implicit futh (461) followed, without the least attempt to better or modify its natural significance, and thereby accepting Brahman to be possessed of wonderful powers fåfaz uffris and all attributes 'सर्वधर्म's; or if one fails to see his way to अचिन्त्यै- श्वयंयुक्त ब्रह्मन्, then he may set aside the विरोध by referring the negative Vedic passages to 'प्राकृत' or 'लौक्कि' पदार्थs and the affirmative to from divine ones, as is suggested by Raminuir, Nimbärl, or even by Vallabha in marr fe afatla mat fa 779.' 3-2-22. V, S., thus giving equal 1, warfa 3T WIFI 375 4-1-22.

·32 scope to both sets of Vedic, passages without following Sanhtra's method of subordinating the aflirmalne to tho negalite onc, a incthod winch on its ficc is not justified by tho fact that the Valdıb 19 like Birlarigina aro always anxious to reverc all the Vodic paesages rhether like af af or like it with the same roi cronce Now let us lako up tlıc consideration of the human Boul-Jiyatının, The wholo body of the Vedanta Satras dealing with the nature of thc Jirktunan, 18 to be fouad in the third paja of the sccond chapter of tlic Brahmamt. inans (23-16 53) Bidariyana begins thus --In 2014 7443 FATI YT IT AGT TIL 23 16, it is said that birth, death ctc , refer to tho body of tho human soul In 19a farger, it 18 taught that Jivatman bas no mufe Vedio passages deny tue'fe of Jirátmnd, they on the contrary teach the नित्यन्च of Jiva In 'शोज एव' 23-18, at 19 taught that Jiva, though by nature 1979, 18 a 'ETAT,' on the authority of the Veda. S ankara's 10319tence that Jiva 18 only hit and pot a knower goes directly agaiost the wording of the Sätra. In Satras 2-3 19 28, 1t 18 taught that Jivåtmın is of the size of an atom, because 'उत्काति, गति and आगति' are spoken of him in the Veda even af of bo otherwise explained, the ala and era do refer to Jiritman as such, that yta passages describing Jivat man as non-Aņu describe him as such in his capacity of Brahman, where Jivåtroan's Brahmanhood is to be cm phasized, there only he is described as non anu fay Vedic passages do teach Aņutvi of Jlvåtman as well as suggest it, the objection that the cry of Jivâtman as he is atomic cannot be fatto per vadıog the whole body, does not stand Just as treat though applied to one part produces coolness in the whole body, similarly the of Jiritman, atomic as here, spreads over the s bole body, like chandana, Jivåtman has bis abode in the heart, the Vedic passages ·33 teach the same thing On the analogy of the diamond or the lamp, also the Jivitman's famy spreads over the whole body These latter instances seem to be given becruse some one might urge that minute particles produce coolness in the case of chandana, and that the Jirâtman has no particles, hence just as the light of a diamond spreads over a wider space than is occupted by the diamond, in the same way even though the Jliatman resides in the heart, his chartanya spreads over the whole body 'rou cannot exist without , hence, if the Jivitman resides in the heart, and is of the size of an atom, his chaitanya would not be agricoull, this objection is set aside by Badar ışına on the analogy of गन्ध Vedic passages also teach the aņutor of the Jivatman The श्रुति passage, प्रज्ञया शरीर समास्य' teaches that by creyen the Jivatman pervides the whole body Hence the conclusion is that the Jivatmın is of the size of an atom Why is the Jii itmın then said to be fax, etc, if it is ronllyaņu ? If the Jivatman is really different from Brahman, why 19 TAHT eto, taught by the Vedic passages'? These questions the author of the Satras answers in 'n ar 1967 TETETT 23-29 The Jivåtman 13 described as far Brahimao, etc beciuse he derives these attributes from Brahman on the analogy of the star Just as the una, though a , 13, in Brihadîranyakn, described 19 possessing the attributes like Y, etc, which are Brahman s अमाधारणधर्मs, similarly when the ब्रह्मत्व of tho Jisatınan is to be phasised, ho is described as fory etc Thug is the interpretation fovoured by Numbärha and Vallabha, and it is strengthened by the preceding Satra yaadhifa deritaTTTA' 2 3 23, where fana, etc, are cald Modern science pay de,ect Aflar in this Tt180Aing but B.ldırayana's view is clear He wants to say that the virtuan's residence in the heart, bis inutta and big game are all pordible ·34 to be attributed to the Jirâtman to declare his Brahmanhood. Hence, according to Badarîyana, the Jivåtmag is anu, when in Brahmabhava he experiences fauna, etc, on account of his Brahmanhood Râmânuja, Madhra, Nim. bîrka and S'reekantha all accept the Jivatman to be anul S'anhara interprets the Satris 2 3-19-28 as belonging to पूर्वपक्ष, and 2-3 29:- तद्गुणसारत्वात् तु तद्यपदेश प्राज्ञवत्' as a सिद्धान्त per refuting and rejecting the Jivâtman's anutin and accepting his fart With some reservation, khuskara follows Sankara and Vijnana Bhikshu, though breaking the adhıkarana from gallegata', siys that Jiva's anulua 18 due to suit S ankara explains the Satra thus --the first a' of the Sutra 2 3 29 refers to 'grauf, etc, and the sc. conda to , etc, that the Jiyatmın through the adjuncts of gf safe, etc , is described as anu, just as the 'sh', the supreine soul, though devoid of any far 143, 19 described 19 possessed of all is, and called a profit, etc, which are als S anhura's interpretation bas one ndvantage over that of l'âmånuja Nadhya, and Sreekanth in the fnot that he espluns the instance of 'yn' somehors, while the other writers ful to make out much of it In fact, they seem to have lost sight of its unportinco Dr Thibaut has also neglected to consider its importance But Vallabha mwuages to interpiet it, in an exactly oppo ite way, by shoning the appropruteness of the instance He says, just as a who is merely a syftafeta, who is not Brahman, is attributed as on account of huis Brahmanhood, 60 the Jivatman on account of luis Bralimanhood is described as fag etc, though lic 13 24 Vallabha's explanation has this advantage that lie has not to add words like gf or syfu which are never suggestod in any of the Satris of Bidardsaņa either preceding or following this Satro. Bhl-kari's reference to farewaret' at ·35 2 315, in support of his reference of first 'F' to 34, does not improre the case by the absence of any reason for translating "विज्ञानमनसी' not as इन्द्रियs but बुद्धि and उपाधि The distance between the two Satras suggests an inference against Bhishara But S'apkıra's arguments in favour of fara deserve to be considered independently He observes in 2 3 29,90€ अणुरात्मेति, उत्पत्यश्रवणात्, परस्यैव तु ब्रह्मण प्रवेशश्रवणात्, तादात्म्योपदेशाच परमेव ब्रह्म जीव इत्युक्तम, परमेव चेद् ब्रह्म जीवस्तस्माद् यावत्पर ब्रह्म, तावानेव जीवो भवितुमर्हति, परस्य च ब्रह्मण विभुत्वमानातम्, तस्माद् विभु जीव' S'ınkara thus advances three arguments in favour of the Jivatman's विभुत्व, 26 (1) उत्पत्त्यश्रवण, (2) परस्यैव ब्रह्मण प्रवेश, (3) arcreluaa It is worthy of note that none of these argumentsfindany support from the Sätras of Badariyana The first argument, which S'ananra gres, in favour of the fanno of the Jivåtman, has been used by Bîdardyaņa to establish the eternity of the human soul, hence it cannot be taken to be conclusive lhe denial of grafit does not conclusively prove that the Ilvåtman is fag It cannot be sud because Jirr's 354fat has been denied, it 19 Brahmao, and hence feu, The very argument goes agninst S'aņkara's vioIY of erfaat which he accepts to be without उत्पत्ति-अनादि It cannot be said becruse aferent has no riff it 13 6. To this, it may be urged on behalt of Sankara that the acceptance of any duality being opposed to the प्रतिज्ञा of 'एकविज्ञानेन सर्व, faasiah, tho frience suggested by the denial of craft, results in 3, while allery alone suggests fan as in the case of a faan, that is, there cannot be two things etorna! hence the fauna of Jivo, taught by the Satralia, terches that Jion is Brahmad, and hence for while aferent though at 119s in end, hence it is firait To this argument, an answer is furnished from the Sutras of Bidarayıps, Even accepting the Jivatman to ·36 be नित्य and अणु there is no विरोध of the प्रतिता of 'एकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानम् ' This प्रतिता can be fulfilled by accepting the Juvâtman to be np 3487 of Brahman, as taught by Bådarayana later on in अशो नानाव्यपदेशात् , ete , or by taking the humın soul to be a litt of Brahman as done by Aimbůrka or war or faget by Rîmânuja, and by taling the 3 zu a to be you with Brahman on the principle land down by the Sntral tra in 'तदनन्यत्वमारभणशब्दा- fery 2 1-14 The mi according to Bidariyana, is afara with aferz Brahman, the feki is started with afeta Brah man, the विशेषण Is अनन्य with विशेश्य Brahman, hence the knowledge of sfera Brahman includes the knowledge of 97 Jiratman The after on the other band goes radically against Sankara’s views because it can be possible of fulfil ment only when there 18 'ono' and 'all, and that 'one' 18 all! The difficulty arising from the Vedio pissages teach ing the ferrari of Bralman can well be anen ered on the principle land down by Badartyana in श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूत्वात्' 2 1 27 Thus the denial of the cafe of the human soul cannot be worked out to prove that Jiva is Brahman far It cannot be taken to be the ren of the author of the Sotras The second argument of Sankara 19 based on ? passage from the greita (VI), अनेन जीवेन आत्मना अनुप्रविश्य ATHEU 41 auto l'ara Brahman's entrance is taught in this fà lonce says Sankarı, that the Jirituan is the same as Para Brahman-fan According to the reasoning of S'ankara, in the first place, there can be no saat, the month being व्यापक Nor can re interpret प्रवेश in the sense of सयोग, for Brahman being a3194 inside and outside the uft, even without the declaration of naa Bralımancould hrve develop ed nanies and forms With thrs श्रुति if we read 'द्वा सुपर्णा yfa teaching co existence of Brahman and Jiva, the conse ·37 ones that can be made out is this, that the Supremo enters with the Juvâtman, and then develops names and forms The difficulties, presented by the अद्वैतश्रुतिs and व्यापकत्वश्रुतिर, can be answered by Badar iyana on the authority of de Ta' 2 1 27. Hence the argument of Parr Brahman's garrani is not conclusive on the point of Jiva's fauce. The third argument of Sankarn is akiniai This argument is based on the passage of the stratran lucli runs thue .-'स एष अणिमा ऐतदात्म्यं इद सर्व, तत् सत्य स आत्मा तत् त्वम् atfer' It is taught by Uldalaka to his son retaketu. This argument is on the whole stronger than the two preceding Butcven hero one cannot say that thus aizturot is in the sense of S ankara Tle m' of a fare as? Ranga Ramanuja remark«, refers to apy The Vedic passage has been spoken with a view to teach ag 'the hoon ledge of cvorything by the knowledgo of one' With this end in view Uddink, terches his son that mathis whole Visable unserse is ऐतदात्म्य-प्रकार of सद् It is मत्य because सद् 1s its आत्मा, श्वेतकेतु thou art that-ऐतदात्म्य-, a प्रार of सद्, me being a pronoun refers to tho noun tiste But apart from this, the fact remains that Jivn as such is not Brahman, then try does yfa say so? To the Vaidikr tho letter of the Veda is all in all, Its authoritativeness cannot be questioned by him Ac ording to Sankara 72 Ah is possible thus Ti refers to Brahman, freed from fear and its products 115. omniscience, ownipotence etc, while the refers to the hunan soul, freed from a facut and its adjuncts payant, an अंशत्य कर्तृत्व, etc Thus in both तत् and त्वम् a लालणिक tecond ary sense is to be preferred in perfect disregard of the first-primary eenec Sanhara's preference for secondary 1 एन्दोग्यटीस भानरम Series ·37 ones that can be made out is this, that the Supremo enters with the Juvâtman, and then develops names and forms The difficulties, presented by the अद्वैतश्रुतिs and व्यापकत्वश्रुतिर, can be answered by Badar iyana on the authority of de Ta' 2 1 27. Hence the argument of Parr Brahman's garrani is not conclusive on the point of Jiva's fauce. The third argument of Sankarn is akiniai This argument is based on the passage of the stratran lucli runs thue .-'स एष अणिमा ऐतदात्म्यं इद सर्व, तत् सत्य स आत्मा तत् त्वम् atfer' It is taught by Uldalaka to his son retaketu. This argument is on the whole stronger than the two preceding Butcven hero one cannot say that thus aizturot is in the sense of S ankara Tle m' of a fare as? Ranga Ramanuja remark«, refers to apy The Vedic passage has been spoken with a view to teach ag 'the hoon ledge of cvorything by the knowledgo of one' With this end in view Uddink, terches his son that mathis whole Visable unserse is ऐतदात्म्य-प्रकार of सद् It is मत्य because सद् 1s its आत्मा, श्वेतकेतु thou art that-ऐतदात्म्य-, a प्रार of सद्, me being a pronoun refers to tho noun tiste But apart from this, the fact remains that Jivn as such is not Brahman, then try does yfa say so? To the Vaidikr tho letter of the Veda is all in all, Its authoritativeness cannot be questioned by him Ac ording to Sankara 72 Ah is possible thus Ti refers to Brahman, freed from fear and its products 115. omniscience, ownipotence etc, while the refers to the hunan soul, freed from a facut and its adjuncts payant, an अंशत्य कर्तृत्व, etc Thus in both तत् and त्वम् a लालणिक tecond ary sense is to be preferred in perfect disregard of the first-primary eenec Sanhara's preference for secondary 1 एन्दोग्यटीस भानरम Series ·39 If the reasoning above adopted is correct, then S'ankara's remark, Fabricatfirmareface 999 994E4f7912 4 2045', has no berring whatever so far as the Sîtras of Badaråyaņa are concerned It also follows from what has been said above that S'ankara's interpretation of the pext three Sutras 23 30 31 32 does not seem to bring out the view of the Satrakäia The Satrn kara nowhere suggests this बुद्धिसंयोग or उपाधिसयोग The Satri, 'यावदात्म. भावित्वाच न दोष तद्दर्शनात्,' is not very clear The objection why lov tat-Juve is said to be the highest Brahman is set aside by saying that once the Brahmanhood of the Juvåtman becomes mofest, he continues for ever to experience Brahmiton and with it fansa also lt 18 well said 'व्यापपत्वश्रुतिस्तस्य भगवत्त्वेन युज्यते। आनन्दाशाभिव्यक्ती तु तन ब्रह्माण्डकोटय । प्रतीयेरन् परिच्छेदो व्यापकत्व च तस्य तत् ॥ Apu Bhasya 2 3 30. The Brabmanhood-fagre etc, before the Jivâtmın experience ब्रह्मभाव, is latent in him, in the state of ब्रह्मत्व, वि n, etc, develop in him on the analogy that gera which is latent 12 a child develops in him when be attaids puberty. 'पुस्त्वादिवत् तु अस्य सतोऽभिव्यक्तियोगात् 2 3 31 The next shtra confirms this view Hence the Jivaiman accordiog to Balarity ana Is भणु and not व्यापक or विभु as S anhara says, the liyi man is spoken of as Brahman in a secondary sense so long as he is in HATEGII but when he is in INGSI, when his anna becomoz R-his person is 444 T-in primary sense Thus it appears that S mhara has cleariy inisunderstood the Sut a 2 ? 29 Regarding this Ur Thibaut also observes low, in the first place, nothing in ontext warrants the explan tion of the first *lut" by buddha And, which is more importint-n the second pl ce, it is guore than doubtful whether according ·40 to S'ankara's own system the qualities of the Buddhi such as pleasure, pain x x etc., can with any propriety be said to constitute the essence of the soul even in the simsara state. The essence of the soul in whatever stato, according to S'ankara's system, is hnowledge or intelligence, hatever is due to its association with the buddhi is non-essential, or, more strictly, unreal, false. (Vedanta Sûtra 1 page 55 ) Hence Sankara is not right in turning the जीवाणुत्ववोधक Sutras as belonging to पूर्वपक्ष. The next adhikarana, consisting of Satras 33 to 39, establishes that the Jivåtman is a karta. In support of the Jivatman's hai tritva, the Satrahîr gues the following rersons -(1) शास्त्रार्थवत्त्व, (2) विहारोपदेश, (3) करणोपादान and (4) क्रियाव्यपदेश The sql in the Satr. 2-3-36, क्रियाया न चेनिर्देशविपर्यय ' ends the list of reasons given by the Satrabara in support of the Jipatman's Lai iritra. The next three Satras derl with tho question how it is that Jiva who is a hartâ does sometimes good or bad to himself, The Satra says just as the eye sees pleasint as well as unplersant objects, so the Jagtman doos actions which are sometimes beneficial or harmful to himscif, becausc his powers are crippled, and he has no aff which helps one to perceive what is हित or अहित 'उपलब्धिपदनियम , 'शक्ति fauziak', 'TT-02112re,' 2-3-37-38-39. The 'a' in the last Sátra, 'समाध्यभावाच' ends the list of reasons given for हिताहितरण After once referring the shtra 'उपलब्धिवदनियम ' to हिताहितकरणga, S'ankara's rcferring the next Sûtrı efter for denne to refuto Buddhi's hartritva, and then again the last Satrı marara' to show that the Jratman 18 a karti, is rather forced. The propriety of '' comes in the way, and Bidarayana's reading #4152nTer instead of ' Winner's also a difficulty to meet thich we have to strain ourselves to make out the sense, ·It is very The next Sutra is '917 a 2 3 40 important. The diversity in the interpretations of this Satrn by different Bhashyahůras has enbanced our interest in it. S'ankara in this Satra puts forth the view that the Lartritra of the Jiritman, established by Bådırayana in the previous adhikarana, is not Juvåtman's Eat Larir. atva but fefafta, the Juvåtman's hartritva 19 a product of nescience, as a matter of fact, the human soul is af With this end in view, S'apkara proceeds to interpret the Sutra thus -The in the Satra is used in the sense of ,' and thereby it refutes the viet, put forth in the pre vious adhikaraña that Jivatman 19 a FATH Of The Jiyatman's magical, according to S'ankars, is not Fraufar in the sense that heat is Farafan in fire, on the contrary as in the case of a who busies himself with the ase and other tools in his hands, and feels pain, but afterwards goes home, lays aside his axe and other tools, and in bis natural state rejoicing and at ease feels pleasure, so too the soul as long as it is affected by the duality founded on ignorance, is busied in the state of dreaming and waling and feels pain, but when it enters into itself to throw off weariness into the highest self, it is freed from the complexity of the organs of work, is not an agent and feels pleasure in the state of deep sleep, it is the same in the state of libera tion where it is ea, reposes and is happy after gloom of ignorance is driven array by the torch of knowledge. The smile of the carpenter is to be taken as follows the carpenter is, in respect of various kinds of work such as fitting, etc, and with regard to certain tools such as his axe, etc, an agent, but not an agent so far ag bis body goes, so too tlie soul in its exertions with regard to the organs, manas, etc , is an ngent, but not an agent with regard to his on self The soul, as opposed to the car. penter, has not like lu, limbs with which it could take 6-7 ·42 up the organs, manas, etc., or lay them aside, as the car. penter with his hands takes up, and lays aside his tools. Though this interpretation appears to have been workod out very ingeniously, it is nevertheless a forced one. How can it be for a moment supposed that Bidara. yana uses the a' in the sense of I? How can one convince the opponent that '7' is used in the sense of @? It is more than probable that S'ankara is trying here to put forward a view that seems to have been never thought of by the Sätrakara. It is certain that this is not the view of the Satrakara, and one cannot scriously dispute that S'ankara here is reading his own individual opinion into the Sûtra of Bådariyana. This opinion is strenge thened by Dr. Deussen who, in his ‘System of Vedanta' page 319, referring to S'ankara's taking 'a' in the sense of 'I,' says thus:-'a remark which possibly hints at fundamental differences between Badarêyana and S'apkara.' It is better to take the Sûtra as Ramanuja does, as a supplement to what has been said before. If the human soul were a farla anit, as is taught in the preceding adhikarana, then, says the opponent, he would always remain as such-af-and hence he would never be free from action. To such an objection this Satra furnishes an answer:-Just as a natt even having with him an axe, eto., works or does not work at will, so the Jivatman even though possessed of organs of speeeh, etc., (arulaeviga), at will works or does not work, Hence no afetar. Vallabha also considers this Satra to be a supplement to the theory of the Jivâtman's para propounded in the preceding Sätras. According to him, the Jivatman is not only a Kartâ but a Bhoktâ also. It is not necessary, says ·43 does something, and enjoys it. Vallabha farther says that mica by its very nature is not g 759-u pleasant; drinking milk, etc, is gaty pleasant In either case the view that the Jivåtman's Fica 15 औपाधिक or आविद्यक, and that he is परमार्थत an अफर्ता is not accepted. Whether one accepts Råminuja's or Vallabha's rendering, it does not matter much, bath seom to be more natural than that of S'ankara. It has been shown that S'ankara's rendering of the Sutra, 21 al 2 3 40, is forced The Satra does not seem to consider the question whether the Jivatman's Fring 15 era or sitter, but 18 Ramanuja remarks, this Sacra teaches the 1st or 24 m 7 of the Jivåtmın at will, just as a cirpenter works or takes rest at will. S'inkara cannot quote any Satra to prove the magica of the Jivåtman to be औपाधिक or आविद्यक This Sutra cannot help him much If the Jivâtman's entilatora is to be questioned at all, it can be referred to be due tot on the authority of the next Sutra, 'परातु तच्छुते' 2-3 41, rather than to बुद्धि or उपाधि Sankara has, however, independently of the Satrakara, advanced the following arguments against the Jirâtuan's स्वाभाविक कर्तृत्व (1) If Jiva's कर्नल 1s स्वाभाविक, then as अग्नि cannot be free from heat, so Jiva cannot be free from IT, hence अनिर्मोक्षप्रसग (2) कर्तृत्व 1s दुखरूप (3) मोक्षसिद्धि । referred to fagay soul (4) Some yra passages teach Jiva's Fica to be up For these reasons, says Sankara, the Juvatonan is an af The first objection can be met by taking the interpretation of the Sætra like Râmânuja. On the other hand, if girls 18 insisted upon, then as afe 18 अचेतन, there can be no motive for भोगावाञ्छा, ete , hence कर्तृत्व would be नित्य Vallabha also advances the same argumeats in different words He observes,-'न च सहजकर्तृत्वे ·भनिर्मोक्षः, पराधीनकर्तृत्व एवैतदिति, सांख्यस्य तन्मतानुमारिणो वान्यस्य भ्रम एव, कर्तृत्वे न मुक्तिरिति, नपुंसक एवमुच्यतेति बाह्यवत्, निरिन्द्रियस्यैव समाधिरित्यपि, करणत्वेन बुद्धिवन्न केनापि दृष्यते, वस्मात जीवस्य स्वाभाविकं कर्तृत्वम् , ध्यायतीव लेलायतीवेत्यपि परधर्मानुकरणम् । अयमप्येको धर्मः, स्वाप्ययसं. पत्त्योर्ब्रह्मव्यपदेशं पुरस्कृत्य सर्वविश्वं वदन उपेक्ष्य'. Again one fails to understand why Sankara calls any sort of कर्तृत्व to be दु.खरूप. It depends on how one takes it. Considering कर्तृत्व to be दुःखरूप, imagining the existence of दुख in आनन्दमय-all these go to suggest that Sankara is in. flueuced by deeply pessimistic leanings. When कर्तृत्व is taken in the light of the ब्रह्मविद्, when individual soul's कर्तृत्व is declared to be Brahman's, then there seems to be no valid objection. With great force does Vallabha observe in 1-1-1:-'नच ब्रह्मरूपात्मविज्ञाने देहाद्यभ्यासाभावेन क्र्तृत्वामावात् कमानधिकार इति वाच्यम, निरध्यस्तैरेव देहादिभि. कर्मकरणसंभवात्, अत एवं जीवन्मुक्तानां सर्वे व्यापाराः, तथाच स्मृतिः, 'नैव किश्चित् क्रोमीति युक्तो मन्येत तत्ववित्, पश्यन् ण्वन् स्पृशन् जिवन् अश्नन् गच्छन् स्वपन् श्वसन् , प्रलपन् विसजन गृहन् उन्मिपन् निमिपन् अपि, इन्द्रियाणीन्द्रियार्थेषु वर्तन्ते इति धारयन्, ब्रह्मण्याधाय कर्माणि सर्ग सत्तवा क्रोति यः, लिप्यते न स पापेन पमपनमिवाभसा'. 'ब्रह्मार्पण ब्रह्म हविः ब्रह्मानौ ब्रह्मणा हुतं, मौव तेन गन्तव्यं ब्रह्मर्मसमाधिना'. These quotations from Geeta show lors are to be per. formed. They do not say that Jiva is an straf, but that he bas to be a cat with my by his side. The misery is due to अभिमान and not to कर्तृत्व, Hence Bidariyana teaches that Jiva's वर्तृत्व is due to पर-ममत. The yra passages can be explained otherwise. The quotation from orन्दोग्य does not teach कर्तृत्वाभाव, but that पर्तृत्व is duo to आत्मन-ब्रह्मन (7th प्रपाठक). Badariyana teaches the same in परात्तु तच्छुतेः 2-3-41. To add to all this, the Sutrakira nerer suggests ary of Saakara's argutuents, but boldly goes on declaring Jiva's कर्तृत्व. Hence the most skillul advocato of Sankara rould lail on this point. Thus the Jiratman's पर्तृत्व is स्वाभाविक.

·46 If we follow S'anlara's Teasoning, this yn of any. Agua goes away. But then we have to cast aside the purport of all the Satras Hence Bâdarayana must have in bis mind a view, which refutes this objection of art, etc, and at the same time, is thoroughly consistent The difficulty can be solved in two ways --212, (1) by referring this contradiction to Brabman's office and the letter of the Veda, the Veda teaches that Brahman gires fruits, it may be according to, or may not be, though giving fruits according to , Bralıman is independent of F#, when Brahman gires fruits according to His sweet will, even then He is not liable to 4974, ete, for Veda teaches so, (2) by taking the manager not as जीवकृतप्रयत्नापेक्ष as all the आचार्यs have done, but as पर--() grigarder I lie advantage of taking the Sätra this ray is clear. We have not to bring in the word ata from the drift of the 17th, but from the Sutra just preceding Accord ing to this view, the fhole are becomes 5TA IN STARA परिणामात् 1426, it is taught that the सृष्टि 1s आत्मसृष्टि and स्मात्मति, .n 2 1 33 'लोकवतु लीला वैवल्यम् , it is taught that this आत्मसृष्टि आत्मकृति लावल्यम्, in 2 3-43 'अशो नानाव्यपदेशात् , eto , it is taught that the Jisutman 18 an 4 of, in fata a fazlea rat aeg gruforgat 3 25, it is taught that the Jtvät man's Brahmanhood is far fealias become latent-by the offizira of Brahman, and to Brahman ure due bondage, etc Hence it appears that Brabman, for His own sport alone, out of Hie gnect will, develops Himself into Jada Jiva, and still remuding transcendent, determines that a particular Jiratman will do a particular action, and Ho will gire him a particular fruit. So according to maintai, Brahmno rules His #78, Jiras As ss they are so with Smo The human soul's position can be compared to an actor He has to play the rart allotted to him in ·47 stat; the happiness and misery trouble him so far as he forgets that his arra is Brahman's and not his own; in fact, happiness and misery are both creatures of Brahman, and cannot be said to be the criterions of deciding Brab. man's partiality and cruelty; the moment the human soul realises that Brahman for His sport guides him to do this or that, ho ceases to be miserable; his limited ideas of ferra vanish; he experiences 'avanti agita 54. Forgetting bis ownicy, and remembering Brahman's gra, the human soul ceases to be responsible for his so-called actions; ho feels buoyant. Like Brahman, he sees in the first of Brahman alles. The becomes thus a sourca of pleasure, or -and pob a source of misery as Sankara says. Brahman makes Jiva work according to His ofania and trent- Ta, otherwise His failed and start would be purportless. The part allotted to Jiva by Brahman to play would be jeopardised. Thus this Jada.jivâtmaka-Nimarapatmaka-Srishti being chafurH-frana, being Brahman's eten, Brabman is not liable to the shortcomings of partiality and cruelty. The wording of the Satra, fafen. affe-instead of feffa-also helps us. In this way also, we have to deny in Jiva his exfithin in na, and emphasise that he is a creature guided by Brahman's will in all his actions. This seems to be the view of Bidara yaņa suggested from the Sätras. With S'ankara we can deny Jiva's अभिमान in कर्तृत्व, but unlike him we prefer to refer all human activity to Brabman as source, and not to 3979 gf, etc. The section, consisting of Satras 2-3-13-53, deals with the question of the relationsbip of the soul to Brahmap. According to Bådarayana, the Jivåtman is the city of Brahman; Brahman is a fan, while the Jivåtman is sit. Like master and servant, the human soul is not different from Brahman, but like spark and fire, he is Hy with Brahman.

·48 The Vedic mantra, पादोऽस्य सर्वा भूतानि, and the Gita passage, 'ममैवांशो जीवलोके जीवभूत. सनातनः, teach that the Jivatman is the अंश of Brahman. This is the view of the Sutrakhra. However, S'ankara does not like to accept this vier. Accord. ingly, Sankara changes 'अश: into 'अश इव'. To take भंश in the sense of spat a' is clearly modifying the view of Badari. yana. Even though certain passages of the Upanishads declare Brahman to be निष्कल निरवयव, that does not justify us in rejecting the texts which teach the pic of the Jivâtman. Adopting the reasoning which Bidarayana has worked out in 2-1-26-27-कृत्स्नप्रसक्तिनिरवयवत्वशन्दकोपो वा, 'ध्रुतेस्तु शब्दमुलत्वात् , the dificulty can be removed by accept. iog Brahman's swarup: to be frecarea, and at the same time having अंशs. In a शब्दप्रमाणशास्त्र like thrs, reasoning as such has very little scope. This view is not singular. In this view, Vallabha is with us when he observes -'मनु ब्रह्मणो निरवयवत्वात् कथं जीवस्यारत्व. मिति वाच्यम् , नहिं ब्रह्म निरंशं साशमिति वा वचिद् लोके सिद्धम् , वेदैम्पमधिगम्यत्वात्, सा च श्रुति यथोपपद्यते तथा तदनुहंघनेन वेदार्थविज्ञानार्थ युक्तिवतन्या, xx तपा युक्ति- विस्फुलिंगा इवामेहि जडजीवा विनिर्गता । सर्वत पाणिपादान्तात् सर्वतोऽक्षिशिरोमुसात् ।। निरिन्द्रियात् स्वरूपेण तादृशादिति निश्चय । सदंशेन जडा. पूर्व दिशेनेतरे अपि॥ अन्यधर्मतिरोभावान्मलेच्छातोऽस्वतंनिण. । ब्रह्मादे अंशपक्ष एव' 2-3-43. This seems to be a very fair view of interpreting Badarayana's Sutras. But in spite of what Badariyapa and Vallabha might say, the fact romains that this difficulty has beca fruitful in producing numerous theories as regards the relation of the liuman soul with Brahman. The very word sfat, though clearly meaning an अवयव, has been subjected to yield senses which, if not wrong, cannot be accepted to be correct, or at least caanot be supposed to represent the true view of Badariyans.

·49 Sankara has been honest in saying that he does not accept the theory that the Jivatman is 947 of Brahman, when he says that should be taken in the sense of ' 37'. But other Acharyas have worked, from the word 27', a sense suitable to their views It need not be remarked that, according to Bådarîyaņa, art means a 'part'. The Vedio Mantra using the word 'p' also suggests the same thing Let us see what Bbu-kara says. He remarks, *34217a Firmaret, 2 PER argfifa', but this sease is not acceptable to him, and he remarks, alte han a wafa, किन्तूपाध्यवछिनस्यानन्यभूतस्य वाचकोऽयमशशब्द प्रयुक्तो यथानेविस्फुल्गिस्य'. Thus, according to Bhiskara, at means agafa sparris forcerye Brahman bas 347, the sta, because the Vedic passage, 'यथाग्ने क्षुद्रा विस्फुलिगा', teaches so This art is falfa with Brahman, his अभिनत्व 1s स्वाभाविक, while मिनत्व IS औपाधिक Bhaskarı is right in remarking that the Jivitman is of Brihman 18 sprrk is of fire, and that he is firattaat because yfe and support it, but he 18 wrong in saying that भिनत्व 15 औपाधिक, for the ध्रुति passage quoted does not supportit. Råminuja takes the word sta in the sense of fans वस्त्वेक्देश, and so does S reekantha The relation between Brahman and the Juvatman 19 that of failey and fastyan Nimbarkat takes to mein gufti The Jivātman is a afth of Brahmın Hence, according to him the relation between the Jipatman and Brahman is that of it and fina. S reokantha' also accepts this view According to Madhva, Ts are different like song and others, or non different like hands, feet, eto To the 1 अशो हि शक्तिरूपो पह्य 2342 वेदाकौस्तुभ of Sreenirasa Nimbarka 2 Sur R Bhandarkar's Vaishnavim p 161 3 Pide Ramanaja s and 6 ree Kantha & Bhashyas on tbu Sutra and I adhya's Bhashya .

·formed and actions To them the wis neither 2459 nor दुसरूप nor आवियक, but a परम ब्रह्मकर्म They had a manifestation of ब्रह्म In कर्म कर्मसु ब्रह्माभिव्यक्ति' This seems to be the proper view of looking at the connection betrreen the tiro Nimînsta, and it appears that Sankarn is perhaps driving at the same thing when he observes ta fare atraente 1-1-4, न हि धनिनो गृहस्थस्य धनाभिमानरहितस्य तदेव धनापहारनिमित्त दुस भवति, न च पुण्डलिन कुण्डलित्वाभिमानरहितस्य तदेव कुण्डलिस्वाभिमाननिमित्तं सुख भवति मिथ्याभिमानस्तु प्रत्यक्ष सबन्धहेतु' Sort follove, from what Bidar iyani and S'ankarı eny, that area is a cruse of misery, but then the वर्तृत्व without देहाध्यास--देहसबन्ध Is not to be referred to sferi, aforama as S'aņlıra swys, but to Brahman-- as Badariyana says. Thus the performance of Lurmas, vithout ETEZITE JETTAra, as Paris, produces in one agricult in Fås, and Anna produces safazafati in 177 The two Miwinsâs thus help cach otlier, and suggest the ideal of Brnbman as maganda farz, the fayt rcferring to 778, ima to face and the two together to airany, thus giving the full conception of free This seems to be the vict of Badariyana, and pro nro unable to reconcilo S'rpkara's reasoning in an RF27, and the scoond interpretation of BTR 12th the Sotras of Bidariyan. According to Badariyapa, the human soul can be free from misery, etc only when ho realises that he doos not do anything, but Brahman Para does it--or males hum do it ludya as euch has no place in the system of Bidar y ana Then comes the Satra, 'THU '. This is read by Bhasharn as 'भाभासा एवं च' He rojects the rcading of Sankara ruth this romarh -'आभासस्यावस्तुत्वाम्युपगमाइवस्तुन साविपाकल्पस्याचेतनस्य कुतो वयो मोक्षो वा कर्माधिशरोधा। न च परमात्मन ससारित्वमस्तीत्युक्त पुरस्तादको नार्ष पार इति' Ramanuja rants to favour BhasLara's reading, rod renders it by THTET. It matters little whe her the Satri is read 15 THTH' or 37777UT From what has been said above, it is not possi• ·58 ble that Badarayanr could have meant 2TAT' to refer to the Jivatman's being a मिथ्या आभास of Brahman. Vallabhr. drives at the same thing, when he observes, 'ननु सचिदानन्दस्य ब्रह्मणोंश सचिदानन्द एव भवेदत क्य प्रवाहे प्रवेशो भगवतश्च सर्वकार्याणि तबाह, आभास एव जीव , आनन्दाशस्य तिरोहितत्वात xx न तु सर्वथा प्रतिविम्ववन्मि थ्यात्व ४४ अतो न मिथ्यात्वरूप आभासोत्र विवक्षित'. Before concluding the जीवविचारणा, the Sutrn 1 4 22. -mmy be considered Sankara adopts the view of काशकृत्न - "दर्शित तु पुरस्तात् काशकृत्स्नीयस्य पक्षस्य श्रुतिमत्त्वम् ४४ काशकृत्स्नस्याचार्यस्यादि कृत परमेश्वरो जीवो नान्य इति मतम्, आश्मरथ्यस्य तु यद्यपि जीवस्य परस्मादन न्यत्वमभिप्रेत तथापि प्रतिज्ञा सिद्धेरिति सापेक्षत्वाभिधानान कार्यकारणभाव कियानपि अभिप्रेत इति गम्यते, औडलोमिपक्षे पुन स्पटमेवावस्थान्तरापेक्षौ भेदाभेदौ गम्येते, तत्र काशकृत्स्नीय मत श्रुत्यनुसारीति गम्यते, प्रतिपिपादयिषितार्थानुसारात् 'तत्त्वमसि' इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्य' Sankara interprets काशकृत्स्नमत thus- 'अस्यैव पर- मात्मनोऽनेनापि विज्ञानात्मभावेनावस्थानादुपपन्नमिदमभेदेनोपक्रमणम्'. Ramit nuja also takes काशकृत्न's view as सिद्धान्त View, and explains thus -'य आत्मनि तिछन् आत्मनोऽन्तर' इत्यादिना पीवात्मनि परमात्मन आत्मतया अवस्थिते Vallabha explains it thus -'भगवत एवा वस्था जीव', but he takes काशकृत्ल 3 view to be different from that of Bedardyana-'अवस्थया व्यवसायात सिद्धान्नाद्विशेप' What ever may be said os regards the view of post it is certain that we cannot say with perfect confidence that it is the view of the Satrakra Bidariyana distinctly says that the Jiva 18 347 and hence to take काशकृत्स्न's view 18 that of Bidarayani, and to take it either in Sanhari's sense or Rîmânuja's sense is certainly 1 strain on the Satra When the scope of the 1774744 परण is considered, one sees that after establishing the ब्रह्मवाक्यत्व of मैत्रेयीब्राह्मण, Badarayana quotes the opinions of these Truters, RE, आश्मरथ्य, औडुलोमि and काशकृत्ल, to show that according to their views also the ब्रह्मत्वप्रतिपादकत्व मैनेयी- ब्राझण is not बाधित Therefore it is not proper to worl out Bidar iyana's view that faca 13 the same as जीव fieed from अविद्या, etc, from काशन Sview. , ·54 Hence the conclusion is that ang saranno q' is not the view of the Sätrakira, neither is the human soul r affema nor an STATE OF G in S'ankara's sense According to the Sätrakara, the Juvåtman is 37 of Brahman as & spark of fire, at 19 para with Brahman, as an is with the afita, still Brahman is eft, greater than the Juvatman, The Juvâtman is a waf inheriting his arra from Brahman He is fact He is 39, but in the stage of FERTA, he experiences 1985, etc, which ever remain permanent, on the analogy that the crown prince becomes the king It apo perrs thus that Bidarayıņa vecepts Herita', and not Sinnkara's absolute Hoteles cita'. This conclusion 18 strengthened by the remark of Sir R Bhandarkar that S'pkara s system should be more fitly called "Singularism', rather than Blonism or Adoratism Tode Vaishnav- Isma, p 159 JAGAT. The second Sutra of Bidariyata giros tho stot of Brahman Irom this definition of Brahman Te know that according to Badariyann this unisorse is Brahman's कृति and परिणाम Brahtın 18 both tho material and the efficient cause of the universe It is important to note here that the definition of Brahman giren by Bidariyann must be of the time Brahman troso investigation ho ho, proposed to undertake in the first Sutra 'अथातो प्राजिज्ञासा', 16, Brılıman alonc, puro and simple, whose inrestigation Bidarigana hag undertaleo, is tho matorial as well as tho eficient cause of this unrcrso. Bidarüyanı again rcvarts to this quostion in 1423 27. Whilo relatiog the Sankhya's uzTTCTTK, he elaborates bis dortrine which le has expressed in brief before, Tho Sutra 'faa sfantezron HT 1-4 23 deolares agunst the Sankhya that Brauman is 777 as well as ·55 fafarcur of the universe. The site and terras of Uddalaka naturally yield the same senso To support Brahman's कर्तृत्व and प्रकृतित्व, Badarayana entes ब्रह्मन् । अभिध्या Brahman's The ईक्षा, काम and बहुभवन support Brahman's उभयविधकारणत्व ध्रुति and स्मृति both teach that the universe has tts प्रभव and प्रलय In Brahman This is also a reason why Brahman is both the material as well as the efficient cause of the uni- Terse The next Satra, 'arma of AT 1-4 26, throws much light on the system of Bådarllyana Whether one takes 'आत्मकृते परिणामात्' as one Sutra, or 'आत्मकृते' and 'परिणामात्' as two distinot Sutras, the result is almost the same The Sutra is based on a passage from the तैत्तिरीय 27. 'तदात्मान स्वयमकुरुत This pussage suggests the कर्मत्व and कर्तृत्व of Brahman, 'आत्मानमिति कर्मत्व स्वयमकुरुतेति कर्तृत्वम् How on the "पूर्वसिद्ध' sat Brahman be कर्तृ and कर्म? l'he answer to thuis objection is 'परिणामात्. The पूर्वसिद्ध sat आत्मा ब्रह्मन् developed itself into the universe Brahmin 18 Thus Brahman's प्रकृतित्व 15 प्रसिद्ध एव ब्रह्मण प्रकृतित्व प्रसिद्धम् 14 27. Though Brahman 18 the material cause, it does not require a seprrate fality as in the case of an earthen pot and a potter. In the world, one sees that the Junga and Afin are always separate, but this rule has no bearing whatever here. The swarupa of Brahman is to be learnt from Veda alone, and since Veda teaches that Brahman itself becomes the उपादान and निमित्त it should be accepted as such यत्पुनरिदमुक्त मोक्षापूर्वक कर्तृत्व निमित्तकारणेषु एव फुलालादिषु लोके दृष्ट नोपादानेष्वित्यादि, तत्पत्युच्यते न लोकवदिह भवितव्यम् , न यमनुमानगम्योर्थ , शब्दगम्यत्वात्त्व स्यार्थस्य यथाशब्दमिह भवितव्यम् शब्दवेक्षितुरीश्वरस्य प्रकृतित्वं प्रतिपादयतीत्यवो. TH' This is what Sankara observes on 1 4 27. The inter pretation of Sankara bere is exactly in the spirit of Badarayana Brahman with its seit develops itself into the universe and still remains transcendent Though the interpretation of S anlars on these Sätras (14 23 27) is correot as it stands, the qualification which he has 10 kus ·56 mind and which ho suggests by the use of the word " instead of Brahman, cannot be justified as legitimate. A Nimbárka writer Kesavabbatta Kashatrin thus criticises Sankara:--'परमते तु तवं दुटे, कायस्य कल्पितत्वांगीकारेण पुलालबदुपादान- गोचरप्रयत्नचिकीर्षादिमत्यासम्भवात xx दृष्टान्तासंभवादिति संक्षेपः. N. B. pp. 351-352. The same writer then criticises lamanuja, meg faeffe fere eutatetaan etc., pp. 352-353 N. B. Thus in order to emphasize one of Braliman, Ramaouja and S'reekantha accepted चिदचिद्विशिटब्रह्मन् as उपादान, Bhaskara and Nimbarka accepted ब्रह्मन् शक्ति as उपादान, Madhva accepted प्रकृति to be the sakra, Vijaarabhikshu also accepted szla to be the उपादान, the difference being that his प्रकृति is अविभक with Brahmap, and that it becomes the 547917 under the 347 of Brahman, while ata is only a test. Here it is quite clear that all these writers, though modifying the ri A'S 396774, do not reject it altogether. Now remain the two writers S'antara and Vallabha. Their viens are entirely opposed. S'aplara by delegating Brahman's 3416Tat to the sphere of fait rejects it, while Vallabha like Badarayana, following strictly the letter of the Veda, accepts it out and out. In rejecting Bralıman's 397417AT, S'ankara has to subject the whole body of the Vedanta Satrag to a secondary sense. yta teaches taryfy and at the same time its fama, Badarayana does not care for the objections based on af if the letter of thegla is strictly followed. This view is followed by Vallabha, who, like Badariyaņa, gives greater weight to the word of the yfa than to pure reason 9 mi, wben they appear opposed to each other, Other Acharyas have tried to follow Badará. yana with slight changes to satisfy reasons. It is only Sankara who in rejecting 'togarea fattanderl,has chalked out lines of reasoning schick run in an cutii cly opposite direction, Sir Ramakrishna Bhandarkar says the same in lis recent book Vaishnavism etc., pp. 158-159, 160-161.

·57 Drawing a distinction between Spinoza's Pantheism and Uprnishad l'antheism hesrs-Brahmın is not exhausted in the world, but it exists separately also. But the objection to this viety is that Brahman, being of the nature of spirit, is not like the body divisible into parts, so that one may become developed into the world and another remun outside, xx This inconsistency is removed by Bådarayana in Brihmisktras (2-1-26-27). The argument is that though the Upanishads state that the constituent cause of the world is Brahman, they at the same time affirm the existence of Brahman separately from the world, (Ch. U. III, 12 6 and VI, 3, 2) The two nro inconsistent on the theory that Brahmin is & spirit and not discerptıble into parts Though they are thus inconsis. tent, they must both be accepted on the authority of the sacred texts, since the true nature of Brahman and the world is beyond the reach of humın intellect This solution of the difficulty is inadmissible to non believers in the srcred texts, but it shows that Badrrayanr does not agree with the latter part of Spinoza's detinition of Pantheism, i €, according to hun the sacred tests do not affiro that "God exists only as rerlised in the cosmos the cosmos exists only as n manifestation of God" The inconsistency pointed out by him is based on the impossible conception of Brahman's being divisible into pirts But it will not arise af, instead of bringing in this conception, we suppose that in one aspect Brahman is the material or constituent cause of the world or realised in the world, and from another point of view it remains pure and becomes the object of contemplation and devotion. Whatever it may be, Bå larayana's view appears to me to be correct, and the Pantheism of the Upinishids is not exactly the same as that formulated by Spinoza Wo have noticed above the minner in Fluch Bida 8 X X ·GO of the universe, Madhy, not accepting this, has failed to make out anything of the Brahma Sætras, Sir R, Bhandarkar most accurately remarks, 'He demes his (Brahman's) being the material cause of the world. All the Satras of Badarayana which set forth that doctrine have been interpreted by him in an entirely different way. Probably he would have set aside the Brahmı Satras altogether, but he could not do so, since the work had acquired an un. contested authoritativeness as regards religious truth before his time He had therefore to show that bis system did not go against the Brauma Sûtras and therefore accepted them and interpreted them in almost a fantastic manner, Texts from the Upanishads, too, which do not agree with his doctrines be treats similarly.' Vaishnavism S'aivism, p 58. To a certain exteat thus remark of Sır R. Bhandarlar apphes to Vijnâna Bhikshu also The difference between Madhva and Bhikshu is thus ladhja Tants to empha- Size FaYcGFATTET, while Bhikshu is anxious to work out an अविरोध between the सारय, वैशेपिक, योग and Vedanta etc, an effort though praiseworthy, cannot be justified, But the most important reason which led all the writers to modify the ETATUITE of Bidariyan, is the fear of fanta If Brahman were taken to be the material cause, it would undergo change, and consequently it would be my face and cease to be Brahman, fauca Torroid this difficulty S'ankara delegated Brahman's crusalty to a fafara कल्पितेन च नामरूपलक्षणेन रूपभेदेन व्याकृताच्याकृतात्मकेन तत्वातत्वाभ्यामनिर्वचनी- येन ब्रह्म परिणामादिसपन्यवहारास्पदच प्रतिपद्यते' 912 Ram tnujr for the same reason did not accept the TestETT, and substituted for forek wstand of pur Bradman of Badarayans 'मृत्मवर्णादिवद् ब्रह्मस्वरूपपरिणामस्तु नैवाभ्युपगन्यते, अविकार Flatcalaya 2 1-13. 1. B Anand Press 37 23 Sunilar is the reasoning of Sreekantha. Nimbůrka and Bhaskara ·61 for the same reason subsitute an instead of Brahman, 'ब्रह्म स्वशक्तिविक्षेपेण जगदाकार आत्मान परिणामयति N. B 847-57 परिणामो द्विविध , स्वरूपपरिणाम शक्तिविक्षेपलक्षणपरिणामथ, xx श्रीपुरुषोत्तम स्वात्मक- स्वाधिष्ठितनिजशक्तिविक्षेपेण जगदाकार स्वात्मान परिणामयति केशवभकाश्मीरिन् १ 'परिणामात परिणामोऽन शक्तिविक्षेपरूपो, न तु स्वरूपपरिणामस्तस्मान विकारसभावना वकाश इति' परपक्षगिरिवज्र p 369 Thus according to Nimbarka writers, परिणाम Is not Brahman s but its शक्तिs, the modi fication owing its existence to the fear of falfir Similarly Bhasharn writes 'शक्तिविक्षेप कृतवान् 1-4-25, p 85 Bhaskara Bhashya 'अप्रच्युतस्वरूपस्य शक्तिविक्षेपलक्षण । परिणामो यथा तन्तुनाभस्य पटतन्तुवत् ॥ 2 1 14. 'स हि स्वेच्छया स्वात्मान लोकहितार्थ परिणामयन् स्वशक्त्यनुसारेण परिणामयत्ति' भास्करभाष्य 2 114 Thus Bhaskara also does not accept ब्रह्मपरिणाम Vyninabhikshu for the same reason rejects Brahman's उपादानकारणता and substitutes अधिष्ठानकारणता of Brahman 'ब्रह्मणश्च स्वाविभक्तप्रकृत्याद्युपटभकत्व साक्षितामानणेति जगत्कारणत्वे ऽपि न ब्रह्मणो विकारित्व' भिक्षुभाष्य p 32 112 Madhvi also for the same reason refuses to accept Brahman's उपादानकारणता Vallabha only is an exception to this rule He accepts like Badarayana. that Brahman alone is the उपादानकारण Thus he accepts ब्रह्मस्वरूपपरिणाम In this he seems to be following Bâlırîyıpr 18 remarked by Sir R. Bhandarkar on pp 160 161, in Varshnavism etc It has been shorn above that according to Badarayana, Brahman is the material as well 19 the efficient cause of the universe, in other words, this Jagat 1s ब्रह्मकृति and ब्रह्मपरिणाम To this the Sankhy raises an objection n 2 1 36 कृत्स्नप्रसक्तिनिरक्यवत्व शब्दकोपो वा' If Brahman were the material cure, then either there would be कृत्नप्रसक्ति, and hence मूलोच्छेद or the निरवयवत्व fange Vedic passages would have to be struned to this the anster furnished by the Satrıkira 19 very aguificınt The Sttrakar. says 'श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात्' 2 127 As श्रुति ·60 of the universe Madhry, not accepting this, has failed to make out anything of the Brahma Satras Sir R Bhandarkar most accurately remarks, 'He denies his (Brahman's) being the material cause of the world All the Sätras of Badarîyana which set forth that dootrino ljave been inter preted by him in an entirely different way Probably he would have set aside the Brahma Satris altogother, but he could not do so, since the work had acquired an un contested authoritativeness as regards rel., 2018 trath before his time He had therefore to show that his system did not go against tho Brahmr Satris nad thore fore accepted them and interpreted them in almost & fantastic manner lexts from the Upanishads, too, trlich do not agree with his doctrines ho tronts similarls' Vaishnavism S anvism p 58 To a certain extent this remark of Sir R Bhandarkar applies to Vijolina Blutkslu rlso The differenco botireon Madhvi and Builshu is this — Vadlı 2 Wants to cmplia Bize WYKTIGFAHHTETER, " hilo Bl il sluu is anxious to work out an अविरोध between tho गांण्य, वैशेपिर योग and Vedanta ete, an offort though pravacworthy, cannot be justificd But tho most important ro2SOR vrhol lol all tho rritors to modify the Tema of Bilarayına, is the ferr of fazla If Rrahman were taken to lie the material cause, it would andorgo chango, and consequently it would be more and cenac to be Bralorn freeh To avoid ting difficulty Sanlara delegated Brahmrn s crustlity to apparent faut कपितेन च नामरूप मन पभेदेन व्यानाध्यानात्मान तत्वावताभ्यामनिर्वाचनी येन प्रम परिणामादिसवव्यवहारास्पदच प्रतिपद्यत 2127 Ram inuja for tho samo reason did not nccept the PETR0714, and substitutod farfalafztett instead of pure Brahman of Badariyan. 'मृत्युरादिवा प्रारूपरिणामस्तु नवाम्युग्ग यते, अविकार hatua. 2113 1. B Anaod Press II 23 Similar is the reasoning of Srcehanthn Nimbirka and Bi askara ·61 for the same reison subsitute for instead of Brahman, 'ब्रह्म स्वशक्तिविक्षेपेण जगदाकार आत्मान परिणामयति'N B 347-57 परिणामो द्विविध स्वरूपपरिणाम शक्तिविक्षेपलपणपरिणामच ४४ श्रीपुरुषोत्तम स्वात्मक- स्वाधिष्ठितनिजशक्तिविक्षेपेग नगदाकार स्वात्मान परिणामयति केशवभकाश्मीरिन् १ 'परिणामात परिणामोऽत्र शक्तिविक्षेपस्पो, न तु स्वरूपपरिणामस्तस्मान विकारसभावना पकाश इति' परपक्षगिरिवन p 369 Thus according to Nimbarka writers, परिणाम is not Brahman's but its शक्तिs the modi fication oying its existence to the fear of fahit Similarly Bhaskars writes 'शक्तिविक्षेप कृतवान् 1-4 25 p 85 Bhaskara Bhashya अप्रच्युतस्वरूपस्य शक्तिविक्षेपलमण । परिणामो यथा तन्तुनाभस्य परत तुवत् ॥ 2 1 14. 'स हि स्वेच्छया स्वात्मान लोकहितार्थ परिणामयन् स्वशक्त्यनुसारेण परिणामयति भास्करभाष्य 2 114 Thus Bhaskara also does not accept ब्रह्मपरिणाम' Vijntnabhikshu for the same rerson rejects Brahman's आदानकारणता and snbst tutes अधिष्ठानकारणता of Brahman ब्रह्मणश्च स्वाविभक्तप्रत्यायुपटभकत्व साक्षितामानणेति गत्कारणत्वे ऽपि न ब्रह्मणो विकारित्व भिक्षुभाष्य p 32 112 Madhva also for the same reason refuses to accept Brahmans उपादानकारणता Vallabha only is an exception to this rule He accepts like Badarayana that Brahman alone is the उपादानकारण Thus he nccepts ब्रह्मस्वरूपपरिणाम In this he seems to be following Bå lar yanı ns remarked by Sir R Bhandarkar on Pp 160 161, in Vaishnavisrm etc It has been shown above that according to Brdariyaņa Brahman is the material as well as the effic ent cause of the universe, in other words, this Jagat 1s ब्रह्मति and ब्रह्मपरिणाम To this the Sankhyn raises an objection in 2 126 कृत्स्नप्रसक्तिनिरखयवत्व शब्दकोपो वा If Brahman were the material crue, then either there yould be margfa uod bedre relation or the face parte sfang Vedic passages would have to be struined To this the answer furnished by the Sutrikira is very aiguific int The Sttrakdra says 'श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात् 2 127 As श्रुति ·60 058 of the universe Madhy, not accepting this, has failed to make out anything of the Brahin Sätras Sir R Bhandar kar most accurately remarks, 'He denies luis (Brahman's) being the material cause of the frorld All the Sätras of Badarîyana which set forth that doctrine have been inter preted by him in an entirely different ray Probably he would bave set aside the Brabor Satris alto,ether but he could not do so, since the work had acquired an un contested rathoritatireness as regards relizious truth before his time He had therefore to sbory that his system did not go against the Bralım: Sutrns and there fore accepte i them and interpreted them in almost a fantastic mnnner lexts from the Upinishads, too, which do not agree with his doctrmes he treats similarly! Vaishnarism $ arrism To a ccrtuin extent tlus remarl of Sir R Bhandarlar applies to Vujnina Blu.shu niso The differenco botween Mladhva and Bhiksbu is this - fadhia wants to cmpla BIZE HYFTETESKI, while Blul shu is anxious to work out an अविरोध between the सारय, वैशेषिक योग an! Tedanta otc an effort thougli praren orthy, cannot be justifica But tho most important ronson which lod ll the writers to modify the ASHTITEOTTI of Bilury inn, is thio feir of fazla If Hraliman were then to be the material cruse it would andorgo chnogo and co scquentis it would be fire and cenec to bc Brahman Free Ja To avoid clus difficults Sanhar delegated Brahmin 8 causality lo fa fan पपितेन च नामरूपोन रूपभेदन व्यास्ताम्यानात्मक्न तत्त्वातत्वाम्यामनिर्वचनी येन मा परिणामादिरारव्यवहारास्पदच प्रतियते 2197 Râmn 1001 for tho simo reason did not accept the antion, and substituted Affaizate instca i of pure Brahman of Badariyana 'The TERIMAFU Tregtaad, afat malaziya: 21 13 1B Anand Press ]] 23 Sumulir is the reasoning of S reclantlın Nimbirka and Bliskıra ·61 for the same reason subsitute Araiti instead of Brahman, 'ब्रह्म स्वशक्तिविक्षेपेण अगदाकार आत्मान परिणामयति' N. B. 347-57 परिणामो द्विविध , स्वरूपपरिणाम शक्तिविक्षेपलक्षणपरिणामश्व, ४४ श्रीपुरषोत्तम स्वात्मक स्वाधिष्ठितनिजशक्तिविक्षेपेण जगदाकार स्वात्मान परिणामयति' केशवभकाश्मीरिन् & 'परिणामाव परिणामोन शक्तिविक्षेलियो, न तु स्वरूपपरिणामस्तस्मान विकारसभावना. वकाश इति परपक्षगिरिखन P. 369. Thus according to Nimbarka writers, afuth is not Brabman's but its affas, the modıficntion oving its existence to the ferr of farm. Similarly Bhaskarn writes 'शक्तिविक्षेप कृतवान्' 1-4-25, p. 85 Bhashara- Bhishya 'अप्रच्युतस्वरूपस्य शक्तिविक्षेपलक्षण । परिणामो यथा तन्तुनाभस्य पटतन्तुवन् ॥' 2-1-14. 'स हि स्वेच्छया स्वात्मान लोकहितार्थ परिणामयन् स्वशत्यनुसारेण परिणामयति' भास्करभाष्य 2 1 14 Thus Bhaskara also does not accept अझपरिणाम Vandnabhikshu for the same reason rejects Brahman's उपादान झारपाता and substitutes अधिष्ठानकारणता of Brahman 'ब्रह्मणश्च स्वाविभक्तप्रकृत्याद्युपटभक्त्व साक्षितामानेणेति जगत्कारणल्वे. ऽपि न ब्रह्मणो विकारित्व' भिक्षुभाष्य 2 32 1 12 Madhvi also for the same reason refuses to accept Brahman's उपादानकारगता. Vallabhı only is an exception to this rule He accepts like Badarayana that Brahmin alone is the उपादानकारण Thus he accepts ब्रह्मस्वस्पपरिणाम In this he seems to be following BẦlarhlyapa as remarked by Sir R. Bhandarkar on PP 160 161, in Vaishnavism etc It has been shoien above that according to Bådariyana, Brahman is the material as well as the efficient cause of the universe, in other words, this Jagat 1s ब्रह्मति and ब्रह्मपरिणाम 'To this the Sankhya raises an objection in 21-26 पत्नप्रसक्तिनिरवयवत्व शब्दकोपो वा' If Brahman were the material erure, then either there would be कूत्नप्रसक्ति, and hence मूलोच्छेद, or the निरवयवत्व. प्रतिपादक Vedic passages would have to be strained To this the anstrer furnished by the Satrakára is very siguificant The Sutraktra says 'श्रुतेस्तु शन्दमूलत्वात् 21-27 As श्रुति ·, not think, he would have proceeded to qualify the sense of the Sutras after once explaining them accurately. And whereS'ankara does not expressly qualifiy the sense of the Sutra, his commentator docs so.See भामती and गोविन्दानन्द on प्रकृत्यविवरण. The Sankhyas begins by saying that as a zule cause and effect are similar, but since there is a dissimilarity between the cause Brahmin which is er, and tho effect Jagat which 18 jada, Brabmat cannot be the material cause of Jagat. To this Bi larayana replies that te do see an effect dissimilar to the cause, hence the objection does not stand. But here too we notice Badari yana's tendency to reject independent reasoning and falling back upon the words of the श्रुति 'वर्ताप्रतिष्ठानात' etc, 2-1-11. The Satra. 2-1-18 also is important, It deals with the question that even though the cause Brahman is the 1. अत्र भने परिणामशब्द कार्यमावर, ननु हाय कार्यात्मक परिण मारः, तदनन्यत्वम्' इति विवर्तवादस्य वक्ष्यमाणत्वात् । रत्नप्रभा. pp_841. 842 N. S. edition. 2. इय चोपादानमरणामादिभाषा न विकासनिभायेगामि तु यथा सयोगदान रज्जुरे भन जगदुपादानं द्रष्टव्यम् etc, भामती pp. 842343 Ns edition. BI2.1.4 विलक्षणवादस्य तथाल व शब्दात्' Sankura quotea a view of some one whom Gorindanand calls एकरेंशी thus -'योऽपिकथि- दाक्षीत अवा अगतश्चेतनमतिकता तबलेनेव समरस जरासनमवगमविश्वामि, प्रतिरूपस्य विकार अन्वयामीनात, अरिमावन तु चैतन्यस्य परिणामविश्वेषाद् भविष्यति, यथा स्पष्ट चैतन्या- भामप्य मनो स्वापमूववस्यान नन्द न बिमारते, सर्व बाघलोठादीनामपि चैतन्यं न विभाव- विष्यो, नरमादेव च विभावताविभावितवला देशेषाद्पादिभावाभावाभ्यो प कार्यकारणानामात्मना च चतनवाधिशेड गुणप्रशानभावोन विभत्रयने, तथा च पार्थिवत्वाविशेषऽ१ मांसपोदनादीना प्राया मलिनो विशेष परस्परोपक रिश्व भवरवभिह पि भविष्यति, विभागमदिरा र न विरोत्रय इति । तेनापि कवियतनाचेतनत्वरक्षण विरक्षणव परिहये, शुद्धपशुभिरवलक्षणरव नव परिहियन'. In the 216, 'दृश्यने तु', Sanksrs remarks on tha new thar - योऽपि चननकारणभवणवनेनैव समस्लस्य जगतश्चेतननामुरमेने तस्यापि विधान चाविज्ञान च' इति चेतनाचेतनविभागमाण विभावनाविभावनाम्य चैनन्यस्य शयन एव योजयितुम्', Thre Sankers #upports the rner of the एकदेशि Who is this एकदेशिन् ! Can thus rew be referred to Sir R. Bhsndarkar's Them tboat Vallabha The systerious power which causes the differences by rendering certain qualities imperceptible.' Vaishnarismete, p. 161, ·65 same, and the th and 119 are 7731 with Brahman, the भोका does not become भोग्य nor भोग्य भोका.. This is a fact evidenced by our everyday experience. , ait, ita eto., though अनन्य with the समुद्र, there is no इतरेतरभावापत्ति. A ring, a necklace, though as gold ornaments are 34784 with gold, the ring does not become the necklace, nor the necklace the ring. S'apkara, after once explaining the Satra accurately, adds 'यद्यपि भोका न ब्रह्मगो विकारः, 'तत्सृष्ट्रा तदेवानुप्राविशत्' इति स्रष्टुरेवा विकृतस्य कार्यानुप्रवेशेन भोकृत्वप्रवणात् , तथापि कार्यमनुप्रविष्टस्यास्त्युपाधि- निमित्तो विभाग आकाशस्येव घटायुपाधिनिमित्त इत्यतः परमकारणाद्ब्रह्मणोनन्यस्वेषि उपपद्यते भोक्तृभोग्यलक्षणो विभागः समुद्रतरंगादिन्यायेनेत्युक्तम्! The instance of water is approved of by Bhaskara and others, but this latter addition is strongly criticised by Ramanuja. The wording of the Satra does not favour S'ankara's addition. Again, Sankara wants to refer this Satra to 49ERT, while the latter Satra refers to 973 stage according to him. This distinction of her and it is not accepted by any other Acharya, nor is it referred to by the Sätrakära. The wording of the Sätra cannot unquestionably be taken to suggest S'ankara’s distinction. The words 'FF ' merely refer to the everyday experience. The experience is so very common that the Satrakâra does not consider it eren desirable to point to any particular instance to support his view. The view expressed by S'ankara that He Jivåtman is the same as Brahman, the difference being caused by sufe, has been shown to be not countenanced by the Sûtras of Bådarayața. In a sonse, the Jivitman is no farfare of Brahman, but an ait. But the Satrakárı here wants to point out only this much, that though the Jada Jagat and the Chetana. Liyktman, both of them have their source in Brahman, still the Jada does not become Chetana, nor Chetana Jada. Hence the watercut is not open to any objection. 9-10 ·66 Then we come to the Sätra minnaar: 2.1-14. This is one of the most important Sütras in the Brahmamiminka. Except Madhva, all the Acharyas are unanimous in their referring this Satra to a passage from the 6th prapathaka of the Chhầndogya. Bhaskara 6255 he has written a Bhashya on the Chhåndosya, but it is not available, hence we shall have to satisfy ourselves with what he has observed on the question in his Brahma- Sutra-Bhashya 2-1-14. When we look at the Satras of Bidarayaņa as a whole, it appears clear that they fulfi! a double function, viz., removing doubts that might arise through the aberrant genius of several Vedic thinkers, and at the same time summarising the principal teachings of the Upanishads. Thus the Satra BERRETT: 2-1-14 has been written to set aside the doubt caused by words like anti10, 17434 etc. Accordingly, the Satrakůra says that these words mean that cause and effect are not It is to be noticed that the Sutrakin does not say that the effect is the same as the cause, but that they are an. From the word 'rat' one fails to work out the sense that विकार has no existence. न तु वस्तुहत्तेन विकारो नाम कश्चिदस्ति. Neither the fa passage referred to, nor the wording of Sätra lends support to whatSaņkarı observes here:-ATTUT घटकरकायाकाशानां महाकाशानन्यत्वं, यथा च मृगतृष्णिकोदवादीनामूपरादिभ्योनन्यत्वं दृष्टनष्टस्वरूपल्यात, स्वरूपेणानुपाख्यत्वात्, एवमस्य भोग्यभोक्त्रादिप्रपञ्चजातस्य ब्रह्मsytätasoara a szem 2-1-14. This absolute negation of the existence of the squ as such is very soriously criticised by Bliskara, Ramanuja, Vijnanabhiksliu, Keśava Bhatta Kashmirin and Vallabha. The text of the Chhandogya here referred to is this:--'यथा सोम्यैकेन मृत्पिण्डेन सर्व मन्मयं विज्ञात स्थाद्वचारंभग विकारो नामधेय मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्'. The meaning that naturally suggests itself from the text is this:--The knoty. ledgeofone ball of earth gives knowledge of all that is made of carth, though there is a different name and also form 1 ·67 fer (as Rangariminuja takes it), or though there is a difference of name and form, still all the things made of earth are enrth, and as earth they are ry The passage cannot certainly be taken to mean that effects like potetc. do not exist at all like the mirnge, but that they exist in ciuse, they have no independent existence, the difference za name does not create a new object independent of the cruse Rightly does Vallabha observe ----TITUT fannst नामधेय मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यमिति, तर विकारो वाट्मानेणैवारभ्यते न वस्तुत इत्यर्थ प्रतिभाति, तथा च सति कस्य ब्रह्म कारण भवेत् अत श्रुतिवाक्यस्यार्थमाह, आरभण- शब्दादिभ्य तदनन्यत्व प्रतीयते, कार्यस्य कारणानन्यत्व, न मिथ्यात्वम् ।' The sage Uddalaku wints to teach his son S'vetaketu 'the knowledge of all by the knowledge of one 'Non the knowledge of all is possible only when 'all' las existence and 15 start with one, then only the knowledge of 'one' can produce the knowledge of 'all' 'To explain this, the sage Uddalaka gave three iastances, from all of which the relation of cause and effect is suggested-that is-UddAlala means to say that the relation between the world and Brahman is the same that exists between the earthen pot and earth, Brahman is the cause and the world as the effect, the knowledge of cause Brahman producos the knowledge of effect the world, the reison being that they are ora, 75 effect is art with the cause From this it 18 impossible to concede that the cause Brahu in exists while the world is non existent, liko mirage The fact that the Upanishad gives three instances of carth, gold, and tron teaching the relation of cause and effect, and nowhere mentions, any of the instances viz wagi, afisa etc , schich S'ankara so iery zealously puts side by side with the abovexentioned ones, in his Bhâshya on the Chhåndogya, as well as here, suggests a rey strong inference against Sankara that the Sitahara has in his mind not the doctrine of face of S'ankara, but the doctrine of aftury of Brahman alone, ·68 and that the world is not an effect of illusion, but that of Brahman, the world is not a dream on a grand scale, but a real positive something which has its orgination, existence and absorption in Brahman. True that in the Sutra 'मायामान तु कात्स्न्येनानभिव्यक्तस्वरूपत्वात्' 323, the Sutrakara distinctly says that the equaft 18 7797917, and whether te take 'माया' in the Bhaskara's sense of अर्थप्रत्ययशून्यत्व, or in Nimbarkn's and Ramanuja's sense of माधर्यात्मकत्व, or in Vallabha's sense of सर्वभवनसामर्थ्य, or in Sankara's gense of दृष्टनष्टस्वरूपत्व or अनिर्वचनीयत्व, the fact remains that according to the Shtrakara, the world is विधर्मि, from स्वप्न 'वैधाधन स्वमादिवत', that the स्वमष्टि may be मायामान, but the प्रभष्टि 18 not so, it is not R14717 but HEY and writ Bhashar well observes in 323.-'ये पुनर्जागरितावस्थापि मायामानमित्यापोषयन्ति ते सूत्रकाराभिप्राय नाशयन्त श्रोत्रियजन मोहयन्ति', Again in 'वैधम्याध न स्वप्नादिवत्' 2-229 he obserres to the same efi.ct -- बौद्धमतावलविनो मायावादिनस्तेप्यनेन न्यायेन सूनकारणैद निरस्ता पेदितव्या , यदि बायोयों नाभिप्रेत स्यात् किमर्थमिदं यतते सूत्रकार ' etc The Satra 'नाभाव उपलब्धे ' (2228)also suggests that according to the Satrahâra the world is not a nonentity. Thus though the world rs not a nonentity, it does not follow that the Sutrahir tahes it to be a separate entity from Bralıman and independent of it This is what lo drives at, in tho आरभणाधिकरण The श्रुति passage also rends 'मृतिा इति एद सत्यम्' and not 'मृत्तिकैव सत्या', and tho Satrakhrs also words the Shtra as 'तदनन्यस्व' and not "तन्मिध्यात्व or तदेवत्व'. These facts also go against Srnkara swer of मिथ्यात्व, or जगन्मायिकल. Irom this, it follows that thotics of the Satrrhara 13 exactly sınılar to, if not actually the same, as S'aplara trics to refuto in2114 -'मन्वनयात्मर मा यथा पृक्षानवशारा एवमनरातिप्रतियुक्त मम मन एकच मानायं चाभयमपि ससमेव, यथा वृक्ष न्यात्व शाखा इति नानालं, "या च समुदात्मनाचं पेनलगाया मना मानाच, यया च मृदात्माच पसरावाचात्मना नानात्व, चकत्यांशन पानान्गोक्ष.

·69 व्यवहार सेत्स्यति नानात्वाशेन तु कर्मकाण्डाभयौ लौकिक्वैदिकव्यवहारौ सेत्स्यत इति, एव मृदादिदृष्टान्ता अनुरूपा भविष्यन्तीति + + + 'ननु मृदादिदृष्टान्तप्रणयनात् परिणामवद् ब्रह्म शास्त्राभिमतमिति गम्यते, परिणामिनो हि मृदादयोर्या लोके समधिगता sfa The view expressed in these lines seems to be more in harmony with the Sutras of Badarayana, than Sankara's own view given in refatation of the same. His objection 'न हि एकस्य ब्रह्मण परिणामधर्मत्व तदहितत्व च शस्य प्रतिपत्तु, etc 1s also groundless in face of 'श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात् 2-1-27. His other objections are met at length by Bhaskara, Råminuja, Keśava Bhatta and Nimbårba, but space at our disposal forbids us from entering into the full discussion of the same here 'The श्रुति "यन तु अस्य सर्वमात्मा एव अभूत तत्केन किं पश्येत्' also teaches not 'सर्वाभाव ' but 'आत्मन सर्वभाव In the stage of The the does not cease to exist, but the consciousness that ai is a different entity from Brahman vanishes and the consciousness that Brahman alone Is सर्व is generated. Against Sankara's 'जगन्मिथ्यात्व Vijnana-Bhikshu advances a quser but not unreasonable argument thus -'प्रपञ्चस्यायन्त- मभावे यत्प्रमाणमारभणशब्दादिक तत् सन वा, आद्ये वाघ , अन्त्ये हेत्वसिद्धि , तम्मान सदसत्त्वविकल्पपराहतैरारभणशब्दादिमि प्रमाणै. प्रपचात्यन्तमभावो न सूत्रकारेगा- गुन्मत्तेन सापयितु शक्यो' p 281 भिशुभाष्य Ch. se Bhashara also observes in 2-1-14 thus 'न हि सूत्रकार चिन्मायाशद प्रायुक, यत्र स्वप्रज्ञानान्मायामान तु कात्स्न्येन अनभिव्यक्तस्वरूपत्वादिति हि यत्रोत वैपन्यांच न स्वप्रादिवदिति वैधम्यमुक्तम् , ईक्षते शब्दमिति चारभ्य अत्यधिकरण स्मृतिमन्ना रेण नोपपद्यते सूत्रकारस्य, स्मृत्यनक्काशदोप इत्यारम्य साख्यायुद्भावितद्रुपगोडाराय प्रत्यधिकरण प्रयासोनर्थक स्यात्', मायामानन्दे 'न वियदश्रुते रिति चारभ्य भूवन मु. त्पत्यादिविचारोनर्थक स्यात्' xxx अपि च मायाशब्दमानेण कृलो बद मुग्नेय स्वर्गापवलक्षण यथाभूत प्रत्याययनप्रमाणमसत्यमिति वा कल्पयिनुमिति हानन प्रपनवे वेदार्थ यथा बढेधूमशक्त्या यथा प्रवर्तन्तामिति' मा मा pp 99 100. One cannot but concede that the above-mentioned arguments of Bbiskara have much force Keśava Bhatta Kashnir, Råminuja and Purushottama have also said mach S'ankara All the writers on the Vedanta Sûtras, in cong against form or other, accept the परिणामवाद and जगन्मयल, and this ·70 > fact by itself is an almost certain indication that the Satrikára lias noithor in bis mind the doctrinc offers nor any of the world. In his zeal for Tyrar. S'ambara forgets to whatilie 18 being drifted when he remarks aa- मविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेश्वरस्येश्वरत्व महत्व सर्वशचिमत्व,नपरमात ' etc, He himself feels conscious that Badariyana's palan- प्रतिज्ञा and 'जन्मायग्य यत' ure being pat to a strrin The Sätras following in this form also confirm the view cxpresscd above. The Satra 2 1-15, S'aņkara reads also as atyrt. The explanation which follows this Sutra reading, according to Sanlara himself, confirms the view that tho world is only an art of an as of 1s, and as ? IS 247727 1721h 779, 80 is the world with Brahman, From this it is quite clear that according to the pier of the Satrallra as interpreted by Sanlara here, the 'trendi does not mean मिथ्यात्व of जगत्, but merely an अवस्थान्तरत्व. The next Sætra fafarerated also teaching the upta of Jagat, confirms the oppur existing between a cause and ad effect The Sutras 2-1-19 and 20 also confirm the view of para expressed above. Difference in and 1 does not produce a new substance, z may be in a different form from the cres, mis may perform different functions but still the z is with ms, and 37, etc. are in with प्राणवायु 'ज्ञाननियाभेदात्पुनद्वयम्' A. B The Sutras 'उपसहारदशनानेति चेन क्षीरवद्धि' and 'देवादिवदपि लोके' 21-24 25 deal with the question that Brahman does not need any external area By its own natural powers likegods it develops the universe out of itself The Sutras 2 1-26-27 declare that as Veda teaches the real of afneri and मह्मपरिणाम, there is no कृत्मप्रसक्ति or निरवयवत्वशब्दरोप The सृष्टि is in itself, its powers are wonderful. Tra i fafara The Satras 2 1 30 31 take up another similar question, Hata011 agri Tafaqur antara dua. Brahman is possess- ·71 ed of all powers, and even though it has no organs, it creates the universe etc , the Veda teaches so. S'ankara's remark on सून 'प्रतिषिद्धसर्वविशेपस्यापि ब्रह्मण सर्वशक्तियोग सभवतीत्येतदप्य विद्याकल्पितरूपभेदोपन्यासेनोत्तमेव' 1s quite out of place The Satra kara declares the सर्वशक्तियोग of ब्रह्मन as based on दर्शन, Veda, whileSunkara wants to refer it to अविद्या Why should self-satisfied Brahman create this world when it h18 no 1517 to fulfil ? To this qnestion an answer is furnished by 'लोकवत्तु लीला कैवल्यम्' 21-33 Sankarn very beautifully explains the Sutra thus -यद्यपि अस्माकमिय जगद्विम्बरचना गुरुतरसंरम्भेवाभाति, तथापि परमेश्वरस्य लीलैव केवलंय, अपरिमित- शक्तित्वात् । यदि नाम लोके लीलास्वपि विञ्चित् सूक्ष्म प्रयोजनमुत्प्रेक्ष्येत तथापि नैवान किञ्चित् प्रयोजनमुत्प्रेक्षिनु शस्यते, आप्तकामश्रुते , नाप्यप्रत्तिन्मत्तप्रवृत्तिा, सृष्टि श्रुते सर्वश्रुतेध This is quite in the strain of the Sutra hâra and we cannot understand why after this beautiful explanation, he thinks it necessary, practically against the Sitrakari, to add 'न चेय् परमार्थविषया सृष्टिश्रुति , अविद्याकल्पित- नामरूपव्यवहारगोचरत्वाद् ब्रह्मात्मभावप्रतिपादनपरत्वाचेत्येतदपि नैव विस्मर्तव्यम् The learned Satralira has dealt with the question that Brnhman is the उपादान कारण, and though it as उपादान कारण It is without any sort of विकार, the विरोध being set aside by an implicit faith in the words of the texts of the Veda Now in 2-1 34-35-36, he deals with the question that even though Brahman is the efficient cause, even though at is t, it is not liable to the faults of partiality and cruelty as Bralıman allots fruits according to the Karmas of the individual souls, The जगत्प्रवाह 19 अनादि, honce this 19 possible In the last Satra Badariyanı romoves all contradıc tions by remarking that Brahman Is सर्वधर्मयुक्त In the pre vious अधिकरण, he sud that जगत्प्रवाह 19 अनादि, henee it was possible for Brahmın to allot fruits according to FÅs of 1 This question is dealt at length in जीवविचारणा ·72 the individual souls, but this directly goes against the stà passage fuga lang ayrita' which distinctly teaches the एकत्व and अद्वितीयत्व of Brahman To such a difficulty Bâdarayana's answer is on the same priaciples which he has lard down in 2-1 27. The swarupa of Brahman is such The प्रवाह may be अनादि, still ब्रह्मन Is एक and अद्वितीय, Brahman though giving fruits according to Fis 19 in dependent of it In short, it is possessed of all is, there is no contradiction as such According to the reasoning of S'ınlara, the explanation given by the Satrabara in refutation of the 4+4 नैपुण्य as quite out of place According to him the विषमता and Man, the art of Jivitman and Paramåtman nre all creatures of plan and with the removal of plant, they vanish into nothingness To conclude, the Satrakára holds that this world is an effect of Bralımın, is real Brahman has, for its EFT केवल, without any other प्रयोजन, and without any organs or any external means, by the natural powers of itself, dereloped itself into the unii crse without itself undergoing any change The world is spory with Brahman in all its three stages It has no existence independent of Bralıman, but at the saine time it is neither 47 nor an absolute non entity. It is not a faca of Brahman, but a real wilful परिणाम of Brahman It 1s आत्मकृति and आत्मपरिणाम or ब्राकृति and ब्रह्मपरिणाम शरीर, शक्ति, प्रकृति, परमाणु अविद्या, माया and others, have nothing to do with it so far as its primary cause is being investigated LIBERATION. I'lc fourth chapter or the Brahma Sutrag deals witú the question of liberation The first pida deals with the question of starf or liberation in life of the Brahmavid. The knowledge of Brahman puts an end to is good ·73 and bad which have not begun to be enjoyed, 4 1 13 14 15 After the knowledge of Brahman is acquired, thes, which are then performed, do not touch the salla The body of the ब्रह्मविद् continues to live so long as has मारब्धकर्मs are not ended, 4-1-19. When the body falls away, he becomes joined with Brahman sAgnihotras etc, which are ficus, are to be performed by the marae, for they are useful in the acquirement of 17 This is the general reasoning of the Sutrıkarı, but this reasoning directly goes against that of Sankara According to S'ankır **, atte, everything is the creature of nescience By the ब्रह्मज्ञान, the अविद्या 1s destroyed, and when the afat is destroyed, its effects vez, Ruiter etc , must also vanish, on the principle that effect and cruse aro 1974, and that in the absence of cause, the effect cannot exist So there comes in the impossibility of जीवन्मुक्ति, for, with the rise of विद्या the अविद्या with its effect शरीर etc is destroyed, and the salater becomes Brahman at once If this position is not accepted as being contradicted by our experience, then two alternaties come in, viz , either the agitt is aot thoroughly obtained, in yhich case there is no fargli, or if ata is obtained, then body etc, which continue to exist after the art of atraent are not creatures of erfael From this it appears that the body etc continue to exist even a ter the acquirement of ब्रह्मज्ञान, the difference being that, after PETITA, FR and its products crite etc, do not touch him (redlag) The la performs s, but these tots are al#3, and not his own, It is worthy of note that the Sûtrabara says 'mon, meaning thereby that this do not touch the prepared He becomes मसंग Thus though the state is huing and doing every- 1. OFTA Staatetzant 247744 4 119 satemahu mà 34114 wallcenti na oglar 4115 मोगेन वितरेक्षपशिवाय संप4119 मनिहोत्र दि तु सत्कार्यायव सट्दर्शनात् 4 1 16 s ·74 thing, he is untouched by good or bad actions His existence is for the enjoyment of this begun to be enjoyed, This seems to be the view of the Satralära about Geri S'ankara himself remarks that this has reference to सगुणविद्या, in निर्गुणविद्या there is no need of mentioning this 'सगुणासु तावद्विद्याम् वियत एव विधानम् । तासु च वाक्यशेप ऐश्वर्यप्राप्ति पाप निवृत्तिश्च विद्यावत उच्यते । तयोश्चाविवक्षाकारण नास्तीत्यत पाप्मप्रहाणपूर्वकैश्वर्य प्राप्ति स्तामा फलमिति निश्चीयते । निगुणाया तु विद्याया यद्यपि विधान नास्ति, तथाप्य. कात्मयोधात् कर्मप्रदाहसिद्धि । 4 1-13 When the trainies are ended by enjoy ment by the body, that body of the Brahmavid falls avy The second He describes the process by which the body is dissolved The उत्क्रान्ति of विद्वान् and अविद्वान् 1s common to a certain extent, of नाडीप्रवेश The विद्वान् then passes by शताधिका. 4-2 16 In 4-2 13, 'स्पष्टो ोकेयाम्' Sankara remarks -तस्मादवित द्विपये प्राप्तयो गत्युत्क्रान्त्यो विद्वद्विपये प्रतिषेध इत्येवमेव व्याख्येय, व्यपदेशार्थ वत्त्वाय । न च ब्रह्मविद सर्वगतनमात्मभूतस्य प्रक्षीणकर्मण उत्क्रान्तिर्गतिर्वोपपद्यते, निमित्ताभावात् । 'अत्र ब्रह्म समभुते' इति चैवजातीयका श्रुतयो गत्युत्कान्त्योरभाव सूचयन्ति ।'. The उत्क्रान्ति here spoken of by the Satral ara 1s quite consistent with his arrangement. In the first 97 the Sutrakāra describes the state of ब्रह्मविद् in life, in the second उत्क्रान्ति, in the third how and by which path he reaches Bralıman (fa), and in the fourth tho Fr the Anlace enjoys after reaching Brahman. In this general arrangement the Satral ära nowhere expressly says that the उत्सान्ति and गति have no reference to the ब्रह्मविद्, 'The question of altyft is altogether different, which is possible only through the singular grace of Brahman. In the case of the favoured erfare, there is no detention eyon for enjoying आरण्यकर्मs. His दायकमैs are taken away by luis sons, good is by his frionds and bad ones by his 'तस्य पुत्रा दायमुपयन्ति मुहद साधुकृत्या द्विपन्त पापकृत्वाम् . Bidariyana suggests this in 'अतोऽन्यापि वेषामुभयो' 4.1-17. enemies ·75 Thus through the grace of Brahman, the fs are ended, and the gelat at once enjoys Brahman. This is only a suggestion which is not possible to carry further than this All the energis refer to Jaimini and Badarayana by the word उभय, and refer the श्रुति passage to काम्यमs. But the objection to this view as is pointed out by Vallabha is that Jaimın is not spol en of either before or after in this पाद 4-1, and that पापकृत्या cannot be काम्यविषय Whatever it may be, it seems almost impossible that Bå dardyans Viers the गतिश्रुति is belonging to अविद्वद्विषय In the third pîda of the fourth chapter after describing the stations through which the soul of the paraç passes by the path of देवयान, Badariyana says that the ब्रह्मविद् reaches Brahman from where there is no return, In the same pada Badarayana mentions to views of Bådarı who holds that the final goal to which the Brahmavid is said to reach is 974, and of Jaimini who holds thnt the final goal to which the Brahmavid reaches is aan, and not afaceri S'ankara accepts the view of Bâdarı and rejects that of Jaimini. In '7347 afanyiwa 4-3-14, S'apkara takos great pains to show that the nafas are not to be accepted in their primary sense, bat as referring to lower Brahman, they are to be finally rejected. The principal reasons which led S'apkara to reject the aforeslás in their primary sense are expressed by him thus: ह्यसत्यपि सभवे मुख्यस्यैवार्थस्य ग्रहणमिति कश्चिदाज्ञापयिता विद्यते। परविद्याप्रक रणेऽपि च तत्स्तुत्यर्थ विद्यान्तराश्रयगत्यनुकीर्तनमुपपद्यते, 'विष्वन्या उत्क्रमणे भवन्ति इतिवत् । 'प्रतापते सभा वेश्म प्रपद्ये' इति तु पूर्ववाक्यविच्छेदेन कार्यपि प्रतिप्रत्यभिसधिन विरुध्यते। सगुणेपि च ब्रह्मणि सर्वात्मत्वसकीर्तन 'सर्वमा सर्व. काम' इत्यादिवदवकल्पते । तस्मादपरब्रह्मविषया गतिश्रुतय ।' 4814. S. B. N. S p 497. From this one sees that S'anhara's main affically cousasted nu the "असमव' or विरोध between the गति- श्रुति and the व्यापकत्व of Brahman In the absence of सभव, 1.4 3 7-11. 2 4 3 11 14.

·76 $358 hc, thicre is no reason why the nafas should be accepted in their primary sonec. His othor oxplanations ri:., 'कार्यपि प्रदिपरयनिसंधिनं विपन्यते' and 'सगुणेपि प्रमणि ४४ 5Treya', are questioas of plausibilitics which stand or fail with the main argument. From what has bcon stated abovo it is important to noto that S'ankara does not Adduce any Satra of Barlari yana in support of his theory, and therefore tho sustained reasoning that he has worked out for rejecting the ufaula loscs all its force. Beforc we ornminc his argument in favour of the rejection of the गतिश्रुति and insistence of the निर्विरोषश्रुतिs, let us advert to the question of the imp. It is admitted on all hands, that the afàlfàs, as they stand, do present a contradiction with the air of Brahinan. But on this grouod alonc, it would not be proper to reject the afayfas. With this ve have to bear in mind what the learned Satrakâra has and about Brahman and tho letter of the Veda. As a faithful interpreter of the Satras of Bådariyaņa, one bas to abide by his reasoning and conclusion. The position would be the sumo which he assumed in 2-1-26-27, yang दान्दमूलत्वात् ।'. The difficulty put forth by Sankara arises only when unlike the Satrakara ope fails to put an im. plicit faith in the letter of the Veda. In the TEATTERIE as is written by the Sûtrakära, one is surprised, why S'ankara tries to modify and correct not only tho clear sense of the glas, but that of the Sätras also. The result of this is oftep unpleasant when one sees that Sankara's modified interpretation not only goes against the wording of the Satras, but directly contradicts what ke himself has just said before. In this connection, Bhiskara rightly defines the position of the Satrakära in * 1. Second ioterpretation of #191094541 Second interpretations in 2-1-27, 2-1-29, are instances out of many.

·77 his Bhashya on page 238, 4-3-13, thus: -Pirts TETET + + न चास्माकमर्थवादत्वकल्पना, यथार्थतार्थग्रहणे किं नामानुपपन्नम्. Thus Bhaskara sees no difficulty in accepting nafes in their primary sense and @[14477 of Brahman, Vallabha's position is also similar. According to bim the wayfa bas no contradiction with the #4144 of Brahman, for both are taught by the Vedas, and that Brahman's swarûpa is such as would admit the possibility of both the alternatives. Vallabha's commentator also observes on page 1368:-Faz, átfal गौणः शब्दो दृष्ट इति नैतावता शब्दप्रमाणकेथै गौणी कल्पना न्याय्या।'. (अ. भा. प्रकाश B.S.S.). On the question of feefa Râmânuja, Nimbůrka, Madhya, Vallabha, S'reekantha and Bhâskara are all at one, and this seems to be a strong ground to hold that the Satrakůra had never in his mind the difficulty of 'असंभव' between the गतिश्रुति and the व्यापकत्व. The Satrakara's attitude is the one declared by Vallabha in 1.1-4, fara cafeteria sraut 912'. It follows therefore, that S'ankara's interpretation of the aiglas in the Tyfuso senso is not viewed by any other commentator with favour, and we cannot but think that here also S'ankara is not faithful to the Satrakära. S'ankara has however paid very serious attention to this question. The following are the arguments advanced by him ic 4.3-14-S. B. N.S. Pp. 497-502;— (1) Brahman is 447 (2) Brahman is faftalu. (3) Jiva is syfestuff. गतिश्रुतिs refer to अपरब्रह्मन, (5) No गति is spoken of in परविद्या, (6) The distinction between 9 and 3797 and is based on the yfè passages, '(1) गमन is due to बुद्धयुपाधि. (8) Jaimini's view is mentioned by the Satrakara later for the development of intellect (Harrasta)."

·78 The first objection is mot by Bhaskara and Vallabha by slotring tho possibility of sa as being duo to 3177 प्रारम्प, 'मन गमोगनिमित सांपवनिमितमिति निमित्तामन्येवत्यदोप. Fays Bhaskara in 4.3-13. 'न च घ्यारसत्यं गन्तव्यत्वे याध, प्रारम्भमोग विना तत्प्रान्त्यमभार, यदा या तद्भोगसमाप्तिस्तदा तत्र प्राप्तेनि प्रत्यूहत्यात्' 8ayo Vallabhn in 4-3-14. The second and third objections are answered by what has been said before in reforeace to Brahman and the human Soul. It has been shown that the Satrakara does not hold the distinction between and TFT, hence the fourth and sixth objections are avstored. This question has been exhaustively treated by Vallabha's commentator on pages 1362 to 1365. A. B P. B. 8. 8., and by Bhaskara in 4-3-13; and but for svant of space we should have quoted the same in full here, The fifth objection is dealt with by Bhaskara thus:- 'न चास्माभिरियं गतिः कल्पिता, श्रुतयोत्र प्रमाणम्, परविद्यामु गतयो दृश्यन्ते.. 4-3-13. Then he quotes from Etretry, 72, 27, data, गीता, पुराण and वाजसनेय, to support his view that there is गमन in परविद्या. The tendency of the Sätrakära is to accept the yfàs always in their primary sense, hence man is in the primary eense, and not in a secondary sense, as due to . Thus the 7th objection is ans ered. The last objection is certainly very werk, One does not understand why the Satrakara should put his doctrine in the mouth of Eảdari, why he should place the ferma view first and sea view after it. S'aņkara says that it is done with a view to develop intellect F. True, but since this is a solitary unusual circumstance, one must be thoroughly convinced before he accepts S'aņkara's 1. See Appendix. A.

·79 view. It appears that Sankara's interpretation though fairly correct so far the Sutras are concerned, becomes altogether opposed to the view of the Satrakära the moment S'ankara's interpretation is viewed in the light of his Esoteric doctrine' in the words of Dr. Denssen, Once it is shown that there is real sera, the Satras of Badardyana become quite consistent. The holy words 'Telf: Tereta Barefa: ', teaching the non-return of those who have reached Brahman, cannot with justice be referred to a secondary hypothetical senee, for an ultimate rejection. That Badariyanı should begin and end with Satras which can on no account be reconciled with S'an. kara's reasoning, leads one to suppose that there is a flaw in Sankıra's reasoning so far as bis faithfulness to the Sutrakára is concerned, Râmânuja and Nimbărka have clearly an advantage over Sankara in this, that their views evolve from the Satras of Bådariyana with less difficulty. When the Satras and Sankara's commentary dealing with his at farat are compared, one cannot but honestly admit that there is a clear contradiction between the two. Satras, viewed in the light of Sankara's esoteric doctrine, lose all their force in their criticisms of Sankhya, Kanada and other systems. Thus, it is not right with S'onkara to deprive the nafas of their primary significanco, for, it is a view not favoured by Bådarayana, or at least we are not in a position to support it from the Satras, Having established in the third that the Brahma. vid reaches Brahman, or rather is 'led there, the fourth or describes the mode of his enjoyment there. After reaching Brahman, the Brahmavid gets Santana, but all the same She is enfaatin with Brahman. For the sake of enjoyment, he becomes manifest in a new form which, though afati 1. अप्रतीकासबनानयीति बादरायण उभयथादशेषात् सत्कनुश्च 4-3-15. 2. सम्पquania: sta *4-4-1, 8. kamata metara 4-4-4, 4 ·80 with Brahman, is latest according to Jaimini, "fas according to Audulomi, while they according to $Badarayana; there is no faster between Jaimini's and Audulomi's riews, as both are possible according to Badardyanı, Being offanini with Brahman the Brahuvid derives everything by Brahman's 4*44. Like Brahman he is Sarafiala. There is a difference of opinion between the views of Badari and Jaimini, the former believes in the absence of it etc., of the safe, while the latter believes in the presence of art etc., on the authority of Chh, U. 7-26-2, Bwhile Bådarågapa believes in both the riews, (lama). With these crite etc., the Brahmavid enjoys at. The 'absence of भोग spoken of in ध्रुति has reference to स्वाभ्यय, and श्रुति teaching a refer to ft. The 107 of the Brahmavid is limited to the extent that he cannot like Brahman create Jagat. His 1100 is eternal. With 19 Brabugan the Brahmavid by a form enjoys eternally. He is does not return to Sansara. This seems to be the general outline of the mode in which the Brabmavid enjoys in the Bralımaloka. The Brahmaloka is eternal. In this there is a general agrecment among Râmiguja, Nimbarka and Vallabha, The Satras of Badarîyana stand naturally reconciled with tho above vier. There is no suggestion in these Satras of the idcal of Joksha which S'apkara mentions in 1-1-4, 1. Am afufat94731&#9: 1-4-5. 2. partyju orusmeralgo) A: 4-1-9. 3. vagy marinaadi tranqui: 4-1-7, 4. Sanita azud: 4-4-8. 6. & 57 81979 NO: 4-4-9. O. W** niat dit 4-4-10. 2. maffaf914 TI 4-4-11, 8. marcepaoliy xUTTIST: 4-4-19. 9. सप्ययसंपत्योन्यतराममाविकृतं हि 4-4-16. 10. भगव्यापार प्रकरणासनिी- na 4-4-17. 11. facrifiga naloge 4-4-19 12, 19. T 4-4-21, 13. KaiZF TENETA. JIGE 4-4-28.

·Audulomi's view with that of Jaimini on the authority 81 'इदं तु पारमार्थिक कूटस्थनित्यं, व्योमवत्सर्वव्यापि, सर्वविक्रियारहित, नित्यतृप्तं, निरखयवं, स्वयंज्योति स्वभावम्, यन धर्माधर्मी सह कार्येण कालत्रयं च नोपावर्तेते, fequatre ETPA'. "As may be seen from this passage, the conception of Liberation contains the same characteristics As serve, as a rule, to define Brahman; and indeed, Brahman and the state of liberation are identical terms; for liberation is nothing else than the becoming one with Brabman, or rather, since the identity of the Soul with Brahman bas always subsisted and has only been hidden from it by an illusion, liberation is nothing else but the awakening of the consciousness that our own self is identical with Brahman. Accordingly, in liberation there is no question of becoming which does not already exist, but only of the attainment of the knowledge of what has existed from all eternity. It is because of this, that liberation is pot accomplished through any sort of work, nor through moral improvement, but by knowledge alone." System of Vedinta. p. 401. It is absolutely clear that this reasoning cannot be traced to any Satra of Badarigana. S'aņkars's conception of Liberation bas much in common with that of the Sanshya. The highest aim of the Sankhyal is to free himself from the safa, so the greatest aim of a S'apkara is to free himself from the sofaent. With the destruction of fat, its creatures viz., bis Jivatya, bis wait, everything vanishes, and he remains what he was, vie., Brahman, the subject of all negations except existence. That this view is foreign to the Satras of Bidarayana can be seen from the summary of the Satras given above. S'aņkara's attempts to force ap his doctrines in itsella and Bådari suggest his departure from the lines of the Satrakára. His attempt to reconcile 1. Vide S'apkhya Bárika 62-68. and Vacbespatimis'ra's failsst. 11-12 ·82 of Bådarayaņa in 4-4-7, Gaytreeningarnararatan ateratz results in a contradiction. He says:-Jan 072- मानस्वरूपाभ्युपगमेऽपि व्यवहारापेक्षया पूर्वस्यापि उपन्यासादिभ्योऽवगतस्य ब्राह्म- श्वर्यरूपस्याप्रत्याख्यानादविरोध बादरायण भाचार्यों मन्यते'. The contradiction arises from the fact that there come in the ctc., creatures of Ignorance after the Ignorance is destroyed. Govindananda thus puts it repare fantasmarie TITANITET फुत आज्ञानिकधर्मयोग इति'. Vide also अणुभाष्यप्रकाश pp. 1396-1401. The liberation in the sense of Bådarâ yana is not merely the end of miseries, but also the attainment oferer-lasting bliss. CONCLUSION. From what has been said before, it follows that the Satrakara's conception of Brabman is at great variance with that of Sankara. As Dr. Thibaut observes:- They do not set forth the distinction of a higher and loter knowledge of Bralıman, that they do not acknowledge the distinction of Brahman and Jóvara in Sankara's sense.' Vedanta Satrag. 1. p. 100. According to the Satrakara, the Brabban is possessed of -al) attributes, and all wonderful powers. By its very bwardpa, it is possessed of all contradictory attributes. The negative vedic passages liko tala' deny in Brahman all the eartlıly attributes, whilo those like air:' ctc., aflirm in Brahman all divine attributes. Thus Brahman is gerai as is accepted by Vallabha and Nimbarka. Tho absolute negation of all attributes, and desc ing Brahman as fai19, is a viorr sbich does not find any expres. sion in the Satras of Bidardyana. The subject of nega tion in negatire Vedic passages has reference to what is non-Brahman as is romarked by the author of Bhashyam Prakasa. B. S.S. p. 953, eraratat et dat met auts- न्तनिवेश्येत निपेपति, न तु सर्व मिथ्याहत्येति गुधीभिरवधेयम्'. Neither is Brahman deroid of all attributos. at fortement 1755777 ·83 Afeaturargyropianuaristalà statt. Aņu. B.P. p. 918. This Brahman which is spoken of in the Upanishads as safa afa' or as 'nur' is an independent . It is Sad-Chid- Ananda. For the sake of sport alone it develops itself into the universe, but unlike the Pantheism of Spinoza, as is shown by Sir Ramakrishna Bhandarkar, it is not ex hausted into the universe, but remains transcendent. Residing in the heart, it becomes togetfia, and existing outside, though 'agamya', becomes 'gamya' by meditation and devotion, when it likes. It is the fountain-source from which all activity, all intelligence, all joy proceed. It is Brahmap which evolves names and forms, and makes pola 2016. The universe with its immense diversity has its source in Brahman, The human souls have their source in Brahman. The Brahman of the Sutras is not only a personal God, but it is one of its phages, Brahman is avyakta when one tries to find Him by means of intellect alone, but becomes out through meditation and devotion, The innermost soul of the human souls is Brahman, hence it is to be meditated upon as the car. 4-1-3. The in. finite a variety is united in the Brahman. Sages like Vamadeva, in the stage of Brahma-Bhara, have experienced this Sarvatva, Brahman is weya in the universe by Sad, Chid, and Ananda. It folloiya from this, that the author of the Satras follows a process quite opposite to that of S'aņkara's, in working out his Pantheism. He does not deny everything of Brahmar, but unlike S'ankara, afirms everything of Brahman, In the case of the human soul also, the view of the Satrakåra is opposed to that of S'aņkara, As.Dr. Thibaut puts it, the Sutras'do not, with Sankara, proclain the abso- 1. भात्मेति तूपगच्छन्ति ग्राहयन्ति च । 2 तत्र सर्वेषां सर्वभाव सनियरसंगाद समिकमेवेति, 40.11 Ana Bhashya B. S. 8. p. 262. 1-1-29.

·84 lute identity of the individual and the bighest Self.' Introduction to Vedanta Sätra I. p. 100. According to the Sûtrakâra, the human soul springs out of Brahman as spark out of fire. It is atomic. It is part of Brahman, and as the sia of aifta Brahman, it is set Fith it. It is Kartri and Bhoktři, but its activity has its source in Brahman. In the stage of Brahmabhåra it experiences fign, etc., with its Anutva. It is neither an parte por a faraa of Brahman. It is not a creature of nescience, nor is it the same as Brahman differentiated by fe. It is not a non-entity but a real entity. As regards the universe also, Badarayana and S'an. kara arc opposed. As Dr. Thibaut puts it:--They do not hoid the doctrine of the unreality of the world.' According to the Satrakära, the universe has for its material and efficient cause Brabman alone. Though Brahman alone is the material cause, it does not undergo any change whilo developing itself into the universe. As efficient cause Brahan is neither cruel nor unjust. The world is and with Brabman, in the sonse that the effect is 69717 with tbe cause. As the effect osists in the cause in all the three stages of origination, existence and absorption, similarly the universe, in all its threo stages, exists in Brahman, and is al with it. It is a real development of avikrita Brahman. The Satrakâra doos not, like S'apkara maintain that the universe is a dream on a grand scale. He does not hold that the universe is a figment of nescience. The universe has for its cause Brahman, still there is an infinite variety in effects. The creation of the universe is a kevala Lila of Brahman and not a Máyi. From the description given of the path leading to * Brabman, aud tho mode of enjoyment of si in the ·85 fourth Adhyâya, the conception of Moksha, according to the Satrakara, is different from that of S'apkāra. It is a stage attained by a gradual course of spiritual development, and not a stage which has existed at all times, but which is concealed through afatet, and which is revealed by the destruction of अविद्या. From the Satras of Badarayana like cha afya TK', we distinctly understand that the SAtrakåra favours the office and not the facare of S'ankara. In this respect, aş is shown before by a quotation from Sir R. Bhandarkar's Vaishnavism etc., Vallabha'a fou is the one approved of by the Sätrakara. It should not be supposed that thereby either of them accepts the proposition that Brahman thereby undergoes any feraire. According to both of them, Brahman's causality and transcendency are both possible. In all the instances given by the Sttrakara, and in the older Upanishads, nowhere do te find any instance given, which Sankara so very often quotes to support his doctrine of far. This fact sug. gests a very strong inference against him. Where the afa gives the instance of and , S'aņkıra tries to incorporate you and Sa. Vide Entratra 167. VI. There is again a distinction to be drawn as to the attitude of the Satrakdra and Sankara towards other systems. S'ankara's attitude to the knies seems to be very hostile, while Ramanuja and Bhaskara look upon both the Miminsis as forming one S'astra. Upavarsha, Those view, Bhaskara follows, is said to have written one Bhishya on the two Mimånsås. Vide at 97774 p. 6. and BOT 184544TT. P. 47. According to Sankara, nothing remains to be done in the stage of ब्रह्मत्वावगति. 'तस्मान्जानमेकं मुक्त्वा कियाया गन्धमानस्याप्यनुप्रवेश इह नोपपयते'. S. B. 1-1-1. p. 18. • This absolute rejection of FÅs cannot be traced to any ·86 Sätra of Bidarayana. In 4-1-16, the Parents like meda etc., are to be performed by the Brahmavid. This would go to sbow that the Brabmavid has not to reject the performance of his, but the mode of performance is different. Again in 3-4-26, wafanya wafagarria, the absolute disregard of is not accepted. It cannot be taken that the two Minansas form ope S'Astrs, but the mutual helpfulness cannot be denied. Vide Anu Bhishga P. 42. and pp. 110 to 114. Vide also 3-3-1-25 Sutras. While meeting the Sankhyas, Kanadas, and the Bauddhas, Sankara follows the Satrakira in maintaining the strict reality of the universe, and the causality of Brahman; but once that is done, he rejects the same view, consigning it toafor. Sankara has been rightly and repcat. edly charged rith these contradictions by his opponents. From that has been said above, we come to the conclusion thatS'apkara's esoteric doctrine, viz., the Niya- Fåda is the development of the Sankbya and Buddbistio tenets, blended with misinterpretations of the passage of the Brihadiranyaka Upanishad, referring to the creation of the dreaming soul on the lines of Gaudapåda, and it has nothing to do with the Sätras of Badariyani. After showing numerous contradictions in the system of S'apkara from his Bhashya, Col. Jacob remarks:-"To me, therefore, it seems impossible to come to any other conclusion than that the fafarziaan laas, or some similar school, were in possession of the field in S'apkara's time, and that his own mind was so saturated with their doctrincs as to be unablo to abako then off oren when propounding an antagonistio system.' Vedinta-Sära. Intro. p. 9. This suggestion of Col. Jacob is as original as it is true. If to take S'apkara's Bhashya, and do away with those portions which superim.

·87 posc his doctrine of sfat, from what is left of his commentary, a general system, representing Bådarayana's piew, can fairly be worked out Vallabhr's Apu Bhashya seems to answer the above description When we read Col Jacob's remark with the obseryations of Sir R Bhandarkar, pp 160-161 Vaishṇavism etc, the icovit able conclusion one comes to is this, that Badar iyanı represents in his Satras a system which corresponds with one which Vallabhn propounds in his Bhishya, viz , "The development of Purushottama into the world and at the same time his transcendency'p 161 Vaishnavism That S ankara bimself was conscious of such a doctrine can be seen from his Bhashya in passages libe na TGIFTEENET प्रणयनात् परिणामवद् ब्रह्म शास्त्रस्याभिमतम् 2 1 14 यत्तक स्वरूपोपमर्दमन्तरेण कस्यचित्कूटस्थस्य वस्तुन कारणत्वानुपपत्तेरभावाद्भावोत्पत्तिर्भवितुमर्हतीति तद् दुरुक्तम् , स्थिरस्वभावानामेव मुवर्णादीना प्रत्यभिज्ञायमानाना रुचकादिकायकारणभावदर्शनात् ' 2 2 26 p. 246 Thus while dealing with Sankhya, Bauddha and others, he puts forth Bidarüyanı's doctrine, but that being dono, he rejects Badariyana s view, and puts forth bis own Hence the conclusion is that Badara yaņa and S ankara both hold different if not opposed, Rao Bahadur Rangâcharya has published a book, called väftets are of Sankaricharya This book is different from that of Madhava's The noteworthy feature of Rangacharya's book is that fourteen matas are mentioned there, the last two of which refer to Vedavyasa and Vedanta And though this view of Vedavyås& pur. ports to be based on the Blahabharata, there is a significant fact that S ankaracharya, the author of the book, dret a distinction between the tio views Other writers also refer to two views of Vedanta which go to show that Badariyapa and Sankara hold different views In the Tatparya Tika of the 741975, 41 19, a reference to the two views is thus made --- मा भूदयं नामरूपप्रपच शून्यतोपादान , views ·88 मपि तु ब्रह्मोपादानो भविष्यति, ब्रह्मैव प्रपञ्चरूपेण परिणमते मृत्तिकेय घटशरावोदंच. नादिभावेन, न च एवं नित्यत्वन्याघातः, परिणामेऽपि तत्त्वानपायात तालक्षणत्वाब नित्यतायाः, यदाह यस्मिन तत्त्वं न विहन्यते, तदपि नित्यमित्येक दर्शनम्', 'अपरं च ब्रह्मैव अनायविद्योपधानाभेदात् नामरूपप्रपंचभेदेन विवर्तते मुखमिव एकमनेकमणि, कृपाणादर्शभेदानकविधं प्रतिबिंबभेदेनेति, सत् एतद् दर्शनद्वयम्'. It is quite clear from this quotation that even Naigâyikas had to draw a distinction between the refera of Badarayana and feasier of S'ankarn. Moreover, Sankara's preference for the views of Bidari, Kasakritsna and Audulomi, sug. gests the inference that Sankara had in his mind a system different from that of the Satrakira. To add to this, S'aņkara's own statement, at the close of the introduction of his अध्यासभाष्य, suggests the same conclusion, as is pointed out by R. B. Rangacharya, that the aim of Sankari. charya was to try to evolve what he himself took to be the teachings of the Upanishads out of the Vedinta Satras of Badarasana-that is, to put into the Satras wlint he himself understood to be the teachings of the Upa. nishads,' and not that Badariyana understood thom to be. 'यथा चायमर्थः सर्वेषां वेदान्तानां तथा वयमस्या शारीरकमीमांसायां प्रदर्शयिष्यामः'. 'Even orthodox Advaitins soem to accept this view in a genoral sort of way, and thero is a'stanza attributed to Madhusgđana Sarasvati which gives a notably cleror expression to it. The stanza ig:- न स्तौमि तं व्यासमशेपमर्थ सम्यद् न सूरैरपि यो धयन्ध । विनापि ते. संग्रथितासिलार्थ तशंकरं नौमि मुरेश्वरार्यम् ।। It is evident from this that it is granted by somo Advaitins themselves, that the Vedanta Satras of Vyasa are not responsible for the whole philosophy of S'apkar.. chürya: and one need not therefore be surprised when one 8009 them occasionally making a distinction betwoen tho Setralära mata and the Bhashyalara mata. Tho distinction between a Vyasa mala and a Vedanta mata as ·89 brought out in the Sarvn-Siddhanta-Sangraha clearly confirms the position of Dr Thibaut as to what kind of Vedanta at 18, that is really represented by the Vedanta Satras' Introduction to S S of Rangûcharya pp 16-17. From this it appears that so far as the Satras of Bådará yang are concerned, S'apkara's clare to be the farthful expositor is very weak The question as to whether Biduriyana's or S'an kara's teachings stand nearer to the Upanishads, though to the orthodox it appears at the first sight absurd, 18 ra ther very interesting Gough, Deussen and Thibaut have declared in S ankara's favour Our subject forbids us from entering into this question, but certainly we cannot concede that the question 18 settled The views of Gough and Deussen are not eatitled to as much weight as that of Thibaut, since the former two do not seem to have looked to anything except Sankara's interpretations, while the latter had the advantage of being familiar with a powerful cntio of S'aplara vız, Riminnja Hence let us hear what he says on p 124 of his Introduction to Vedinta Satras 1. 'Sankara's method (of higher and lower Brahman) thus enables him in a certain way to do justice to different stages of historical developments, to recognize clearly existing differences which other systematisers are intent on obliterating And there has yet to be made a further and even more important admission in favour of his system. It is not only more pliable, more capable of amalgamating heterogeneous material than other systems, but its fundamental doctrines are manifestly in greater harmony with the essential teaching of the Upanishads than those of the otber Vedantic systems. Above we were unable to allow that the distinction made by S ankara between Brahman and Išvara is known to the Upanishads, but ·90 we must now admit that if, for the purpose of determining the nature of the highest being, a choica had to be made between those texts wluch represent Brahman as nirguna and those which ascribe to it personal attributes, Sankara 28 right in giving preference to texts of the former bind. xxx The older Upanishads, at any rate, lay very little stress upon personal attributes of the Highest Being, and hence, S'anhara is right in so far as be assigns to his hypostatized personal isvara a lower place than to his absolute Brahman That he also forthfully represents the prevail. ing spirit of the Upanishads' xx 'If so, the philosophy of S anbara would on the whole stand nearer to the toach. ing of the Upanisba than the Satras of Badariyana.' P 126. This may be or may not be, much can be said on both sides, but thero is one thing which needs be pointed out here, and it this For the purpose of determining the Highest Being, Badariyana or any Vaidila Acharya would not like to make a choice between the two Compare Jayagopala s introduction to hta a 1141717- ताबदुपनिषदोनेकविधा, काथन केवलपूर्णपुरषोत्तमनमा मिसाधनप्रतिरादिकार, पुरुषोत्तमस्वरूपप्रतिपादिका , पथा गोपाहतापिनीकृष्णोपनिषदादय । काश्चन पूर्णपुरुषोत्तमस्व Farmignaa16FTRARAUTERIETTA पुरुषोत्तमस्वरूपस्य पुरषो समेन सह सर्वकामभोगरूपफलस्य च प्रतिपादिका, यथा तिरियोपनिष मुण्डकोपनिषदादयः । काश्चन केवलविभूस्तित्प्राप्तिसाधन तिपादिका, यमा वामदेवोपनिषनारायण पानपादय । का ৰ কৰাষনশমিথলসারিকা, या परदारण्याछान्दोग्योपनिषादय' । काश्चन मुक्तिमावन भूलभनिशानासत्य सवैराग्ययोगसारख्या दिसतिपादिका , यथा सध्यासोपनिषदारणेयोप Apartmani Aroata TIRSAT a garantili nitelmat खोपनिषद्योगतत्त्व पनिषदादय । वाचन मानिसानसाधनभवणादितसाचनशरीरातीनामाविमोति 21997 ataenyataka, 421 metaraca Fide allo Sir R, Bhandarkor. repark - The opinion expressed by some ement scholars that the burden of the Upaniedad teaching is the illasıye character of the Forld and the reality of the one 1091 only 18 manifestly wrong and I may eren say, 18 indicatire of an oncritical judgment. As stated in tho text the Upanishads from the Tery nature of the compilations cannot bot be cipected to teach mot obc, but many systems of doctrine. Yaknavin p 2. note 1 काश्चन केवल ·91 sorts of Vedio passages, but he would refer them both to Brahman, or, in the words of Vallabha, the Sutralara's position would be thrs -"तथा चास्थूलादिगुणयुक्त एवाविक्रियमाण एवात्मान करोतीति वेदान्तार्थ सगतो भवति, विरुद्धसर्वधर्माश्रयत्व तु ब्रह्मणो भूपणाय A. B р 121. If Brdarlyana vore to accept & position like this, his Brahman would be capable of amalgamating more heterogeneous material than Sankara's higher and lower Brahman put together Preference and giving prominonce to one sort of Vedic passages results 19 rejoction and ignoring of others, and to believers in the infallible wisdom and eternity of the Vedas, such a one sided proference would be fatal to his claim to be called a Vaidika The duty of the Vnıdıka 19 to interpret the sense of Veda and not to subordinate one to the other 'आनातस्यार्थ प्रतिपत्तु Start rata 143 150S B (text NSP). 'नहि वेदवास्यानां कस्यचिदर्थवत्त्व कस्यचिदनर्थवत्त्वमिति युक्त प्रतिपत्तुं, प्रमाणत्वा fertur1 3 2 15 pp. 357. S B text. Thus according to S'anhara also, the authoritativeness of Saguna and Nirguna Vedic passages is equal, and so fır as the learned Satra Liri nccepts botlı sorts of ufàs and refers them both to his Highest Being, Brahman, bis interpretation must with justico be preferred to that of either Sankara pho gives prominence to Nirguna yfas, or Ramanuja, Madhva, and others, who put forth only Saguna yfis In this respect Badariyano is tollowed by Vallabha alone Hence, except in reforence to Vallabha, Dr Thibaut would not be quite wrong in saying that Sankara by accepting tio Brumans Yi-. 1 bant's claim that S'aplara's system would stand nearer to the Uprosbads than that of Bidariyana cannot be accepted as unchallenged, sinca Didariifoni's mode of interpretation and harmonising the conflicting Vedic ·92 passages is bettor than that of S'apkara, since Badariyana unlike S'ankara bears in mind the main of different Vedic passages as shown aborc, and does not prefer the one to the other, but accepts them all as carrying equal authority and deserving equal prominence. Thus disagroeing with Thibaut in accepting that S'ankara is a better exponent of tho Uprnishads than Bidarîyana, we must admit that s'ankara's systom might hare had its represontativos in Badari, Kabakritsna and to a cortain extent in Audulomi. If the towerios personality of Badariz ana, Tith his irrcsistible and hitherto unquestioned authority vero to be ignored from thic field, thon a chain of tradition of Sankarn's ssstein can be maintained from Bidari to Gaudapida, Gorinda and Sankara, and with this reservation Gough's position would not be prong. It may ho, as piated out by Bhaskara,' that S'nnkara's system has independent of the Satrar, and that by the force of his powerful genius he attenpted to superimposo his syslom on thc Safras of Bildariyana. No otlier commentator has triod to correct or modify the Satras of Badarayapn, While S'anlara's commentator actually laydorn thc rulo that n horc 748 conflict with the Voda, they are to be misinterprctol. Thiç is possiblo only if Sankaras understood that there iras a difference in the interpretation of the Upanishads between Bidaragana and themrctres. irit of S'apbara's kystom is cortainly possimistic. His imagining the cristcnoc ol #ge in the 1994, his doclaring that activity is 5.777, and a preferenco for tho 1, ETIAP TATTI ***ant Tadeo*. . T. . .. 2 Animai F 8. D.N. S. 1-1-19. I. P. 128. 129. s, sở sxr Traft Ra mà cc, 11+12. P 1. 8, D. 4. '*TTE SUTTIT-540.8. 1. p. 192.

·93 negative yas, tend to the same conclusion. His rejection of eart's Brahmanhood, and imagining the existence of misery in it have been the subject of an almost bitter remark of Vallabha's commentator. From the way in which he defines his conception of Brahman, by pegativa ing everything of it except its existence, and declaring Brabran to be place, he makes it difficolt, if not impossi. ble, to distinguish his system from Buddbism, and it appears that his system has evolved in a transition period when the Buddhistic doctrine of Void was being driven out of the field. भामा स्वेन सदा निरस्ताहा सत्यं परं धीमहि ।

·Appendix A. तेन यतैः प्रश्नोपनिपद्वास्यात् परापरे द्वे ब्रह्मणी भगीकृत्य, यदविद्याकृतनाम- रूपादिविशेषप्रतिपेधेनास्थूलादिशब्दैझोपदिश्यते तत् परम्, यत्पुनर्नामरूपविशेषाणां केनचिद्विशिष्टमुपासनयोपदिश्यते 'मनोमयः प्राणशरीर' इत्यादिशब्दैस्तदपरमिति प्रति- पादितम् । तत्र किं मानम् ? न तावदस्थूलादिवाक्यम्, मनोमयवाक्य च । तत्र परा. परशन्दयोरभवणात् । आये अक्षरशब्देनैव लक्ष्यनिर्देशात् । यदि च मुण्डके 'अय परा यया तदक्षरमधिगम्यत' इत्यक्षरविद्यायां परत्वश्रावणात् तद्वेद्यस्याक्षरस्य परत्व- मिप्यते । वाटम् । तदा पुरुषस्य ततोऽपि परत्वमेव द्रष्टव्यम् । 'दिव्यो खमूर्तः पुरुषः स पायाभ्यन्तरो बजः, अप्राणो घमनाः शुभ्रो वक्षरात्परतः पर' इति तनैव श्रावणात् । न च तस्य यावद्विशेपयन्यत्वम् । तदप्रे 'एतस्मानायत प्राण ' इति मन्त्रेण तत एव सूटे धावणात । 'अमिर्मुर्धे त्यादिभिस्तद्पोपन्यासाच । नाप्यक्षरस्य तथात्वम् । अस्थ- लादिश्रावणोत्तर प्रशासनस्य वेद्यत्वष्टत्वादीनां आकाशोपादानत्वस्य च श्रावणेन, मुण्डकेपि यत्तददृश्य'मित्याद्युक्त्वा 'यद्भूतयोनि परिपश्यन्ती' त्यादिजगदुपादानत्वसर्वज्ञ- त्वादीनां श्रावणेन यावद्विशेषगन्यताया वक्तुमशस्यत्वात् । अत एव वाक्यान्तरेप्वपि द्रष्टव्यम् । सर्वन एक्स्यैव ब्रह्मणः प्रतिपाद्यत्वात् । अत एव श्वेताश्वतरेपि 'प्रधानक्षेत्रज्ञ- पतिर्गुणेशः, 'यो ब्रह्माणं विदधाति पूर्व'मित्यादीन् नानाधर्मवोधकानेव मत्रानुक्त्वा 'निष्कलं निष्क्रिय मित्युक्तम् । 'स वा एप महानन आत्मेत्यत्रापि शारीरव्राह्मणे, 'अन्नादो वसुदान इति सर्वस्य वशी सर्वस्येशान' इत्यादयो धर्मा उताः । स वा एप नेति नेती'त्युक्त्वा, 'अगृयो न हि गृद्यते, अशीयों न हि शीर्यते, असशोऽसितो न सजते न व्यथत इत्येवं निषेधो विटतो, न तु यावद्धर्मपरत्वेनेति दृष्टव्यम् । अतो यत्रोत्कर्षस्य विधान्तिः, अक्षराद्वा यदुत्कृष्टं तदेव परमिति मन्तव्यम् । उत्तमुण्डक- श्रुतेः । 'अव्यक्तात् पुरुषः परः पुरुषान परं किञ्चित् सा काटा सा परा गति' रिति काठक- श्रुतेः । 'अम्भस्यपार' इत्युपक्रम्य, 'अत. परं नान्यदणीयस हि परात परं यन्महतो महान्तामिति तैत्तिरीयश्रुतेश्च । पुरुषस्य च विरुद्धधर्माश्रयत्वमेतास्वेव प्रतिपादितम् । एतदेव परत्वम् । गीतासु च 'मन्यतोऽक्षर इत्युक्तस्तमाहुः परमां गतिम्, यं प्राप्य न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम । पुरुषः स परः पार्थ भच्या लभ्यस्त्वनन्ययेति । 'द्वाविमौ पुरुषों लोके क्षरश्चाक्षर एव च, क्षरः सर्वाणि भूतानि कूटस्थोऽक्षर उच्यते। उत्तमः पुरुषस्त्वन्यः परमात्मेत्युदाहृतः, यो लोकत्रयमाविश्य विभयव्यय ईश्वरः । यस्मात् क्षरमतीतोहमक्षरादपि चोत्तमः, अतोस्मि लोके वेदे च प्रथितः पुरुषोत्तम' इति तदुपबृंहणात् । अत एव, 'न तत्समचाम्यधिकश्च दृश्यते' इत्यादिषु तस्य समाभ्यधिक- निषेधोऽपि युज्यते। न च पुरुषोत्तमाक्षरयोः परापरभावाशीकारे अद्वैतश्रुतिविरोधः । गणितागणितानन्दत्वधर्मभेदेपि वस्त्वभेदेन द्वैताभावे तदभावात् । अमिनादिवद्वैत.

·96 धीयमानज्ञानविषयस्य ब्रह्मण पूर्वम्, न त चक्षुर्गच्छतीत्यादिना यावत्करणागम्यताया उत्तत्वात्तन्य ज्ञानस्य प्रत्यक्षादिरूपताया वक्तुमराम्यत्वादुपासनारूपत्व एव पर्यवसानेन तद्विषयस्य परस्याप्यपरत्वापत्तेश्च । नाप्युपशान्तत्वाभावात् । सर्वत्र परस्य ब्रह्मण एकत्वेन तस्य च विरुद्धधर्माधारताया उपपादितत्वेन तदभावस्यैवाभावात् । एतेनैव भवचनेनैव प्रोवाचेत्यनेनापि प्रत्यवस्थानमयुक्तम् । तनाप्युपशान्तत्वस्यैवोत्तत्वात् । लौकिकयावद्धर्मराहित्येनैव तत्सिद्धेश्च । एव मिन्द्रो मायाभिरित्यादिवाक्यानामप्युभय लिझायधिकरणविवार एव विचारितत्वान तैरपि प्रत्यवस्थानावकाश । अतः परविद्या- सूक्तानामन्यत्राप्युक्तानां परब्रह्मधर्माणामनाविद्यकत्वादलौकिकैर्नानागुणैर्यु- क्तमप्युपास्यरूप नापरब्रह्मरूपमिति नौपाधिकम् । xxxxxxxx विच, तैरपि क्वचिद्गौण शब्दो दृष्ट इति नैतावता शब्दप्रमाणकेर्थे गौणी न्याय्या, सर्वत्रानाश्वासप्रसङ्गादिति । 'तनिष्टस्य मोक्षोपदेशा'दिति सूत्रन्याख्याने यदुक्त तदपि विस्मृतम् । अथवा, 'ईक्षतिसूत्रावतारणे वेदान्तवाक्येभ्य एष युक्त्याभासवाक्याभा- सावष्टम्भा सारयादिवादिन उत्तिष्टन्ते । तत्र पदवाक्यप्रमाणन आचार्येण वेदान्त- वाक्यानां ब्रह्मावगतिपरत्वप्रदर्शनाय वाक्याभासयुच्याभासप्रतिपत्तय पूर्वपक्षीकृत्य निराक्रियन्त इति कथनालक्षणा विरहय्य वेदान्तव्यारयानमाचार्यस्यैव सम्मतम्, नास्माकमिति बोधितमिति प्रभुचरणैर्दिक्पदप्रयोगेण ज्ञापितम् ॥ pp. 1362-- 1368. Anu Bhashya Prakasa.

·xw0XXOA
Mr. Mulchandra Tulsidas Teliwala,
B. A., LL, B.
LXXX*
XXT2BDXDXDDITILATOX
DEIXIDO DARDDITIXOTIIDXC
HDDTTOODOODID
Born, 2310 Scplember, 1887. Lell this Earth, 26th June, 1927.

·MX. MULCHANDRA TULSIDAS TELIWALA B.A., LL.B. The winner of the Bombay University prize for the foregoing essay passed away on 26th June 1927, at the early age of thirty-nine, and thus the life of a brilliant young man, wholly devoted to the cause of the uplift of gizani, suddenly came to an end. A short sketch is given here, depicting his life-tvork, and showing under what difficult circumstances, majority of Indian scholars have to work. He was born on 23rd September 1887 (A80 Sud 7, 1943) in the ancient and holy city of Bhrgucutohta or Broach situated on the right bank of the Narmada. It was here that king Bali performed his 17th, and gave Lord are three steps of earth. It is the abode from most ancient times of Bhargava and other Brahmios rell.versed in Fietve, Further up the river are situated the holy places of aquarkand mitů, the abodes of syte and TTTT77. Ho was born in a very rich and famous family of faaruita 474. The caste being a very small ono, his grand-father Mr. Lalbhai was not married till he was about 55 years old. He went to the pilgrimage of श्रीनापद्वार and कांकरोली, and st कांकरोली, गोस्वामी श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी, (who lourished later than his namesake the writer of HETET on *1154) garo bim a blessing that he would have two sons. llc replied that he was unmarried and there was so chance of marriage at that age, but the tro smiled and asked bim to go homo. Thomer came to be true, be married and ho had two sons. The family busineal cotton also prospered, and their firm bad agents at Palej, Misagium and other places, and a branch at Bombay, A marriage of a member of the family was porformed at ·2 Gulalwady in the 3rd Bhoiwada, Bombay, with great pomp, and large vessels were given in gift by the family to Gulal yady, which even now may be traced Their prosperity increased, nod the cellars of their houso wero filled with silver bars But when God shows special favour to any one, he takes nyay the burden of wealth, and it happened so in this case A year before the birth of Mulchandra there came a sudden crash, there was a heavy loss and all the money vanished On account of worldly worries and troubles with thich 2218 parents were surrounded, Vulchandra inherited a cry poor lean physical body At any time of life his waght was not more than 72 lbs, but this slender body con tained a spirit wlich vas dauntless not rufiled by nny outward show or pomp, and oould easily spurn realth, of which his family had more than enough til) Ius birth Hlis carly years vore spent in playfulness and he was Accustomed to run on the city walls ond swim in the But ho has always the top boy in lus class His memory was 80 sharp that he could casily remember what lo rent once Ho tras tho pot of lus tcachers The light joual nature of this pigmy monitor command od willing obcdionco froin tho strongest, tallest and most mischicious boy in the class After presin, his Míniri culation Lxamination in 1903 he joined the Wilson Col logo for further stu lles In the College liostel lic pichcd up some knowledge of singing and music froni lus Doccini friends lc grduated BA with agat ng his optional subject in 1901, and ho was a favounto student of Afr Bhadhamhar, Professor of Sanskrit In the absenco of any other calling lie took up government service as n teacher in the } Iphonslono ligle school, Bomlay Tlience he tras pelested for the Training Collego with n echolar ship of Rs 50 per month, and this gnre him an oj porti river ·3 nity to read up the course for LL. B. For some time, he lived with Mr. Khimji Cooverji at Walkeshwar, as a tutor to his son, The first quaylee met at Baroda in 1906, the second at Patan in 1907, and the third at Nandurbar in 1909. After this, ylefthout the well-known monthly magazine was started, and though he was a student, his constant and powerful contributions marked by his independent thinking and fearless expression created a stir in the ecuria world. Air, Maganlal Ganpatram Shastri, the founder of the Parishad and the Magazine, found in him a young, able and resourceful co-trorker. The fourth session of the aper was held at Surat in 1910, and there also he attracted great attention. Ho passed his final LL B, in 1914, and in all probabilities it appeared that he would begin practice at Broach, as the sime was his native place, but all were surprised when he took a High Court Sanad and came to settle in Bombay. The rhason which led him to this decision without consulting any one, is as under:- From infancy, he often got dreams in which he found himself Aging in the air, and some dieans were suggestive of future events. While at Broach, one early morning before leaving the bed, he got a dream in which ho save श्रीनाथजी, the स्वरूप in the Broach temple, swinging in पलना and smiling at him. He got up with great joy, and after प्रात नित्यकर्म he went for दर्शन He was greatly delighted to bave the same in there, not in dream, but in reality. There was Timate and the 964 yas adorned in the same para as ho had seen in the dream, and there was the snne joyful, smiling look. While he was returning home, Bir, Jarkisandas, a life-long friend of Telivain family, called him at his shop, congratulated him ·Gulsledy in Oc Ord Bhoiunda, Bomlay, with great pomp, oud larke Trsula were given in gift is the family do Gulnltaily, which erro nos may be traced. Their proprrity inerentni, and the collars of their houso wero Gibrad mith wilver bare. But when God Ahois fpecial Înyour to any one, le takes away the burden of wealth, and it linpprnod mo in this casc. A year before the birth of sfulchandra there come a xudden crash, there TTIR A hearg loss and all tho moncy vanished. On nccount of worldly worrice and trouble, rrith which his arenta pero furrounded, ulchandra inherited a rcry pour, Ioan, phynical body. At any time of lifc his right was not more than 73 lbs., but this slender body con. tained a fpirit, which ras dnuntiens, not reflled by any outward show or pomp, and could casily spurn wealth, of which his family had more than enough till his birth. Ilis carly ycars wore spent in playfulness and he was Accustomel to run on the city-walls and skin in the river. But ho was altaya the top-boy in his clays. His memory tras no sharp that he could casily remember what ho road once. Ho was tho pot of his teachers. Tho light jovial nature of this pigmy monitor commandod willing obediopco from the strongest, tallest and most inischicrous boy in tho class. After passing his Matri. culation Examination in 1905 he joined the Wilson Col. logo for further studies. In the College hostel he picked up comc knowledge of singing and music from his Daccani ſrionds. He graduated B. A. with an as his optional subject in 1909, and he was a favourite student of Mr. Bhadkamkar, l'rofessor of Sanskrit. In the absence of any other calling, he took up gorernment service, as a teacher in the E?phinstono High School, Bombay. Thence he was selected for the Training College sith a scholar- .ship of Rs. 50 per month, and this gave him an opportu- ·3 nity to rear up the course for LL B For some time, ho lived with Mr Khimji Cooverji at Walkeshwar, as a tutor to his son The first acuutture met at Baroda in 1906, the second at Patan in 1907, and the third at Nandurbar in 1909 After this, gfe ftiget the well known monthly magazine was started, and though he was a student, his constant and powerful contributions marked by his independent thinking and fearless expression created & stir in the are world. Ar Maganlal Ganpatrum Shastri, the founder of the Parishad and the Magazine, found in him a young, able and resourceful co worker The fourth session of the afere was held at Surat in 1910, and there also be attract ed great attention He passed his final LL B in 1914, and in all pro babilities it appeared that he would begin practice at Broach, as the same was his native place, but all were surprised when be took a High Court Sanad and came to settle in Bombay The reason which led him to this decision without consulting any one, 18 as under From infancy, he often got dreams in which he found himself fizing in the air, and some dreams wera suggestive of future events While at Broach, one early morning before leaving the bed, he got a dream in which he saty श्रीनाथजी, the स्वरूप in the Broach temple, singing in पलना and smailing at him He got up with great joy, and after प्रात नित्यकर्म he went for दर्शन He was greatly delighted to have the same fera thers, not in dream, but in relity, There was arity and the 1969 was adorned in the same qamar as he bad seen in the dream, and there was the sune joyful, barling look While he was returning home, Mr Jathisandas, a life long friend of Tolisyala family, called him at big shop, congratulated him ·4) on his passing the 2nd LL, B. examination, advised him to practise in the Bombay High Court, and gave him Rs. 500 required for taking out a Sanad, Malchan. dra say God's hand in all this and without waiting to consult any one, he came tu Bombay, took the Sapad, and began practice. He shared the chamber of the late Mr, Kashidas Narayandas Dalal who was the sub-tenant of Mr. Bhajlal and who was the Secretary of Pandit Gattulâlaji's ETETT. He helped Mr. Kaskidas in preparing the annual feat, and from that time Mr. Kashidas took a liking for him. He allowed him full access to the Library manuscripts fully appreciating his great erudition and learning, and finally got him appointed a trostee of the Het along with the late Shet Tribhovandas Vurjivaodas J.P. The reader will thus see that but for air to his grand-father, the pH of Mulchandra was impossible, that at the time of his birth, the worldly wealth was all taken away by way of the, the suggestion and facility to settle in Bombıy was all due to the Almighty's helping hand, and finally the greatest convenience for his life-svork, vis the possession of an excellent manuscript library of the TESTA was provided for him by God; and but for divine help, not one of these series of important events could. म. र.बु. have been brought about by his ET.yors efforts. The astrologer of luis family predicted from his geset that he would perform a great ११के. and memorable me, and after more than bali of his valuable publications were out, Mulchandra himself understood the meaning of this , and whenever there were difficoltics in his work on account of illness or rant of funds or want of manuscripts, le prayed to God, and the prayers Fore in many casos heard and difficulties solved. 9 १२ ·5 Long before this, Mr Maganlal Shastrı had begun to utilise the eve ofice fund for getting manuscripts copied from earunt's library in consultation with Mulchandrı, but the fund was small, and the work was stopped after some time. In December 1914, Mr. Maganlal Shastri was transferred to the Deccan College, Poona, and he had to lerve Bombay in January 1915. The daily Katha Mandlı at the Khakhar Building came to a stop, and thereupon at the request of his friends, Mulchandra began reading YHT64 and fapt, every night. The Bombay University prescribed for yaralgamalt atrast aglay prize for 1915 the following essay-Discuss how far care truly repre sents the view of the author of the teras'. Mulchandru had gone through the प्रकाश of श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी about four or five times, and with his powerful memory he had materials enough for the required discussion. He thought of writ. lag the essay just a month before it was due and with the wonderful concentration of mind that he possessed, he wrote it out and gave it on the last due date. The language, the outer garment he had no time to correct or adorn, but the thought is so deep, the discussion so balanced, the judgment so impartial, that it is difficult to find fault anywhere, while the comparative method and the wide knowledge that he had gathered from all hav. ing been fully utilised here must have compelled admira ration of his examiners The priza was divided between him and Mr. Kurtkoti The essay is published and is very widely read Scholars like Dr Bhandarkar, Dr Thibeau, and many other Orientalists have long ago come to the conclusion that this interpretation of Emas does not represent arqui's views, but they had not before them wpisy and yetil, and so they thought that we had, hor. ever, well succeeded in making of all important उपनिषता If this vion were correct, The Yould be viser ·6 than बादरायण. We have no doubt that a wide knowledge of अणुभाध्य, प्रकाश and रश्मि would dispel this view, Copies of the Essay were sent to many scholars and many have praised it, and some have expressed their inability to pronounce any judgment as they had not studied the various 2049 by the comparative method. In about 1915, at the request of Mr. Tribhovandas of Nadiad to translate tely, be began collecting fast on it, and at first collected twelve Teekas, come in free of authors themselves. Such a collection was never to be found before in any one library or with any one thatator ordinary lous, and he thought of publishing them. Mr. Tribhovandas had no funds for this work, so Mulchandra approached श्रीजीवनलालजी of पोरबंदर for the same. He immediately consented and sent Rs. 500 for the publication. The work was begun at once, and the first volume of bis memorable series was published in December 1916. It established his reputation in the greener. So many commentaries were never thought of before by any one, much less seen, and now they had them before their eyes all collected, beautifully printed, and with a lucid intro duction in Sanskrit. Three more commentaries were subsequently traced and published along with state. In this प्रकरणप्रन्थ, श्रीवल्लभाचार्य gives a brief and clear idea of the three sorts of realisations, according to one's afirmar i. e. (1) self** UTAZİ, by which a no obtains a vision of God, and enjoys indescribable bliss with Him, is revealed in the श्रुति 'सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म यो वेद निहितं गुहायां परमे व्योमन् सोनुते सर्वान् कामान सह मह्मणा विपश्चिता; (२) सायुज्य, as is stated in 'ततो मां तत्वतो हात्वा विशते तदनन्तरम् ; and (३) वैकुण्ठादिपु सेवोपयोगिदेह, as is stated in staaIt also describes the three hindrances in the path of realisation, उद्वेग, प्रतिबन्ध and भोग, and various means to remove them. In spite of the face, and the fifteen commentaries, the fry is difficult to under- ·8 of its फल, a description of भानन्दमय ब्रह्मन् and मन्नमय, प्राणमय, मनोमय and विज्ञानमय पुरुषा:. Though श्रीवहभाचायं had no time to writo 1548 on various 34f41438, he clearly distinguished अमवाद from मायावाद and other वादs, and chalked out a clear line; fazesye showed by his writings how to progress on the line, and श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी and थीयोगिगोपेश्वरजी have done much by giving the meanings of various gy978, whenever they got opportunities, specially in fort and H. It is the duty of Her Boholars to collect all the passages and compose उपनिषद् भाष्यs on these lines. धीपुरुषोत्तमजी has also written complete 16278 on some face, and it is our daty to find them out and publish them. affirit is another "Tu tu published by him with fourteen commentaries. In order to make it , & man should stay at home (not to leave गृहस्थाश्रम) and worship God with पूजा, श्रवण etc., without caring for unfer if possible, and alivays engage his mind in eau etc., in such a way that he should gradually get प्रेम, आसक्ति and व्यसन, towards God. By प्रेम, the attachment to the world vanishes, by Ant he gets sera towards गृह and गृहस्थानां बापकत्वं अनात्मत्वं च भासते, by व्यसन in कृष्ण, he becomes कृतार्य, having followed the उपदेश in मन्मनाभव मद्भको etc. Even after reaching this stage, he should be Very careful and live in the company of other was engaging himself in सेवा or कथा till he lives. सिद्धान्तमुक्तावली is another SEXUere published by him with nine commentaries. The सिद्धान्त in a nut-shell is कृष्णसेवा. सेवा is तत्प्रवर्ण चेतः, and its साधन is again तनुजावित्तजासेवा. The चित्त thus becomes तन्मय in कृष्ण, संसारदु.ख vanishes and ब्रह्मबोध is the result. कृष्ण is परब्रह्म, अक्षरब्रम has two forms, the second one being tre, which is neither मायिक, nor सगुण nor कार्य, as represented by various schools of philosophy, but तदेवैतत् प्रकारेण भवतीति श्रुतेर्मतम्. Just as the water of the Ganges is efirillar of the power of the Ganges to give a worshipper भोग and मोक्ष is आध्यात्मिक and the देवी गंगर is भाधिदैविक, so are जगत, अक्षरब्रह्म and कृष्ण.

·9 Hence it is no wonder that sicut could show the whole जगत् ० यशोदा in His mouth जीव 15 अक्षरात्मक and अणु n essence, and not by उपाधि It becomes ससारी by उपाधि of अविद्या When अविद्या is removed by प्रपत्ति, जीव knows its true nature of being FET, and worships out as stated in यो यदश स त भजेत् or gets सायुज्य as stated in विशते तदनन्तरम् सिद्धान्तरहस्य Is another important प्रकरणप्रन्थ published by him with eleven commentaries He published with it the much-abused and misinterpreted TERRY 7, and wrote a long and considered introduction in English, so that those who care to know the truth and nothing but the truth about the gfeststera may know it at a glance, and prejudices caused by rumours may be removed This Stan teaches us that by establishing Hapy with , all our ates are removed, that in all fires all things should be dedicated to God, that we should reject all things not dedicated to God, and that we should lead the life of a servant of God That sites are essentially of three different kinds is taught by श्रीवल्लभाचार्य in पुष्टिप्रवाहमर्यादा which is published with four commentaries 'इच्छामात्रेण मनसा प्रवाह सृष्टवान् हरि । वचसा वेद- मार्ग हि पुष्टिं कायेन निश्चय ।' In प्रवाह, फल is only जायस्व, म्रियस्व, in वैदिक मर्यादामार्ग, फल 15 स्वर्गमोक्षादिरूप, and in पुष्टिमार्ग, फल Is कायेन, आनन्दमानकरपादमुखोदरादिरूपेण पुटिजीवs are created for रूपसेवा of God, which is otherwise impossible in 457, TecTC, farm and yu there is no difference between gizetta and God Among मिथतीवर, पुष्टपुष्ट are सर्वज्ञ, like नारद and अपभ, पुष्टिप्रवाहमित्र are क्रियारत like श्रुतदेव and निमि, पुष्टिमर्यादामित्र are गुणज्ञ like भीम भगवान् is the फल of पुष्टजीव, प्रकट or manifest in मजदय and in लोलास्थान वृन्दावन &c भवरत्न 1s another प्रारणग्रन्थ published with five commentaries It teaches that are who has deroted himself to the service of God should give up all anxieties he is merely a servant of God, who 18 morcifal, he should arising from any cause whatever, should remember that always keep his fere in great and livo porcclully, retro-ung, ·10 Pater, he should give up Parell, thinking that whaterer God does, is His eft; thus he should stay on uttering श्रीकृष्णः शरणं मम. TATA, the challenge affixed to the door of greit विश्वेश्वर at Benares by श्रीवल्लभाचार्य, is published by him with the commentary of thymuthusit. It is one of the most diffi. cult अन्यs on वेदान्त re ever met with. वेदान्ताधिकरणमाला is a very clear and beautiful analysis by virgeninust of all the मधिकरणs. The माला of the Fourth मध्याय was re-written by eftetfortaat, as he could not get it. Mulchandra could fortunately trace a single manuscript in the Bhandarkor Research Institute, aud pablished it together with me श्वरजी'. भावप्रकाशिका ब्रह्मसूत्रत्ति which he published is composed by the master-minds श्रीकृष्णचन्द्रजी and श्रीपुरषोत्तमजी. श्रुतिरहस्य contains the स्तुति of श्रीवल्लभाचार्य with quotations frorn वेद of his अमिस्वरूप. भंगारसमण्डन, स्फुरत्कृष्णप्रेमागत, मधुराष्टक, प्रेमागत, परि. वृडाष्टक, गान्धि, मनोइत and इयत्त are the अमेय group of प्रन्य published by him. The full significance of mat & ": cap. not be understood unless ono studies (1) alferctetufige (2) रसनिष्पत्तिप्रकार giren by धीवल्लभाचार्य in येणुगीत and elaborately explained by eigentnost, (3) yfà passages quoted and explained in रासपश्चाध्यायी, (4) मानन्दमयाधिकरण, लिमयरत्याधिरण and 6715274, (5) the synthotical viow of a given in aftaarifary, and the various passages scattered in ratiunt cxplaining the meanings of q, earthG1, TT and tu. If the ultimato roality wore only ETL, 10, 15€, mus &c., and nothing more, it is a question why tho Vedas selected for describing it the word om dorirod from to grow or incrcaso, dorirod from 7 to spread, add zu derived from to taste. All tho throc words aro positire, and signiſs growth liko that of a N. spronding liko that of n2, and sport or the like that of A ?, respectively. The words thomselrcs excludo the idca of a mere fort, which is an illusion of tho mind, ·About October 1917, and Mulchandra and his son were Broach from foror incident on delivery in Diwalı, 112, 11 and they inherently imply परिणाम, my, स्वरूपपरिणाम The श्रुति पूर्णमद पूर्णमिद' also explains that though the जगत् pro ceeds from set, we remains qui as before the Star has explained #114a in detail, giving the meaning (1) of the whole HITIRITE, (2) of each 5 (3) of each 44 (4) of each one and (5 6, 7) of each 2174 T and , thus giving a synthetical view of the whole, and he states that a man who understands atirea thoroughly becomes 9 Fortunately the greater part of his commentary सुबोधिनी on भागवत has been published The first three स्कन्ध have been already published and Mulchandra himself has published फलप्रकरण (दशमस्कन्ध पूर्वार्ध २६-३२) with all the available साहित्य on it, and he has also published दशमउत्तरार्थ (9-79) The work of completing ITA EFFU is in hand, and it will soon be in the hands of the reader The depth and grandeur of stara 8 torchings will be known to the world only when these works are studied Sometimes four or five works were in the press at the same time, and his countenance was full of joy, some one day he could publish them all together His first marriage took place at Ujjain in 1911 12, and he was blessed with a wife who was very pious, spending about two hours every morning in religious observances, bughly devoted to her husband, and had a Mulchandra's mother strong and healthy constitution also was called from Broach, and all lived in Bombay. His income being very limited, they had to live an extre mely frugal life, devoid of all luxuries such as tea, vege tables and milk, but it was peaceful and contented H18 first son was born in 1914, and a daughter was born in 1915 But even tus little happiness did not last long Hlis daughter died, followed by his wifo who died at if on ·12 put to great difficulties for daily food. There were no means to engngo a cook, or a servant to take care of the son. When tho father went to court at 11 A, 1. after locking the room, the son passed his time somehow with the ncighbours, and if the father did not return at 6 P. M., the lonely son would sit in front of the door with a stream of tears flowing from his oyes down the cheeks, and with constant sobs thich no amount of persuasion could check. The ultimately he did arrive, the boy would fly into his arms, and would not leave him even in bed and till next day's fateful hour 11 A, H. One source of his little incoroo vas some small commissions which were given to him by the Chief Judge of the Bombay Small Causes Court, who appreciated his value, thereby showing his great regard for him, for his sterling oharacter and great learning. For this work, pleaders asked him to fix time after 5-30 P, M., which this junior Mulchandra did, but after some bitter experiences of the above nature, he avoided engagements after 5-30 p. m. It was ander such difficulties that the life-work of Mulchandra was done. In 1919 (Vaishakh 1975) he went to starare and रोली at the time of यज्ञोपवीत ceremony of श्रीब्रजभूपणजी. son of ritarrest. He had with him a company of friends including scheme, prera, and others. With their help, he saw the libraries of me and gathered important information from manuscripts from all possible sources, He also saw the Nathadwara Library. The library of sifatli, the second house in which श्रीहरिरायजी and योगिगोपेश्वरजी flou. rished, could not be seen, though many efforts were made, and it still remains to be seen with view to find out all the ग्रन्थs of श्रीहरिरायजी and श्रीयोगिगोपेश्वरजी. It was at the time of this trip that the publication of fiftytait was undertaken, and the circumstances under which it was done, and the important discovery of the frog draft in the ·10 his army, jout to grant difficultics for daily food. There were no maana to engago cook, or a xortant to take ciro of the fon. When tho fatlıcr went to court at 11 A. I. after locking the room, the fon papsoll his time fotochox with the neighboura, nu if the fathor did not relor at GP, X., the Jondis ron woull sit in front of to door with a stream of tears foring from his cher down the checks, and with constant sols srlich no amount of persuasion could check. When ultimately 11o did Arrivc, tho boy would dg into and would not Icaro him crcn in bed and till next day's fateful liour 11 A, X. Onc fource of his little income an romo small commitrions which were givea to him ivy the Chief Judgo of the Bombay Small Causes Court, who ajipircciatrd his valuo, thercly sboring his great regard for him, for his sterling character and great Icarning. For this work, plorders asked him to fix time after 5-80 T', 2., which this junior Mulchandra did, but aftor eomo litter experienccs of the above nature, ho avoided cn. gagonnents after 5-30 p. m. It tas under such difîculties tbat tbe life-work of Xulchandra was donc. In 1919 (Vnjeliakh 1975) ho went to effects and 7. what at tho timo of the commony of a son of weryturint. Ho had with him a company of friends including the sponsertas, and others. With their help, he B2 the libraries of art and patlıcred important ioformat. tion from manuscripts from all possible sources. He also saw the Nathadwara Library. The library of effects, the second house in which श्रीहरिरायजी and योगियोपेश्वरजी flour rished, could not bo scon, though many efforts were made, and it still remains to be seen with a view to find out all the stus of श्रीहरिरायजी and श्रीयोगिगोपेश्वरजी. It was at the timo of this trip that the publication of effugit was undertaken, and the circumstances under which it Tas dono, and the important discovery of the qug draft in the ·13 हस्ताक्षर of श्रीगुसाइजी which it led to, are fully deseribed in the introduction of eftfcqoft-t. His second marriage took place at Surat in 1920, in Hta caste. The dowry was fixed at about Rs. 750, but Mulchandra could ill afford this cash and he got a loan from a friend without asking for it. श्रीवजरनलालजी of Surat graced the marriage procession by his presence. His second wife has two song and a daughter. In 1917, his friend has invited Mulchandra to Anand, and told him in the course of conversation that he had seen ffm at Surat, Mulchandra sent him to Surat to fetch it, which he did. It was a portion found in a very bad condition, and since then Mulohandra tried to collect th manuscripts from all sources, and one of his great desires was to be able to publish भाष्य प्रकाश and रश्मि together. Through the help of श्रीगोकुलनाथजी of वडामंदिर, Bombay, he succeeded in arranging in May 1925 to get funds from the Gordhandas Soopdardas Trust administered by Sheth Lalji Naranji and others, and ourtailed all other activities, so that he might be able to devote his undivided attention to the publication of this great work. He was able to publish only three volumes consisting of the First, Second and Third Padas of the Third stry before his death,* In 1927, Shree Tihayat Maharaja Shree Gordhan. lalji and Lalbāvā Shree Damodarlūlji invited him to ritarare and he went there accompanied by his friends Messrs. Jamnadas Kanji, Gordbandas Pragji and Hira. lal Mulji. He was shown a few pages of the 3rd 672774 . After his death, the work is continued by as; the Fourth Pada of the Third 4674 is pabltsbed, the First Páda of the Fourth oft is al. ready printed, and the Second Páda of the Fourth **54 is in the press.

·14 tion of the first two 48 of the Fourth 414 is subsequently added by ritgaisait. A minute inspection of the manuscript left no doubt in Mulchandra's mind that the author of the work was signist himself. He had a very wonderful genius for research. His creative faculty, powerful imagination, extremely retentive memory and a deep alround knowledge of the Sampradayika Gāthīs helped this aptitude for research to such an extent that he compelled old worn-out manuscripts to speak out, to whom they belonged, from whom they were stolen, when they were written, in whose hand-writing they were and other special details about each of them, with a quickness and preciseness which would win the admiration of even the hero of a detective novel. We would give an instance and narrate the facts in his own words “નવ પુસ્તકના આધારે શ્રીટિપ્પણુજીનું શોધન કરી અમે મુદ્રણકાર્યમાં ફલપ્રકરણના પ્રથમોધ્યાયના અન્તભાગપર્યત આવ્યા. જા હરિ પૈસા એ સાધનીકારિકાનું વ્યાખ્યાન કઈક વિલક્ષણ લાગ્યું. આથી શ્રીપુરુષ- રમજીકૃત પ્રકાશ જે. આ પ્રકાશ પણ શ્રી પુરુષોત્તમજીને નિજ શ્રીહસ્તાક્ષર લખેલે અમારે ત્યાં વિરાજે છે. તે જોતાં નીચેની પંક્તિ વાચવામાં આવી - 'अत्र कारिकाध्याख्यानं टिपपणीपुस्तकेषु दृश्यते सत् पाण्डुलिखने मास्तीति श्री. શૌચાપાને 1 તિમતિ, જાવિ તપેનિ જા અહિં કારિકાવ્યાખ્યાનનું દર્શન ટિપ્પણીપુસ્તકેમ થાય છે, પલિખનમાં નથી, તેથી શ્રીગોકુલનાથજીનું તે હોય એમ લાગે છે, લેખીતથી પણ તેમજ ભાસે છે. એ કારિકાવ્યાખાને શ્રીગોકુલનાથજીનું છે એમ શ્રી પુરુષોત્તમજી કહે છે તે વાતને એ જ કારિકા વ્યાખ્યાનનું સ્વતંત્ર પુસ્તક જે અમારી પાસે વિદ્યમાન છે તે પુષ્ટિ આપે છે. તે પુસ્તકમાં આ પ્રકારે લખેલું છે – ધીમો જતિ શમના કાકા રહને समाते श्रीभाचार्यजीनी कारिका ५॥छे, ते मध्ये पहेली कारिका जे किया सापि सेवार पर कामो न विद्यते । तासां कामस्प संपूर्तिनिष्कामैनेति तास्तथा ॥ १ ॥ જન વિ. આના પછી મુદ્રિત થીટિપ્પણીછમાં વિદ્યમાન સંક્ત વ્યાખ્યાન અક્ષરશઃ આઘન્ત લખેલું છે. શ્રીગોકુલેશના અતરંગ સેવકે એઓ- શ્રીને પુરુષોત્તમભાવથી શ્રીજીસંગાથી વ્યવહારે છે. આથી શ્રી પુરુષોત્તમજીનું કથન કે આ વ્યાખ્યાન શ્રીગોકુલનાથજીનું છે તે સુદઢ થાય છે. આ તો અપ્રસ્તુત પ્રસંગ થયો, પરંતુ આ શ્રીપુરમની પંક્તિથી અન્ય વાર્તા સ્કરી. આ લેખથી

·This line of eigen led to another lipo of thought,
Its substance is -Having corrected the press copy
of fifcoguitsit with the help of nine manuscripts, we came
to the end of the first अध्याय of फलप्रकरण
The explana
tion of fly waif dalt seemed strange to us, therefore we
referred to श्रीपुरुषोत्तमनी' प्रकार on it
We have got a copy
of it in his own handwriting
Therein we read the
following line -"The explanation of 7213 18 seonjo femrat
manuscripts, but it is not in the rough draft therefore it
appears to havs been written by vita1977, the style of
writing also leads to the same conclusion” This
opinion
of श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी is supported by another manuscript of कारिका-
413477 thich is with us
The following 13 found written
in that minuscript - At the end of the 26th stere there
arc fivc and a half affects of starrist, the first of Thiel
is fequaffa eto
This riting is composed by 31" This
is followed by the explanation given a ferrit manuscripts

·16 i, e., that the 'rough draft' must be of equita, and it must be in श्रीबालकृष्णजी' मंदिर as श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी lived at Surat. Led by these inferences, we wrote a letter to start about it who searched his Library, but he could not get the rough draft, and wrote to us accordingly. But this reply could not satisfy our inner self, and we thought of going to Surat for it. We went there on Aso sud 13, and requested sitantnisit to show us the Efeiler deposited in 1991. The Maharaja kindly granted our request, and the next morning-the Rasotsava day, we were overjoyed to have the दर्शन of श्रीटिप्पणीजी in the handwriting of श्रीगुसांईजी himself, referred to as rough draft by sy ATTAUT. Besides tracing the original of Rogoff, some of the other important results of this genius for research which has put the whole Sampradaya in great obligation to him might be summed up as under:- 2. भरुची वैष्णs give the date of श्रीमदभाचार्य's birth as 1529, and not 1535, and the place of birth as 781477 and not चंपारण्य. fulchandra got an old manuscript of होल from these is, in which one old + (about grd or 4th) about 27149567 or ordinary matter was deleted, and the most specially mentioning date and place was substituted, soratching out the old one. There was not the slightost necessity of scratching out the old reste but the writer purposely did it with an ulterior motivc. The maguscript was returned, and since thon it is not produced by वैष्णव उत्सवलाल भरुची ough eatedly demanded. From the timo re say tho mss., we were convinced about the interpolation, thus leaving no doubt that the date giren by its 1529 is not correct, as also the placo 7761477. 3. Very little was known to the ser about 2- it. It was be who pointed out the deep obligation under which eigent was to his To for adoptiog the comparative method of writing, to unearth and publish ·17. as an appendix to Vol. III of भाग्यप्रकाशरश्मि, कृष्णचन्द्रजी' टीका on गुणोपसंहारसाद, and to draw attention to the different इतिश्री' in the field showing which portion was written by sfiduarit himself and which was collected, set right or written by श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी, 4. It was he who obtained the Fourth yr of श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी's अधिकरणमाला from the Bhandarkar Research Institute, and publislied it, ti silomat could not get it, and so he wrote out the Fourth or himself, which also has been printed as an appendix, thus facilitating a comparison between the writings of two master-minds, 5. A copy of some portion of your money was found many years ago, and published in gizuegen. It was well-known then to every student that this contained words, phrases and sentences which were also found in 1 and fa. The portion was published for what it was worth for the information of the public. The matter rested there for several years. Two or three years ago, Mulchandra got a rough draft* of the same portion of the key4, and he had no difficulty in tracing it to Thebanitz, the learned ait of rafter Efferat, and the 191% of श्रुतिरहस्य. In the introduction to भाष्यप्रकाशरश्मि ३.1.1 published in samyat 1982, Aulchandra wrote on p. 12 29 under:-"In conclusion we ought not to omit reference to one york which passes in the name of 14 167 of S'ri Vallabháchirya. Some passages of the parents and the First Pada of the Third Adhyâya and 11 Sutras of the Second Pada have been seen by us. The portion from the Third Adhyâya has been published by us in the monthly Pushti-Bhakti-Sudbi. From the style, this seems to be a clumsy attempt of a writer of recent times. All copies seen by us ara new. The style is such as leaves • The draft is with us at present.

·18 little doubt in our minds as to the spurious nature of this production.". Notwithstanding this, B[r. Jethalal Shah, who has recently published state of 9-3 PTS writes in his introduction on p. 9, "...2844 dainining માને છે કે શ્રી વલ્લભાચાર્ય બ્રહ્મસત્ર ઉપર બે ભાષ્ય રચ્યાં હતાં.તેના પુરાવા તરીકે પુષ્ટિભક્તિસુવાના વર્ષ ૬ માં પ્રકટ થયેલા લખાણને રજુ કરે છે અને તે પ્રકટ થયેલું લખાણ તે “શ્રીમદ્ભાગ્ય અગર બૃહદ્દભાષ્ય છે.” To attribute to Teliwala what he deliberately considered "spurious” is misrepresenting a departed scholar, misleading oneself and misleading the publio. His conclusion which he puts in bold type on p. 16., “પાછળથી કૃષ્ણચન્દ્રજીએ બુદ્દ- 0164 Raj GET" is also duc to ignorance. To say that 43164 derives its name from the una of sita is absurd, because the जिज्ञासा is not जीवजिज्ञासा, but ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा, and the अणुभाष्य is not जीवसूत्राणुभाष्य, but ब्रह्मसूत्राणभाष्य. The present requiron ments of the war are not arguments based on antiquated opinions, but investigation and research which would throw more light on the सम्प्रदाय. 6. It was he who identified a manuscript of galfunft now at Dabhoi, as originally belonging to esteroiderent, son of श्रीगिरिधरजी, tha cldest son of श्रीगुसाइजी. Tho additions inade by ugu lo sainya aro put into brackets in this manuscript. Whilo reading staa, it was found dificult to establish any connection betiroca some sontencos, which difficulty is removed by stratent's additions being thus separatod. The TETAAFU is published from this manuscript, by dulchandra. 7. The idea of collecting all the tag on 4767970s and publishing them together as his, lic successfully carried it out, and helped at and for one with manus. cripts to complote the series. 8. He collected टीकाs of धीगुसाइजी on सिद्धान्तमुफावली and pointed out that engatest had made additions to the 141 at least four times, ·17. Ho laboured hard and succeeded in collecting रश्मि, the monumental work of श्रीयोगिगोपेश्वरजी and with the 19 9. It was he who first found out that tastist of the first house wrote his टीकाs and sent them to his गुरु श्रीवल्लभजी of the fifth house who made many changes in them. The copies made from the original became known asrtanciast's रीकाs, and those that were altered became known as श्रीवल- #'s 1979, 10. He went to tatuer, identified the Fourth epala of भाष्य as written oub wholly by श्रीगुसांइजी, in which second interpretation of first two gas is subsequently added, thus conclusively showing that the whole was written by styuravit. 11. He found out फलप्रकरणप्रकाश in the हस्ताक्षर of श्रीपुरुषो. Tuoi and published the same. 12. He collected two copies of 1944 Tel, first in shtyeitereaft's own hand and got and identified a subsequent copy of TFT in which additions and alterations were made by siyentiavit. He adopted for publication the final copy of soft and hence we find differences in the readings of the प्रकाश in रश्मि, as रश्मिकार श्रीयोगिगोपेश्वरजी had got only the first copy of it with him. 13. He threw new light on effgrizat's life, which is published in the Vol. IV and farmush with dates as traced by him, 14. He found out that the सुवर्णमेखला that श्रीवल्लभाचार्यजी presented was not to श्रीविठ्ठलनाथजी of पंढरपूर, but it was to धी- विठ्ठलनाथजी of विजयनगर, where there was a temple of श्रीविठ्ठलनाथजी, 15. He obtained from startet of go the will of श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी and published the same. 16. He collected and published several fundas in पुष्टिभतिसुधा and वेणुनाद. help of धीगोकुलनाथजी of बड़ा मन्दिर, Bombay, he arranged for publication of the same.

·20 On account of his wide knowledge about the history of the after together with a clear perception of the facts of the case put before him, he was consulted by TEHS in their cases, and his services were ulitised by Sri Gokulnathji of Bombay and his son S'ri Krishnajivanji in Madras and Dharangaon cases, in both of which they succeeded, and also by Shri Gopeshwarji who also yon his case at Madras, Again, if there has an attack against the year and his presence was required at any place, he never re. fused, but started immediately. He had thus to go to fett (near Indore), Mehemdabad, Patan, Savali and other places. The necessity of a Research Institute for the are was recognised through the efforts of Mulchandra by Shri Tikayat Maharaja of Nathadwara, and Shri Vallabhacharyaji, son of S'ri Devakinandanji offered him a decent block of four rooms in Chandrabag, and Mulchan. dra went to live there in Chaitra of 1983. But God willed it otherwise. He follill, went to Broach during the Summer vacation in the High Court, and when he returned in June 1927, he had not thoroughly recovered. He was attacked with unbearable neuralgio pain in the head on 18th June 1927, and he passed array on 26th June 1927. Though he died young, his abilities as a great Scholar were recognised by Oriental scholars as well as Sampradayika scholars. Mr. Woodroffe, Iſr, Keith, the lato Mr. Tansukhram Mansukhram Tripathi, Anant Shastri of Shanti Niketan, Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya, Bal Shastri and Nandkishore Shastri, all acknowledge his scholarship. Mr, Tansukhram was always dolighted with his conrersation, and gave him from his vast collection whatever manuscript or book was requir·ed by him. Nr. Keshar Harsbad Dhran Tu so much delighted to read his introduction of the moment that he came to see him, and expressad a desire to read with him 55 Tulce works, and corrent state was entrusted to him by Wr. Govardhabram's brother to make suitable changes for the second edition. The guiding principle of his life was arrest Phrase in the अन्तर्यामित्रागण of वृहदारण्यक उपनिषद्, meaning "Everything else except God is painful.' He was born tired with the world, for which he had a deep-rooted disgust, and he had realised from very early age that real programas in 1747 * only. There was therefore & touch of eynicists in his words, which were mildly sar. castic even when talking with inen most highly placed in life, and a sort of non-attachment in all his worldly deeds. But his spirit was always young, buoyant and playful, and one enjoyed innocent, slightly mischioyous joy in his company.

·20 On account of his wide knowledge about the hisitory of the gate together with a clear percoption of the facts of the case put before him, he was consulted by Tents in their cages, and his services were ulitised by S'ri Gokulnathji of Bombay and his son Sri Krishnajivaaji in Madras and Dharangaon casos, in both of which they succeeded, and also by Shri Gopeshwarji who also von his case at Madras. Again, if there was an attack against the grassare and his presence was required at any place, he never refused, but started immediately. He had thus to go to feet (near Indore), Mebemdabad, Patan, Savali and other places. The necessity of a Research Iostitute for the are was recognised through the efforts of Mulchandra by Shri Tikayat Maharaja of Nathadwara, and Shri Vallabhacharyaji, son of S'ri Devakinandanji offered him a decent block of four rooms in Chandrabag, and Mulchan. dra went to live there in Chaitra of 1983. But God willed it otherwise. He follill, went to Broach during the Summer vacation in the High Court, and when ho returned in June 1927, he had not thoroughly recoverod. He was attacked with unbearable acuralgio pain in tho head on 18th June 1927, and be passed array on 26th June 1927. Though he died young, his abilities as a great Scholar were recognised by Oriontal scholars as well as Sampradayika scholars. Mr. Woodroffe, Mr. Keith, the late Mr. Tansukhram Afansukhram Tripathi, Apant Shastri of Shanti Niketan, Vidhushiekhara Bliattacharya, Bal Shastri and Nandkishore Shastri, alt acknowledged his scholarship. dir. Tansukhram was always delighted with his conversation, and gave him froin his vast collection whatever manuscript or book was requir- ·- a co-operation. This leads us to note anotlier important trait of his which was completo TT4, ri:,, willing dependence on the vill and wisdom of the Lord, at all times, 21 ed by him. Mr. Keshav Harshad Dhruva vas so much delighted to read his introduction of TAFECTANT that he came to see him, and expressed a desire to read with him साम्प्रदायिक works, and दयारामनो अक्षरदेह was entrusted to him by Mr. Govardhanram's brother to make suitable chan. ges for the second edition. The guiding principle of his life was 'अतोन्यदातम्' । phrase in the अन्तर्यामिनाह्मण of बृहदारण्यक उपनिषद्, meaning Everything else except God is painful.' He was born tired with the world, for which he had a deep-rooted disgust, and he had realised from very early age that real litog vas in #4 Hirata only. There was therefore touch of cynicism in his words, which were mildly sar. castic even when talking with men most biglily placed in life, and a sort of non-attachment in all his worldly deeds, But his spirit was always young, buoyant and playful, and one enjoyed innocent, slightly mischierous joy in his company. He had a very noble heart. Many Brahmins and friends came to him for recommendation-letters or sup. port, and he did whatorer ho could for them. We were sometimes even puzzled to see how ho could help one who had done him wrong or abused him. Tho whole of the Nirnaya Sagar Press, the Proprietor, Manager, Shastri, and compositors, all lored him, and they fcel a void in their daily life without his cheerful presence, The compositors rould whisper in your cars hory he had helped them, and allowed their pro-notes passed to him for advances to be time-barred. It was due to this nobility that he freely acknowledged whatever help he received in bis work by way of money, manuscripts or ·22 however critical and in all matters, however, important. His mind was therefore always at ease, and he was never oppressed with burden or weight on his head for any. thing whatever. "भगवदिच्छा सर्वत्र मुलम्, न बुद्धयादिदोपाः शकुनीयाः ।" 9. 19. 9. 94. This was ingrained in him, and hence under most trying circumstances, he was most light-hearted, This story resulted in other important traits, viz., $9+14, F9 and fa:59, fearlessness, self-respect and solfsacrifice. Though he had nothing, he seemed to possess everything; he could talk straight to a king on equal footing, and while engaged in thereafera, in his small room, he acted like a happy king, surrounded by co. working companions all merry-making, sometimes sitting two on broken chairs, or comfortably couched on the broad handles of a broken easy-chair. The chairs were sometimes discarded and heaped out of the room near the door, for making room for men. His children cried and ran to him to escape the wrath of the mother, and insisted on sitting on his table, full of old manuscripts, or in his lap, while he was deciphering some knotty passage in an old manuscript. The mother of the children perhaps silently cursed the man for his neglect of the house and its inmates, and even expressed her disapprobation in sharp significant words, This was all well as it was, because it was God's will, which is always best, and the work of comparing and correcting manuscripts, somotimes five, sometimes ten at a time, went on till mid. night with the help of a jewel-lamp in the middle. Tietot fra of Surat, as well as most prominent persona. ges and was from Kathíawad, Sind, Calcutta, Nainital and Madras saw him in this room. The difference between the small room and the great man, who was doing the abstruse work of deciphering and publishing old manus. cripts was patent to all, ·Ranchhoddas Patwari also subscribed Rs. 231. Meetings many others followed in quick sucoession. A meeting was immediately hold in Bada Afandir, Bombay, and neart failgist announced Rs. 500 as his subscription to the fund for a memorial to be raised after him. Wr. 23 This epty and resulting from it kept him always collected, though there was the greatest cause for losing one's tempor. If there was a casto-dinner at his place, and there was gone to work and no invitations were sent, he was calm; if there was a procession, and no band was available, he was calm; if people did not pay the money due to him, it was God's will; if members of the family were laid up with illness, if he spas unjustly attacked in newvs-papers, he was not the least disturbed. He went on quietly with his self-imposed work, with a concentration of mind and with a non-attachment to surroundings (in) simply marvellous. This concentra. tion continued even in sleep, and then naturally he got dreams. His little room was filled with hallowed light (so he said and we fully believe him) and he saw, (at any rate he believed he saw) at one time ilgatest and at other times other great persons or S. When he woke dext morning after such a dream, there was a joyous smile on his face which was unmistakable, and the writer can never forget the innocent smile on his face on the morning of the last day of his lite on this Earth, the 26th June, which clearly showed that he had some asla in drcam, His sudden death was a great loss to the #kara, and the hearts of almost all átmas were moved by this great loss. Two telegrams were received from startet eftriata. Iconit fanger, one to take care of his wife and children, and the other to hold a meeting to which he promised to send his representative. A similar telegram was received from aparat terataerah to the same effoct, and ·24 were also held at Ahmedabad, Dabhoi, Sankheda, Mangrol and a dozen other places, and a grand meeting was lield in Bombay on 24th July 1927 in Mulji Jetha Market Hall under the presidentship of the Hon'able Mr. Justice Krislinalal Alohaplal Jhaveri. Goswami S'ri Gokulnathji moved the first resolution as under:-- "वेदान्तना सुप्रसिद्ध गुजराती विद्वान् अने पुष्टिमार्गीय वैष्णव संप्रदायना साहित्यप्रकाशक सद्गत वैष्णव मूलचन्द्र तुलसीदास तेली. घाला वी. ए., एलएल. बी., एम. आर. ए. एस., वकील, हाइकोर्टना, जेठ घद १२ ने रविवार ता. २६ मी जुन १९२७ नी रात्रिए थयला अकाल अवसान बद्दल मुंबईना आचार्योनी, वैष्णवोनी अने सद्गतना मित्रोनी तेमज वखाणनारामओनी आ सभा पोतानो अत्यंत खेद प्रदर्शित फरे छे, अने तेमना अवसानथी समस्त गुजरातने, अने विशेषतः पुष्टि- सम्प्रदायने गयली मोटी खोटनी दिलगीरी साथे नोंध लेछे, अने सद्गतना कुटुंब उपर आवी पडेली आ अणधारी आपत्तिमा तेमना प्रति पोतानी दिलसोजी दर्शावे छे." This resolution was seconded in suitable language by Goswami Sri Ranchhodlalji, son of Sri Jivanlalji of Porebunder, and supported by Mr. Hanumanprasad M.A., the representative specially sent to Bombay from S'ri Nathadwar by Sri Govardhanlalji Tilakayit Alaba. rnja and his son Sri Damodarlalji. He read in the Meeting the letter of condolence sent by His Holiness S'ri Govardhaulalji and gave Rs. 1001 for a suitable memorial. The second resolution was mored by Sheth Lalji Naranji and seconded by Rao Saheb Harjiwan Valji as under: सद्गत रा. मूलचन्द्र तुलसीदास तेलीवालाए अतिशय परिश्रम सहीने प्राचीन दुष्प्राप्य साम्प्रदायिक संस्थत साहित्यने सर्वांग सुंदर प्रकारे प्रसिद्ध करीने आपणने जे ऋणमां मुक्यां छे, ते ऋणमांधी काईक अंशे मुक्त थवाने तेमनु योग्य स्मारक उभु करवाने तथा तेमना कुटुंबना शिक्षणादि सर्व प्रकारक संरक्षणनो प्रबंध करवाने तेमने आ घंने बाबतनी सर्व व्यवस्था कुल सत्तासाथे करवाने नीचेना सभ्योनी पोतानी संख्यामा पधारो करवानी सत्तासाथे कमिटि नीमवानो आ सभा ठराव करे छे, Decont sums were announced for the memorial and a reprezentative com nittee appointed to collect funds.

·SELECT OPINIONS. 'Discuss how far S'ankaracharya truly represents the view of the Acthor of Brahmasutras.' A masteris essay, alticism sober, unbiassed and scholaris. Should be carefully studied by all the students of the Brahmastra. --Nodern Review for September, 1918. 1 This is an able and scholarly dessertation on the well-knori sadject of the correctness of Santara's interpretation of the Bralmasättas of Bådaråyana ...It must borever be said to the author's credit that be sets out the fiets of other Bhashyakiras like Råminuja, Shrikantha, Nimbåtka, and Bhistara 10 various places, and his Exposition of the dificulties to which Saptarécharya is reduced by his desire to get the airgunaydda out of the Satras, must be convinclog to all except those who are pronounced in their 'birtiśeshatvagraha" Indian Review for November, 1918 It is scholarly and shows marks of deep study and thinking -Dr.S Belvalkar, MA, PhD, Prof of Sanskrit, Deccan College, Poona. I bare found it very interesting reading, and you have well dereloped the points on which you tely as showing the differences between Sankara and Badarayana The discussion has brought to my miad a question to which I have clsewhere alladed, namely whether it is not better to bold to two apparently contradictory affirmations, leaving spiritual experience to realise rather than to neglect one at the cost of other. -Sir John Voodrofle-Judge, Calcutta IIigh Court, ·श्रीमदल्लभाचार्याखण्डशुद्धाद्वैतब्रह्मवादोपयुक्तेपु संस्कृतमुद्रितपुस्तकेषु केपाञ्चिन्नामानि मूल्यं मार्गव्ययरहितम्। ० . ० ० ० . ००० ८ . . . . . ८ . . ८ . . ४ . . . ८ " २ ० . " . . रु. भा. पे. १. गायत्रीभाष्यम्। २. तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । १ ३. छान्दोग्यप्रथमाध्यायभाष्यम् । ४. माण्डूक्योपनिषदीपिका। ५. नृसिंहोत्तरतापिनीदीपिका । ६. श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता तत्वदीपादिसहिता । अमृततरङ्गिणीसहिता। २ ८. शाण्डिल्यभक्तिसूत्रभाष्यम् । ९. जैमिनिसूत्रभावार्थपादभाष्यं सविवरणम् । १०. ब्रह्मसूत्रपाठः पाठान्तरसहितः। ११. श्रीमद्रह्मसूत्राणुभाप्यं मूलमानम्। सप्रकाशम्। ૨૨ त्रिसूत्रीसाहित्यमात्रम् । १४. पाठकशास्त्रिटीकायुतम्। सप्रदीपं स्तवकद्वयात्मकम् । ३ सप्रकाशररिम-तृतीयाध्यायः । १६.अ. चतुर्थाध्यायप्रथमद्वितीयपादौ । १ १७. ब्रह्मसूत्रभावप्रकाशिकावृत्तिः । ३ मरीचिकावृत्तिः। २ १९, अधिकरणमाला। २०. अधिकरणसग्रहः। २१. श्रीभागवतं सुवाधिनीसहितम् । प्रथमस्कंधः। २२. प्रकाशः। १ , द्वितीयस्कन्धः। २४. "तृतीयस्कन्धः सप्रकाशः। , दशमस्कन्धजन्मप्रकरणं सप्रकाशम् । ४ २६. सर्वसाहित्यसहितम्। ५ फलप्रकरणं लेखसहितम्। प्रकाशा २९. योजना। दशमस्कंधाटादशाध्यायः (घेणुगीतम्) सर्वसादित्यसहितः। १ " . . . . . १ . . . ४ . 0 . " . . " २ ६ 0 . २३." . " . . . ३ . . . " २७. २८. . ८ " " " ३०. " ·. " " . " २ " " ८ २ . " ८ . " " . 0 . ० . ० . . . " १ . . . " (२) ३१. श्रीमद्भागवतम् । सुबोधिनीसहितम् । दशमस्कन्ध- उत्तरार्धे प्रथममध्यायसप्तकं सलेखम् । २ ३२. द्वितीय २ तृतीय वेदस्तुतिसूक्ष्मटीका। ३५. श्रीदशमस्कन्धटिप्पणी । ३६. तत्त्वदीपनिवन्धः सप्रकाशः । " सप्रकाशावरणभङ्गःप्रकरणद्वयमात्रम् । ७ भागवतार्थप्रकरणे स्कन्धद्वयार्थः। ३९. श्रीमद्भागवतं पालप्रबोधिनीसहितम् । ४०. पत्रावलम्बन सविवरणम् । ४१. श्रीयमुनाष्टकं सर्वटीकोपेतम्। ४२. बालबोधः ४३. सिद्धान्तमुक्तावलिः १ --23. पुष्टिप्रवाहमर्यादा ४५. सिद्धान्तरहस्यम् । ४६. नवरलम्। १ ४७. अन्तःकरणप्रबोधः ४६. विवेकधैर्याश्रयः ४९. कृष्णाश्रयः १ ५०. चतुःश्लोकी १ -५१, भकिवधिनी ५२, पञ्चपद्यानि जलभेदश्च ५३. सध्यासनिर्णयः L५४. निरोधलक्षणं ५५. सेवाफलम् ५६. पुरुषोत्तमनामसहस्रं चन्द्रिकायुतम् । ५७ त्रिविधनामावलिः सरीका। ५८. मधुराष्टकम् सटीकम् । अमूल्यम् ५९. प्रेमामृनं परिवृदाट च ६०. साधलोकत्रयो शिक्षा सटीका । ८६१. विन्मण्डनं मूलमात्रम् । ६२. ससुवर्णसूत्रम् । सर्पटीकोपेतम्। २ ६५. श्रीसर्वोत्तमस्तोत्रं टीशययुतम् । सटीकम् । ० " . . . . - - . . १ . २ १ . " .. . . . . । ० ० ० ० " . ६५. महाररसमण्डनम् । . . ८ ८ ८ ६६. श्रीवल्लभाष्टकम् ६७. सौन्दर्यपद्यम् . . .

·(३) रु.आ. १ 0 ८ . ८ " ८ १ . " . ८ . . . . ४ . . . 0 . ८ ० . ८ . ४ . . . ४ ६८. भक्तिहंसः सटीकः। ६९. , हेतुनिर्णयः १ ५०. वृत्रासुरचतुश्लोकी ७१. नामरत्नस्तोत्रम् ७२. ब्रह्मवादः। ७३. प्रस्थानरत्नाकरः। १ 18. वादावलिः। २ ७५. भागवतशङ्कानिरासवादः। ७६. उत्सवप्रतान। ७७. द्रव्यशुद्धिः। ७८. निर्णयार्णवः। ७९. सेवाकौमुदी। ८०, अशौचनिर्णयः। ८१. भक्तिमार्तण्डः। V८२. ऊर्ध्वपुण्ड्मार्तण्डः। ३. शुद्धाद्वैतमार्तण्डः सिद्धान्तमदीपसहितः। ८४. सप्रकाश शुद्धाद्वैतमार्तण्डः प्रमेयरत्नावश्च । ८५. श्रुतिरहस्यम् । ८६. सत्सिद्धान्तमार्तण्डः। 15७. प्रामजनः। ८८. मारुतशक्तियुतः। ६. वेदान्तचिंतामणिः। ९०. श्रीवल्लभस्तुतिरत्नावलिः । ९१. साम्प्रदायिकब्हत्स्तोत्रसरित्सागरः। ९२. श्रीमदल्लभाचार्यचरितम् । ९३. रसाब्धिमहाकाव्यम् । ६४. मनोदतम्-हृदयदूत च । गुजरानुवादसमेतम् । ९५ श्रीमहोपालपूर्वतापिन्युपनिषद् 96. An Examination of Sankara's refuta.' tion of the Samkhya system 200 97. Discuss how far Sankara truly repre. sents the viety of the author of the Brahma Sutras. 0120 पंडित गठूलालाजीनी पाठशाला केथिड्रलस्ट्रीट भूलेश्वर क . ८ o ه ه ه ه ه ه ه ه ه ه ه م ع م ه م م ه م مه مه . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . ... .. ... मुंबई ०२