·श्रीमहोस्वामिपुरचुडामणि नीलगायन श्रीगोधनगलनी।
म.
प्राक्रन्थ मन् १९१७ श्रावण कृष्ण

·Discuss how fat Sankaracharya luly
represents the view.of 'lbe author
of the Brahmasutras.
BI
M. T. TELIVALA, BAITB
VIL, VIIGI COORT
TITI A SHORT SKETCH OF HIS Lift
11
Mottez
le FIAT ATT ATTET at draft."
SECOND EDMION

·Printed by Mautlal Itclatath Desat at
THE NEWS PRINTING PRESS OF THE GUJARATI
Bake-House Lane, Fort,
BOMBAY,
AND
Pablished by Ranchlordas V. Petladı
Madhav Bhuvan, Kandenadi,
BOMBAY,

·INDEX
SUBJECT.
ΡΑΟΣ,
...
...
1- 4
u..
II.
...
7-31
...
31-54
(1) Adhikara
(2) Veda
(3) Brahman
(4) Human Soul
(5) Jagat
(6) Liberation ...
(7) Conclusion
(8) A Sketch of the author's life
O.
.
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 Ir. D. V. Sankalia, B. A., LL, B., for revising it and reading the proofs. Bombay. 15-4-18. MT. TELIVALA, 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, Gordhandas Pragji, Hiralal Mulji and Purushottam Morporia. Bombal} 20-7-1928. RANOHHODDAS VARJIIYANDAS.

·'धामा स्वेन सदा निरस्तकहकं 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-sätras. The first of these is:-who is the Adhikarin of this S'Astra ? In the S'ugadbikarana (1-3-34-38, B. S.), the Satrakůra declares that, among mortals, S'adras have no Adhikara in this Vedic S'istra, tlough a god has. Among the mcribers of the first three castos who is the Adhikirin? Of course the Traivarnika must be learned in the Vedas, he must be capable of undertaking Sravana, manana etc., be must bo possessed of some desire for spiritual elovation. Theso requirements are necessary, they are suggested, artha. Ishipta, but beyond this, in the whole of the Bralimamitiast, the Satrakára does not consider tho question of Adhikara. Horroer, Sankara maintains that before one undertakos Brahma.Jijndså, lo ought to be possessed of tho four requirements, viz. (1) forenfaretur, ) arte- भोगविराग, (3) शमदमादिसाधनसम्मत , and (4) मुमुक्षुष, These four requirements aro, according to Sankara, sine qua non to the inquiry of Brahman, ard these are, he thinka, suggested by the Sütrakära by the word '' in the met प्रजिज्ञासा'. This 'अय' is used in the sense of भानन्तर्य, nad ·2 presupposes the existence of the four requirements mentioned above, and not a Frigate..' A knowledge of the Karma.mimånga is no condition precedent to the study of Brahma-miminsa. This is the view of Sankaracharya as regards अधिकार. Bhaskara? and Ramàuujaa both waintain thing, and reject the entired of the above-mentioned four requirements. It appears that the Sûtrakâra has in his mind neither of the two views. The 'qari suggests neither this nor that. furat Amar' is the first Sætra of the Brahmamimânsi introducing the reader to the S'Astra. S'ankaracharya rejects in on the grounds that starten may precede waffness of one who has studied Vedanta, and that there is nothing to establish the custom that hier must be studied before anthier. By similar arguments Vallabhas also comes to the same conclusion. To add to this, Bådarů. yaņa and Jaimini are opposed in their views on this point, and as Prof. A.B. Dhruva remarked in his recent Univer. sity lectures, a reader cannot be expected to study the works of the opponent before he studies his own, so a student of ब्रह्ममीमांसा does not necessarily need study धर्ममीमासा before ब्रह्ममीमांसा. It is not disputed that some of the पूर्वमीमांसान्यायs are referred to here, bnt that does not compel us to come to the conclusion that a knowledge of Tittar is a condi.. tion precedent. Bhaskara accepts MSÁHY 24, and says that, this is the view of Bådarayaņa expressed in fatigata alla 1. 'नित्यानित्यविवेकादयः अन्न करणधर्मा. पूर्वाप्रकृताः स्वशन्न चानिर्दिष्टाः कथमिव सत्रकारस्य विवक्षिता इति प्रतिपतुं शक्यते' मा. मा. p. 4. 2. मपिच नित्यानित्यवस्तुविवेकादय. मामासाश्रवणमन्तरेणन संपत्स्यन्ते, फलरकरणेति कर्तव्यताधिकारिविशेषनिश्चयाहते कास्वरूपतत्फ हतस्थिरत्वारियरस्बामनित्यत्वादीनां दुरवरोधाद' 17161, p. 18. 3. 'न तावदानन्दर्यम् , विपर्ययसंभवाद, न च पाठतो नियमः, तत्रापि तथा, न च भाचाराद् व्यवस्था, त्रापि भनियमसमवाद, प्रत्यवायाप्रवणात् ' A. B. PPF 26-27.

·4 Brahman seem to be sine grta non to the study of ब्रह्ममीमांसा. A. Nimbarka writer comes very near this view when he says:-'किं वस्तु यदनन्तरं ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा विधीयते इत्यपेक्षायां मुमुक्षेति तत्सहकारीणि च श्रद्धोपपत्तिपूर्वक्गुरूपसत्यादीनीति' (परपक्षगिरिवन 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 state, 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 starat stelfahrein' 1•1-1, and giving the definition of Brahman in 'TrHTCT TA', he goes on to say that Brahman is revealed from the S'astra i.e. Veda. He means thereby to say that his conception of Brahman is based on Veda alone. śankara says in alfacara 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 '4 49.'. This may be as Sankara says, or may not be as Jayatirtha says. 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 'orelfacara' gives us an opportunity ·Once to consider the attitude of the Satral dra and Sankarn to. wards the Veda. By declaring the maelfare of Brahman, the Satrakûra declares that his conception of Brahman 15 entirely based on Veda He further on declares that तर्क 15 अप्रतिष्ठ Independent reasoning has nothing to do with his conception of Brahman All contradictions are romoved by tabing shelter in the word of the la Sankara's attitude on the whole is undetermined he says आगममानसमधिगम्य एव त्वयमर्थ धर्मवत् । 2 1 6 BS but on good many occasions he deprrts from this rule In 'yang keta' 2 1 27, we have a very clear iostance. Bidariyana removes the difficulty raised by Sankhya in his usual wny, viz taking shelter in the text of the yla, bub Sankara goes further and says 'ननु शब्देनापि न शक्यते विरुद्ध अर्थ प्रतिपत्तुम्' Sankara's shelter 1s अविद्या (अविद्याकल्पितभेदाभ्यु- a) Throughout the whole of the Brahma mimiinsa the Satralara never resorts to any other authority except the und अनुमान which respectively mean श्रुति and स्मृति which is agentot Independent ratiocination has no place in his system. Sapkara fails very badly la representing the view of the Satrakira in not submitting himself to the ideal of the Satrakara Even if Sankara's attitude may be justi fied on philosophical groupds independent of yra, the fact remains that, that is not the way in which the Satrabara would look at it, and so long as he would not, it is useless to discuss that question here To the Satrıkara, any reason ing, not in strict harmony with the letter of the Veda, is useless (ताप्रतिष्ठानादप्यन्यथानुमेयमिति चेदेवमपि अविमोक्षप्रसग 12111) To the Satrılara, Veda is eternal (en a forrart 1 3 29). From the words of the Satra Te 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-'मविपयत्वे ब्रह्मण धात्रयोनित्वानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्, न, ·6 अविद्याकल्पितभेदनिवृत्तिपरत्यात शास्त्रस्य, न हिशानं इदंतया विषयमृतं ब्रह्म प्रतिपादयति, किं तर्हि, प्रत्यगात्मत्वेन भविपयतया प्रतिपादयदविद्याकल्पितं वेद्यवेदितवेदनादिभेदमपprefe' 1-1-4. V.S. From the very undertaking of investigation and definition of Brahman by the Satrakara, it is quite clear that S'ankara is not justified in making the above remark. Bådariyana's whole system is entirely based on the words of yfà, 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 afàam fetite but the relisation of Brahman. Except yfà, and aggarferla, the Satrakära does not take the aid of any other #1 in support of his system. S'aņkara also does not say that be accept any more sms. The later Sankara writers accept six Pramâņas, but with that we are not concerned. If S'aņkara 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 S'ankara's Bhåshya as a whole, one sees a sort of contradiction running through. out, so far as his attitude to the S'astra is concerned, While meeting the Mîmâasakas, he draws a distinction? between पुरुपतत्रत्व and वस्तुतन्त्रत्व. धर्म is पुरुपतत्र, and as such does not admit of any reasoning independent of Veda, while Brahman is atgaa, 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 rt is based on Scripture alone, and does not admit of any nu independent of Veda (2-1-6). If S'apkara had 1. 'पत्तूत परिनिष्पन्नावशद् ब्रह्माणि प्रमाणावराण , सभवेयुरिति, वापि मनोरथमात्रम् , रूपाधभावाद् हि नार्य मर्थः प्रत्यक्षस्य गोचरः, लिंग घमावाच नानुमानादीनाम् , मागममात्र. समधिगम्य एव तु भयमों धर्म xxx श्रुत्यनुगृहीत एवं यत्र तर्कोऽनुभागवेन wataai' 2-1,6. 2. तो न पुरुषव्यापारतन्त्रा महाविद्या, कि तरि, प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणविषयवस्तुशानव वस्तुतन्त्रा 1 1-1-4-8. 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 fà alone, and as such has nothing to do with reasoning, 2-1-29. But his opponents, as they accept art, cannot take advantage of this position. As they resort to make he challenges their position by . S'ankara fitly remarks on this point thus:-'अपि च आगमवलेन ब्रह्मवादी कारणादिस्वरूपं निरूपयतीति नावश्यं तस्य यथादृष्टमेव सर्वमभ्युपगन्तव्यमिति नियमोऽस्ति, परस्य तु दृष्टान्तवलेन कारणादिस्वरूप Parenterat Tezka Pähyminalhaeculary: 2-238. This is a very faithful way of expressing the Sutrakâra's view, and had Sankara followed the same, he would not have 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 Sûtra, atat FAFAEITEIT', the Satrakära undertakes an investigation of Brahman, and then immediately in the next Sutra gives the definition of Brahman, 'TREE Ti', as that in which the vorld has origination, existence and absorption. It is worthy of note that the Satrakâra, instead of defining Brahman as 'सत्यं ज्ञानं अनन्तं ब्रह्म' 'सत्य ज्ञान आनन्दं ब्रह्म,' instead of giving स्वरूपलक्षण, gives कार्यलक्षण, by declaring that the Brahman of which he has undertakon investigation, is the creator of the Universe. [d 'satelfacare', he declare3 further that his definition of Brahman is ·8 entirely based on Scripture. Brahman is cremefTe. Thaº Sätra 'rage4 4a:' is very important, S'aņkara also says that it gives the definition of Brahman. This my must be referred to the, Brahman whose fontent has been undertaken in the first Sutra. Instead of defining Brahman as oferciare', Bâdarayana declares Brahman as that which creates, sustains and absorbs the universe, the reason for this being that the Sætrakâra has not in his mind only the summary of the leading tenets of the Upanishads, but a desire to clear every Vedic 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 Sankhya. Now these Sankhyas attributcd activity not to Brahman-or more correctly to Purusha, but to jada xzfà, while the 999 was chetana but fafter etc., Many of the Vedic thinkers themselves were under the spell of the Sankhyas. Thus, this was the crucial point, on which it was ossontial 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 Brahman is that which creates, sustains, and resolves the world in itself, thereby tacitly rojecting the Sankhya doctrines of get's being fat and fa's being at. Simi. larly, by writing the Sätra utfacare', hc boldly declares that his definition of Brahman is ontirely based on scrip. ture, meaning thereby that the S'âstra teaches the seat of Brahmad and not of what. Thus it appears that the learned Satrakära at onc stroke achieves two objects, viz. le scts aside the doubts of the Vedic passages, and thon with 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 "HTUE4 22:," Brahman as sad is shown to be the cause. In refert, Brahman, as chetano, is shown to be the cause of the universe. In STRATTUT, the same Brahman, as "Antendámaya, is declared to be the cause, In The Brahmän as sad, in Strale out as chetana, and in G-4419 Cut 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 act947:" sets aside the causality of the human soul, though he is chetana. Thus, the learned Satrakâra, while setting aside the doubt as to gra and Turn of the universe, suggests and establishes that the same Kartri and Karana Brabman is afirmare. In other words, सच्चिदानन्द Brahman as सन् ,चित् and आनन्द is the material and efficient cause of the universo, and not jada Prakrity por chetana jiva. Thus by showing the causality of Brahman alone, and suggesting thereby Brahman's unfettered activity, the Satrakára has established that the same Brahman is aferentes. After once declaring in brief his conception of Brahman, the Sútrakâra proceeds to show that, words bearing other senses elsewhere, refer to Brahman alone in the Upanishads, aud even while doing so, he does bring out some essential characteristics of Brahman. With this double end in view,'. ho sooms to arrange his latter portion of the first chapter. Hence, आनन्दमय, अन्तर आदित्य, आकाश, प्राण, परो दिवो ज्योतिः, प्राण, मनोमय प्राणशरीर, अता, अन्तर, अन्तर्यामिन् अहस्य, वैश्वानर,, घुम्वाधायतन, भूमन्, भक्षर, दहर, अंगुठमात्र, प्राण, ज्योतिः, आकाश and विज्ञान 44 are all Brahman, 'Tai neatt' refers to Brahman and jlvåtman, Samprasada refers to Brahman, One clearly sees here that the aim of the Sutrakára 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. Tlio Satrakara, 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 कारणनिर्देश , अस्य जगतो नामरूाम्यां न्यारतम्य अनेकस्तृमोक्तृमंयुक्तस्य प्रतिनियतदेशकारनिमित्तम्यिाफ्लायरय मनसायचिन्त्यरचनाम्पस्य जन्मस्थितिमा यत सर्वज्ञात् सर्वशके कारणाद् भवति तद् ब्रह्मेति वास्यशेप'. From this it can be seen that Brahman which is being investigated by the Sutrakira is sarvana, saruashaktamat, and, therefore, har trı also according to his view as interpreted by Sankara here The Satrakara’s jynûsê 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 "ततु समन्वयात्' (1-1-4), Sankara observes --'इद तु पारमार्थिक कूटस्थ नित्य व्योमवत् सर्वव्यापि सर्वविक्रियारहित नित्यतृप्त निरवयव स्वयंज्योति स्वभाव xxx अतस्तद् ब्रह्म यस्य जिज्ञासा प्रस्तुता' In 'तदनन्यत्वमारभणशब्दादिम्य' (2 1-14), S'ankara labours to show that, in adopting the ideal of अत्यन्त निर्विशेष Brahman, he does not violate the pratyna of the Sutrakara expressed in 'जन्माद्यस्य यत' 1-1-2. The facb that throughout the latter portion of the Brahmamimiasi, Brahman is described as possessed of some attributes, confirms the view that the Satrakâra has not in his mind the जिज्ञासा and शाखसमन्वय that Sankara wants to impose upon him in the समन्वयन, 1-1-4. Vallabha also says, 'नच येन रूपेण समन्वयो मतान्तरस्थै विचारित. तथाग्रे सुनेषु निर्णयोऽस्ति, *1-1-4 p. 115 Kes'ava Bhatta Käs’mırid, after showing the contradiction betwcen the views of the Satrakåra and S'ankara, observes that, according to the reasoning of Sankara, there can neither be anything like जिज्ञास्यब्रह्मन्, nor eren शास्त्रारभ 'परमते तु जिज्ञास्यो दुरुपपाद xxx परमते तु ·विषयस्य दुनिरूपत्वेन शास्त्रारभोऽसभव एवxx 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 ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा does rot refer to Sutrakara'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 आनन्दमयाधिकरण gives a very clear insight into has rer of two Brahmans According to Sankara's own statement, the first ten Satras of Bldırıyang refer to Brahman which Is सर्वज्ञ, सर्वशक्तिमत्, ईश्वर and जन्मस्थितिलयकारण of जगत्, and that It is chetana, and not yada pakrnta The scope of the Vedanta sätras then following is thus explained by him 'द्विरूप हि ब्रह्मावगम्यते, नामरूपविकारभेदोपाधिविशिष्ट, तद्विपरीनं च सर्वोपाधिविव र्जित xxx एवमेकमपि ब्रह्म अपेक्षितोपाधिसबद्ध निरस्तोपाधिसबद्ध चोपास्य त्वेन ज्ञेयत्वेन च वेदान्तेषूपदिश्यते इति प्रदर्शयितु परो प्रन्य आरभ्यते Again in the nest adhakarana-'अन्तस्तद्धर्मोपदेशात्, he says - अपि च यत तु निरस्तसर्व विशेष पारमेश्वर रूप उपदिश्यते भवति तत्र शास्त्रम् , 'अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूप मव्ययमित्यादि, सर्वकारणत्वात्तु विकारधभैरपि वैश्चिद्विशिष्ट परमेश्वर उपास्यत्वेन निर्दिश्यते सर्वकर्मा सर्वकाम सर्वगन्ध सर्वरस इत्यादिना This is how Sankaridravsadistinction between निर्गुण ब्रह्मन् and सगुण ब्रह्मन् So far as his निर्विशेष ब्रह्मन् 1s concerned, the lakshana of Brahman, given by the Sutrakara in 'जन्माद्यस्य यत , has no bearing whatever In भारभणाधिकरण, Sankara says that जन्माद्यस्य यत' etc , has been written by the Sutraktra to refute the Sankhyns and others, but that definition has only reference to the सगुण Brahman Its ईश्वरत्व सर्वज्ञत्व, सर्वशक्तिमत्त्व otc , are not to be attributed to Brahman in the highest seose (परमार्यत) Brahman is called ईश्वर, सर्वज्ञ सर्वशक्तिमत्, so far aa there is अविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेद 'तदेव अविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वर स्येश्वरत्व सर्वज्ञत्व सर्वशक्तिमत्त च, न परमार्थतो विद्ययापास्तसर्वोपाधिस्वरूपे आत्मनि ईशित्रीशितव्यसर्वज्ञत्वादिव्यवहार उपपद्यत' 21-14 Thus according to Śapkara's viov, the Brahman, whose definition is given by the Sutrakira, refers only to the सगुण ब्रान, and the ·12 concluding Satra, 'sgarafe: Teslafa: '1979,' teaching the non-return of those who have reached Brahman, would, by a parity of reasoning, refer to the lower or saguna Brahman, a creature of avidyd. We fail to trace this view to any Satra, noither does Saņkara support it by any Satra, hence, in the absonce of any convincing proof, tre cannot take this to be tho view of the Satrakara. Looking at the Vedanta Mimlosi as a whole, one sees that, in partit state', the Satrakara undertakes the investigation of the Brahman, in FATT64 47:, etc., declares that from is Bralıman's FEITETURA, in Sätras like adaizam, 'कामाय नानुमानापेक्षा, he removes the प्रकृतिकारणता of जगत्, and in Sutras like 'नेनरोऽनुपपत्ते, he removes the कर्तृत्व of jivate man; in the second chapter, the Satrakara declares that even though Brahman Jivatman are ananya, still Brahman is adhiha, this being the reason why unlike Brahman he does sometimes ahita to himself; that Jivatman is the ansa of Brahman, that his Brahman. hood, 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 ftaths secure a body fit for the acquirement of Flat, and in the fourth chapter, this Jivâtman, by the aid of ETTA FATA, reaches Brahman by fant from where he does not return; vide Anubhashya 2-3-29. Dr, Deussen, in his 'System of the Ve danta', on pp. 98-99, thus summarises the teachings of the Brahmasâtras:--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 yurivus mundo and attributes. This is followed, in Adhyâya 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 exegetic in character, as the chief content of which we can, in any case, with Sankara, consider the teaching of the means (AS) 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 loyer doctrine, with its sim 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 (1974m) to a new incarnation, while, on the contrary, others, the worshippers of the Brabran, are led along the way of gods (24) 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 posses. sing attributes 'guna", it is the object of worship, and not of 'perfect knowledge Arpen; 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 mena "his darkness is not yet driven away', This ignorance not yet destroyed', that is, ho possesses only the lower doctrine tre fan', whose content consists of all that has hitherto been mentioned, not the opposed bigher doctrine, the परा विद्या or सम्यग्दर्शनम्, 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, we 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 Bidarayaņa, and the esoteric doctrine of Sankara, and thex prowad's thus tu explaia Sarkans esuderid doc trine:-'In the department of Theology it teaches that the Brahman is not thus or thus, but altogether without attributes ,' distinctions fata'and limitations 'aquf,' and therefore in no way capable of being defned or concoired. And this Brahmap,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 existenco, but only of there boing neither anything different "TAT' from tho Bralımas, nor any plurality of things '.', and that the lyorld extended in names nnd forms is non-existent '982', is only a glamour FIRAT' Thich Brahman of course 'la', as master-magician rentan, projects 'Thefà,' as the dreamer projects dream. forms. In the same way all further Paychology falls away after the saying a neft', 'that thou art is comprehondod, according to which the soul of cach human being is not an emanation, not a part of the Brahman, but fully and completely the Brahman. For lim trio 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 remove, 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, Brahman' 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, Jivåtman and Moksha respectively, and have been shown not to flow naturally from the Sutras of Bådarayana 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 Brahmastras 18 concerned, ſankara's distinction, between the higher fata in farfur farewife and the lower, afara huu pitanfa Brahman, is not found to be counte nanced by the Sttras of Bådarayana The most important Sætras, on this point, are to be found in the second påda of the third Adhyâya The adhi karana, beginning with न स्थानतोऽपि परस्य उभयलिंग सर्वत्र हि, and ending with the sutra 'cial (32 11 21) deals with the question, whether Brahman 1s सविशेष or निर्विशेष or both Thenextadhikarana, beginning with adiant de afatura minit प्रवीति र भूय' and ending with the Sutra प्रतिषेधाच(82 23 30), deals with the question of fata which refers to the fut of Brahman, and not to Brahman itself, or in the words of Deusson, deals with the question of the possibility of kroving the fafeato 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 Satras (3-2, 11 30) in the third chapter, which, as its very namo 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 present. These Sútras 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 Sutrag,' as well as the arrangemeat of them into the adhikaranas. From the first adhikaraṇa (3-2 11-21), Sankara thus works out the father of his Brahman. Accordiog to Sankara, the human soul, when freed from all sufits, becomes identical with Brahman in stages like dreamless sleep. In his Bhashya on the Chhåndagga also, Sankara says that by the word 'en' the yta suggests the identity of the jivatman and Brahman. The Swarûpa 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., सर्वरसः' teaches that Brahman is alate, while another set of Vedic passages like 'अस्थूलमनग्वहस्वमदीर्घम्' 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. is true that we might think that Brahman in itself is fafest, and becomes सविशेष by उपाधिs. But one thing cannot become another by the fact tbat it appears to be connected with limitations (fy): the crystal remains clear even when it has entem; as it is an error to take it red in itself, so in case of Brahman also, the afatire is due to limitations etc., and rests only on Ignorance (curitatefaceliffen TL). Therefore S'apkara concludes that Brahman is free from } ·17 etc, all differences and porfectly unchangeable, and not the contrary, 'अतश्चान्यतरलिगपरिग्रहेऽपि समस्तविशेषरहित निर्विकल्पकमेव प्रभ प्रतिपत्तव्य न तद्विपरीतम् ,' the reason being that in all the passages like '' eto., where the starúpa of Brahman is taught, 16 is declared to be devoid of all limitations 'अपास्तप्तमस्तविशेष' Having worked out the निर्विशेषत्व of Brahman thus, in the next Satra, que fa a TUCHET TER' 3–2-12, S'ankara further elaborates the same by declarıng that Brahmin 19 facrate How does it happen then tlint in many passages of scripture, manifold forms are attributed to Brahman? Should we not admit that by such passages a difference of form 18 actually brought out? 'तस्मात् सविशेषत्वमपि ब्रह्मणोऽभ्युपगन्तव्यम् ' Tor otherwise what is the purpose of the passages of scripture which attribute the differentiation to Brahman? To this it is replied that in every passage where limitations appear", it is further said that Brahman is not affected by them, any पाधिभेद ह्यभेदमेव ब्रह्मण बोधयति शास्त्रम्' Having thus emphasised the निविशेषत्व of Brahman, Sankarn remarks, 'अतश्च न भिनाकार- योगो ब्रह्मण शास्त्रीय इति शक्यते वक्तुम् , भेदस्योपासनार्थ वादभेदे तात्पर्यात् .. The next Satrı, fatas, has been written to terch the cognition of abheda which is preceded by a censure of the perception of bheda How is it that only the aparare Brahman is insisted upon when the Vedic passages describe Brahman as both? To this question, an answer is furnished by anyaga la TUCTEL 3 2 14 Bralıman is not Forfer, because Vedic passages like you eto, expressly declare that निर्विशेष Birhman 18 प्रधान Then what about the Vedic passages teaching Brahman as 3TATTE ? To this an answer is gren in Arge2fz' 2 3 15. As the Dight of the sun call the moon, when it falls on the finger, shares in the finger's limitations, and in conformity with it, seems crooked, when it 13 crooked, strught, when it is strught, so also Brahmin, then it is united with geetagne 3 ·2 18 anaumes ila forms. Such an erfaring is not fire, for it is taught for tlic purpose of am. It is therefore by no means purposcler. All the words of the Upanislinis diavo a purpose, and arc authoritative, but this does not present this vice of Brahman's afrit ctc., from resting on Ignorance all the same, for on inborn Ignorance depende worldly nation as well as those prescribed by the Vala. Tlc Suira, 63978 TT 3-2-16, also teaches the निर्विशेषय of Brahman. The Shtra 'दायति चायोऽपि स्नयते' 3.2.17, cmphasises tło Porfirman of Brahman by quotations from yfa and rofa. After cxplaining the Sätras, "ta ST en inſ77', and green 7 99794 3–2–18-19, in the same strain, Sankara remarks in 'faeterotrani TETTİ 1541699' 9-2-20 :---Just as tho Forggeaffer increases with the increase of water, moves with its motion, is farraigfrafa, in the same way, the one elamuti Brahmnan assumes tho is of 39. In the last Satra, pirata' 3-2-21, Sankara concludes again emphasising the bame 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 मन न उभयलिंग, न faraftafsi fa faa' 3-2-21. The intorpretation of these Sätras by Sankara cannot be taken to be convincing, because it is not consistent with what the Satrakara has said before, and even if we do not mind this inconsistency with the previous Sutras, the interpretation of the Satras 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 does not in the least suggest this mcaning, nor is it to be found in this third chapter, nor in the whole of the Riimipsi Sastra. The word Sarvatra is ·19 para once found before in 'I afhelyen 1-2-1, and there also, no suggestion is to be found in favour of S'anlara's interpretation Hence that explanation owes its existence to S'aņlara's zeal for the Nirvisesha Brahman Even the latter halves of the sentences, quoted by Sankara in support of Nervisesha Brahman, do not support his view, but go against him The first sentence quoted is thiga 'अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययं तथाऽरस निलमगन्धवच यत् । अनाद्यनन्तं महत पर ध्रुव निचाय्य तन्मृत्युमुसात प्रमुच्यते कळ० 3-15 In this passage the samo Biahman which is Asabdam etc is described to be Anadyananta, mahatah and dho uvi, which, in their turn, imply the savrseshatva of Brahman Moreover, when it is established here, that Brahman is Nirvisesha, the following Sætra, *27499 REGATE,' 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 Sutra, stayed on does not appear to be supported by the very texts, which S'ınkara, quotes in his support The first text, quoted by S'aņkara, 13 STEYSHAY' eto, P. 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 prašâsıtrtva, ambar Antadhâu akatua, beginning with drashtritva, and ending with alasopadanatva. Hence to lny unnecessary stress on the negative words hke asthalam etc, and to say that the nruisesha Brah man alone is trught, and to disregard completely the context teaching divine attributes of Brahman like past sitratra 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 pralnti, It is only a nishedha of präkntu or lauksha things,'and not a wholesale negation of everything including even attrı bute diyine libe prašâsıtritux etc The second lathala ·20 . sentence's ETSTH' etc., does not, as already shown above, support S'aņkara's contention that Brabman is absolutely dovoid of any attributes, maafaráttanna'. The third quotation is from the Chbândogya, RT @ 714Ethafar ते यदन्तरा तब्रह्म, 8-14-1. This sentence is very clear. It distinctly teaches that the revelation of names and forms is an (alaktaat695) 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 gnoted from Mundakn "दिव्यो ह्यमूर्तः पुरुषः 17918yat UF- (2-1.12.). That also cannot be taken to teach the out and out nirvisesharva of Brahman., By calling the purusha amûrta, it does not deny murti absolutely, it may be iyatta-parimana, for it, at the same time, says that purusha Brahman is divine-divya, aturFTRAPERI or atenta TIC64. But the passage quoted goes further, and declares that the purusha is greater than the great ahshara Brahman, ETTEITA .. Thus this passage against the nirviseshatła of Brahman. The last sentence quoted by Sankara is from the Brihadiranyaka 'atacant 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, how was Braliman to be sarvânublůh? Fara a geishauri' Taken with the context it further goes against S'ankara's viow. This quotation is at the end of the Jadhu-Bral. mana. In the beginning of the Madhu vidya '. यमात्मेदममृतमिदं 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 भव' is added 'अयं हरयोऽयं वै दश च सहस्राणि न बहूनि च also goos ·21 Te' which directly declaros not the absolute negation in Sankara's sense, but the anantarztpald or sarvalva of Brahman. Hence the so-called prominence-pradhanatá of nirvisesha Brabman, according to Sankara, cannot be fairly worked out here, Sankara’s very appropriate remark नहि वेदवाक्यानां क्स्यचिदर्थवत्त्वं कस्यचिदनर्थवत्त्वमिति युक्तं प्रतिपत्तुं, SALTcatia tara 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 39169, cannot be said to belong to the thing itself, and also because all the syfers are आविद्यक, 'उपाधिनिमित्तस्य वस्तुधर्मत्वानुपपत्ते.' 'उपाधीनामाविद्यकत्वात्,' Even Vedio passages like 'यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान् न विभेति कुतश्चन' at best teach the पाड्मनसातीतत्व and Brahmavid's भयाभाव and not its असन्तनिर्विशेषत्व. The quotation from Geeta 'ज्ञेयं यत् तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वाऽमृतमश्नुते, अनादि- मत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तनासदुच्यते' 13-12, refers to ध्याकृत 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 faga:91 forargita' etc., cannot be prakrita laukika, heya. The illustrations given in the afteTA" Satra 3-2-20, can be explained by the fact that there is no difference in the afafaa either in less or more water. 11544RT. pp. 945-946, B. S. S. Thus it has been shown that so far as the Satras and the texts of the Upanishads are concerned, saņkara's effort to work out the absolute fargetesa of Brahman in this expertiza ( 3-2-11-21 ) cannot be justified. Now in the next efTcu (3-2-22-30 he works out his interpretation in the same strain, and concludes:---'75 11477se afd94', 7 अभावावसान इत्यभ्यवस्यामः' (3-2-22). The Sutra 'प्रकृततावत्त्वं हि afastafet ad ratka a 4:" 3-2-22 is thus explained by saņkara. The विषयवाक्य 'नेति नेति' etc., here chosen, is from the धृहदारण्यक, ·22 In the passage in question, sa am follows a statement of the two rmpas of Brahman viz., and and d. Both thiese forms, according to Sankara, are denied of Brahman by af afa.' It is by the aid of this Satra that śankara establishes his strict war. By denying everything except Brahman which is a col,' he distinguishes his system from the tr4917 of the Bauddhas. Everything except the Brahman is to be denied, and the Brahman itself is to be, if at all, described by all negations. This is the essence of the Vedâ nta according to him. Thus his system should be very aptly called, not the famour, the doctrine of non-duality, but eate' or 'singularism' in the words of Sir Ramkțishộ Bhandarkar. Thus there are two sorts of passages to be found in the Upanishads, one teaching the Brahman as afa 4, and the other teaching it as faldata. Sankara subordinates, nay rojects, the Vedic passages teaching Brahman as aferata, as shown above, calling them useful only in 397971s, which in their tarn, are products of opfatt; nocor. ding to him. On what authority Sankara bases this theory of his, we are unable to trace. No Satra of Badariyana can with certainty be taken as an authority for drawing this distinotion. In doing so, le, it appears, departs from the lines of the Satrakůra. In (8-2-15), le remarks Cafe वेदवाक्यानां कस्यचिदर्थवत्वं कस्यचिदनर्थवाचमिति युक्तं प्रतिपत्त प्रमाणत्वाविशेषाव.' Thus according to the principle laid down by Sankara himself (and this seems to be the vier of the Satrakara who, as a truc Vaidika, has undertaken to set aside face, and to work out harmony, of the conflicting Vedic passages) the fatty would not be set aside, if some passages are subordinated or deprired, as is done by him of their primary importance and significance. Being passages of the Veda, their authoritativcness is equal, and ·23 thoy deserve to be equally respected. The difficulty of contradiction should hare been set aside on the principle Jaid down by Bidarayan in 'श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात् , 2-1-27. This seems to be a very strong piece of argument to refute Sankara's theory of अत्यन्त निर्विशेष 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 fasta between them, would not stand a moment's consideration; the hollowness of this argument is not difficult to be seen. The farta 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'aşkara's way of looking at the yfàs, one must admit, not only subordinates the planta yfas, 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 yhriatu, as was done by the lenrned Sätrakara in 2-1-26-27, is & question, which cannot be satisfactorily solvod. Sankara ought to have accopted tho principle, which lic himself exprossos so vory tersely in 2-1-27. 'शब्दमूलं च पहा, शब्दप्रमाणकं, नेन्द्रियप्रमाण, तद् यथाशब्दमभ्युपगन्तव्यम्, पान्दध उगयमपि प्रह्मणः प्रतिपादयति, अनपरार्ति निरवयवत्वं च, लौकिकानागपि मणिमश्रोषधि- प्रभृतीनां देशकालनिमित्तवैचित्र्यवशात् शक्तयो विरुद्धानेककार्यविषया दृश्यन्ते, ता अपि तावन्नोपदेशमन्तरेण केवलेन तणावगन्तुं शस्यन्ते, अस्य वस्तुन एतावत्य एतत्सहाया एतद्विषया एतत्प्रयोजनाश्च शक्तय इति, विमुताचिन्त्यस्वभावस्य ब्रह्मणो रूपं विना शब्देन न निरूप्येत, तथा बाहुः पौराणिकाः 'अचिन्त्याः खलु ये भावा न तांस्तण योजयेत्, प्रकृतिभ्यः परं यच्च तदचिन्त्यस्य लक्षणम्' इति, तस्मात् शब्दमूल एवं अतीन्द्रियार्थयाथात्म्याधिगमः' Thus Brahman's स्वरूप being अचिन्त्यस्वभावयुक्त there is no विरोध. What 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 Bâdarayaņa. Nimbârka and Ramâanja also favour this view. S'apkara's Parastanae does not seem to have ony connection with the Sätras of Bådarayana, This view is supported by the fact that none of the Vedân ta writers accept Sankara's view of parenta Bralman to be the view of the SQtrakara. Thus, according to Badarayaņa, the same Brahman is both निर्विशेष and सर्वधर्मयुक्त. Sankara's theory of निर्गुण पर and Ayurety Brahman is further shaken off by Rådarêana in 3-2-21, and the Satras following. There the question is raised whether there is any a greater Brahman than which has been described before. The answer given to this question in the following Satras is in the negative. Not only is this Brahman the highest, but another its equal is prohibited. Thus the same Brah'nan which is उभयलिग is the highest. 'परमनः सेतून्मानसम्बन्धभेदव्यपदेशेभ्य' xx सामान्यात्तु' x x 'उपपत्तेश्च' 'तथान्यप्रतिषेधात् ' 3-2-31,32,58,34 35,36. Dr, Thibaut? agrees with the view that S'aņkıra'a theory of Saguna and Nirguņa Bralıman is not recognized by the Satrakára, but he thinks that Sunkarı by reoog. niziog Saguni and Nirguna Hrahmans gives scopu to all sorts of divergently conflicting yfà tex's. But this sounds rather strange. To say that S'ankara understood or harmonised the Upanishads better than Bidarîyana is placing the cart before the liorse. S'onkara's lower Brahman being a creature of pescience, a non-rntity in the higliest sense, the scopo given to planta yfas is also illusive. Bidarasana does not even dreim of such a method, a fact evidenced by the absence of quoted by Sanlara in support of this theory. If in 1. Vide Vedanta Satra 1. Introduction. p. 128. Sacred Books of the East. any Sutra ·27 numerous places the Upanisliada describe Brahman by contrary attributes, Bidarayana lile a trae Vardic, with the great regard that he had for the letter of the Vedi, without subjecting one set to another, or accepting ono set and rejecting another, refers both the sets to the same Bribman, and Brys that it 13 the highest When the factor is pressed against him, lie falls back an the letter of the Veda as in 2-1 27, de FIRL,' saying that Brah. man as to be learnt only from scriptures, and that indepen. dent rejsoning as such has notbing 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 well. Bldirigips decidedly has done better justice to all the yfàs by referring them to one and the same Brohman, while S'aphara's insistence on the fram yfàs alone has rendered his concep tion of Brahmın opon to the charge that it ones ats origin not to Veda or Satras of Bidaray una but to Buddhism (Vide Bhashara's 17764 p. 121) Thus it will be seen that the investigation of the Satrahara refers to Brahmin which is right and usqayda and therefore , but not to farthe Brihman as S'apburn repootedly says Lxcept Bhaskara, all the Bilishy hâris are almost a zreod with the 10w expressed aborc, and coon Bhakkara's fateatud is very mild as coup med to that of Sankara, Tallubb i's commentator truly remarks - 'अतोऽन्यनिषेधो यो वर्तते स सर्व प्रमगोऽन्तनिवेश्येतर निपेधति, न तु सर्वे मिथ्यात्त्येति सुधीभिरवधेयम् ,' p. 953. Anu Bhashya Prilass B.SS. Ialorilyana las established that Brılımın Those investigatiin he bis undertaken, an I those definition he has given in STOR 4T 'is possessed of wonderful po sers, crente- the universe cto, for its sport, 15 Sankara want* t refer the not to Isratiman but to share, the ·28 SO This seems reasons for this being fàrunt and fagurets Here also he departs from the lines of the Sutralara The Sutrahara considers thrs question in 'वैषम्यनैपुण्ये न सापेक्षत्वात तयाहि दर्शयति' 32 27 Badir iyana says that Brahman is not to be charged with partiality or cruelty, for it allots fruits according to धर्माधर्म, Brahman Is र्मसापेक्ष, Veda tenches Though here the Satrabûra gives af andere is the reoson why Brahman is neither face nor Frigo, he feels conscious of the difficulty that if Brahman were to allot fruits according to rates its carenza 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 43HC 3947 that Brahman alone allots fruits and not MYR Givn: fruits according to Ehitis Brahman is not controlled by them to be the reasoning of Bådariyani Of course be says Fricane 19 emaifa, and hence it is possible for Brahman to nllot fruits according to s but then the difficulty arisesof the SOFTIE IS SIT hor 19 Braltaan to create it ? To this his reply is that ofà and sala teach both After remov ing this doubt, he cuts short the argument by the Satra mutta nicaning thereby that Brahman is possessed of all râs, and thnt is in fitness of things a word is BadarAyana s shelter in case of dificulty, while Sankarn's Sonhari's interpretation of these Satrs 18 correct, though according to the reasoning of S ankara's system the answer would be different According to Sanlam's reasoning there is no question of any and figure Brahman's कतृत्व Is आविद्यक hence its फलदातृत्व much more $0, happiness and misery are for, and the human soul is alco 1 creature of nescience How docs Brahman become joined with afà? Of this the Satris giro no trace Even S anbarı does not give any reason for this, as 19 rc marked by Dr Deussen —"In reality (Camera,) there is Is अविद्या ·p 302 nothing else basades Bralıman alone If we imagine we perceive a transformation (Fatt) of Him into the world, a division (12) of Him into a plurality of individual souls, this depends on fa But how does this lappen? How do we manage to decorve ourselves into seciog atrinsformation and a plurility, where in reality Brahman alone is? On this question our authors give us no information System of Vedanta Bidarayana does not give any information on this point, because as shown above, he does not hold this view, and S apbrra does not give any raison 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 fa 19 due to Bralı man (ora amyra ) when Brahman is itself the source from which all activities for, how can Brahman betala Since Bralıman 18 unfettered by anything like faut, 4141, aefat etc, at will it becomes ant or ne Hence Budariyana s system is not to be charged with fauferatu neither luis Bralıman is to be charged vitb partiality or cruelty, for Brahman - erestion 1sआत्मसृष्टि 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, iai, Bimilarly Brahman cannot bo sard to be unjust or cruel to wards its own creation created for the sake of atat only Thus the Brahman whose investigation Bidarayana bas undertaken is-possessed of all 443 1 all wonderful porters, it is independent doer, s atta, * it is untouched by the short-comings of the Jastman, itresides in the heart, 1 सर्वधर्मोपपतेश्च 2-1-37: सोपता च तदर्शनात् 2-1-30 8 जमा पस्यय 1-14 भत्ता चराचरपगार 129 ३ मोगशातिरवि चेन शेष्यात् 1221 6 tsita alamat 1 211 ·30 . 15 it is अदृश्यत्वादिगुणक, it is रूपवत्' it 15 अन्तर्यामिन्, it ts मूमन्,' it is अगुश्मान, it is वैश्वानर, 1t Is प्रादेशमान' and व्यापक, it is दहर, it is सत् चिद्,10 आनन्द 11 It is everything 12 It ists beyond प्रकृति, माया, अविद्या, शरीर, शक्ति, etc Gunas of प्रकृति,14 etc have no सम्बन्ध with st, hence It Is निर्गुण It Is जगत्पनकर्तृ,' it is आनन्दमय,Hit is the support16 of heaven and earth, these attributes are divine The subject 14 of negative श्रुतिs has reference to attributes of प्रकृति etc The negative yfas do not deny the divine attributes of Brahman spoken of in other Vedic passages. This Brahman whose investigation Bidarayana has undertaken, and in whom harmony of all the Vedic passages (समन्वय") has been worked out by him, for its own sport,1s developsis itself into Jadayun itmaka unt terse, without undergoing thc least change, 90 and with out censing to be forcaya It alone shapes, 31 and names the Jadajivîtmaka universe making it Nämarupatmaka also Just as Brahman, by its mysterious poners, makes सदश 2nd चिदश perceptable, while आनन्दा mperceptible, thus developing itself into जडनीवात्मकप्रपञ्च, similarly by making 1 अदृश्यत्र दिगुणको धोक्त 1221 2 रूपोप यासाच 12 23 ग्यधिदेवादिपु सधर्मव्यपदेशात 12-18 4 भूमा सप्रसादादध्युपदेशात् 188 देव प्रमित 1824 6 वैश्वानर साधारणशम्दविशेषात् 1224 7 भामनन्ति चैनमस्मिन् 1232 8 दहर उत्तरेभ्य 13 14 9 जमाघस्य यत 112 नशिग्दम् 115 11 भान दमयोऽभ्याम 1111 12 सर्वत्र प्रसिद्धोपदेशात् 12-1 18 गोगश्चेन्नामशब्दाद 117 14 प्रस्ततावत्वं हि प्रतिषति तनो ब्रवीति च भूय 3222 15 कम्पना 1939 16 घुम्बाचायनन स्वशम्दात् 131 In धानराधिकरण, धानर is described as प्रादेशमात्र snd अभिवमान Recording to scripture 12 32 This also goes to show that there is no ne ia Braliman of the ontradictions are sanctioned by Veda because the act of Brahman Is शालेकसमाम्य Sankera staterpretation of these tro rords as toreed and consequently u rejected by Ramanuja Bhaskara Vallabua Madhya Deossen and others 17 तत्तु सम स्यात् 114 18 लोकवतु हीका कवल्यम् : 133 19 मारमकृते परिणामात् 1426 20 युनेस्तु शम्दमूलत्वात 2127 2A सामूतिम्लपितु त्रिलु उपदेशार 24 20 मन्तर्या 10 ईक्ष ·31 imperceptible the सर्वरूपत्व and सर्वनामत्व, develops एकरूपत्व and PART producing thus an infinite benutiful variety. Giving fruits to Jivas according to their Ås, Brahman is not controlled by them. In becoming sea, it does not become partial or cruel, Brahman is शब्दमूल, Ratiocination has nothing to do with it. On the strength of the letter of the Veda, this Brahman, all-pervading? as it is, is to be reached from whence there is no return, It is one and infinite. It is everything. S'ankara's theory negativing everything is Brahman cannot be supported by any of the Satras of Bad urüyanı. Bådariyana'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 Satrag of Badarayana are concerned, one fails to find any trace of the theory of fatale higher Brahman ind afagia lower ayor Brabmin, that all the passages of the Upanishads. describing Brahman os fa ala' or '90, etc., refer to the same Brulinan, and the ente between these two sets of Vedic passages, transforms itself into a fastermatter the moment ai as such is dismissed from our consideration, and the letter of the Veda is with Implicit fath (ET) followed, without the least attempt to better or modify its natural significance, and thereby accepting Brahman to be possessed of wonderful powers fafara ritis and all attributes 'सर्वधर्म's; or if one fails to see his way to अचिन्त्यै- श्वर्ययुक्त ब्रह्मन् , then he may set aside the विरोध by referring the negative Vedic passages to 'प्राकृत' or 'लौक्कि' पदार्यs and the affirmative to pay divine ones, as is suggested by Ramūnuir, Nimbarb, or even by Vallabha in Textarni fe afarla at sifa 29. 3-2-22. V, S., thus giving equal 1, warfa 3*TT KARIÈ F7 4-1-22.

·32 scope to both Rots of Vedic, passages without following sanhira's incthod of subordinating tho afirmatic to tho calist onc, a incthod which on its rice is not justified Wy trio fact that the Vardıb ng like Barbarigina aro always anx10118 to revcrc all the Vodic paesages Fliether like a af or like with the satac rou cronce Nos let us lako up tlic consideration of thic human soul-Jipatina. The whole body of tho l'odanta Satras dealing with the naturo of thc Jipatuan, 18 to be found in the third pada of tho sccond chapter of thic Bralimami. inansa (23-16 53) Bidarliyana begins thus --In * प्यपाश्रयम्नु स्यात् यद्यपदशा भार तदारमारित्यार 23 10, It is said that birth, death ctc, refer to tho body of tho human soul In poza faranna A, 1t 18 taught that Jivatman has no Zuf Vedio passages deny the 'afer of Jipatman, thoy on the contrary teach the नित्यन्च of Jiva In 'शोज एव' 23-18, at 19 taught that Jiva, though by nature 1979, 18 a 'mat' on the authority of the Veda. S ankara': 10819tence that Jiva 18 only as th' and not a knower goes directly agaiost the wording of the Sätra. In Satras 2-3 19 28, 1t 18 taught that Jivatmın is of the size of an atom, because 'उत्काति, गति and आगति' are spoken of him in the Veda even af ala bo otherwise explained, the fa and emfa do refer to Jivatman as such, that yfà passages describing Jivat man as non-Aņu describe him as such in his capacity of Brahman, where Jiyatroan's Brahmanhood is to be cm phasized, there only he is described as non anu fay Vedic passages do teach Anatvr of Jivâtman as well as suggest it, the objection that the ha of Jivâtman as he is atomic cannot be 'anticoatfa' per vading the whole body, does not stand Just as try trough applied to one part produces coolness in the whole body, similarly the art of Jiritman, atomic as heis, spreads over the hole body, like chandana, Jivåtman has his abode in the heart, th• Vedic passages ·33 teach the same thing on the analogy of the diamond or the lamp, also the Jivitman's & 92 spreads over the whole body These latter instances seem to be given beciuse some ono might urge that minute particles produce coolness in the case of chindana, and that the Jirâtman has no particles, hence just as the light of a diamond spreads over a wider space than is occupied by the diamond, in the same way even though the Jliatman resides in the heart, his chartanya spreads over the whole body 'yu cannot exist without 4, hence, if the Jivitman resides in the heart, and is of the size of an atom, bis chaitanya would not be adatticoulla, this objection is set agide by Badar isina on the analogy of गन्ध Vedic passages also teach the aņuton of the Jivatman The श्रुति passage, प्रज्ञया शरीर समास्य' teaches that by frauer the Jivâtman pervides the whole body Hence the conclusion is that the Jivatmın is of the size of an atom Why is the Jii itmun then said to be fax, etc, if it is ronllyaņu ? If the Jivatman 18 really different from Bralıman, why 18 TAHT eto, taught by the Vedic passages"? These questions the author of the Satras answers in 'TUNER I 14467 2130T 23-29 The Jivatman 13 described as fay Brahmao, etc beciuse he derives these attributes from Brahman on the analogy of the sta Just as the one, though a garantera, is, in Bribadiraṇyakn, described 19 possessing the attributes like 346641", etc which are Brahman s अमाधारणधर्मs, similarly when the ब्रह्मत्व of tho Jivatinan is to be emphasised, ho is described as Forg eto This is the interpretation firoured by Nimbarba and Vallabha, and it is strengthened by the preceding Satra ayawyafafa terefdartTA' 2 3 23, where fara, etc, are cald Modern science is de.ect a fiar in this ft480Aing but Bidarayana's Tiew is clear He wants to say that the Jutåtuan's residence in the heart, bis anotta and big tits are all porcible 9 ·34 to be attributed to the Jirâtman to declare his Brahminhood. Hence, according to Badarîyana, the Jivåtmar is anu, when in Brahmabhava he experiences fauna, etc, on account of his Brahmanhood Râmânuja, Madhra, Nim. birka and S'reekantha all accept the Jivatman to be ani 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 anutır and accepting his fauna With some reservation, khîskara follows Sankara and Vijnana Bhikshu, though breaking the adhikarana from gaysauna', says that Jiva's anulva is due to surfe S ankara evplains the Satra thus the first fatt' of the Satra 2 3 29 refers to 'gre sulfat,' etc, and the sc. cond late to rusa, etc , that the Jivatmin through the adjuncts of gf sofa, etc , is described as anu, just as the 'site', the supreme soul, though des ord of any frå193, is described 39 possessed of all 863, and called a partit, etc, which are autem S anhıra's interpretation has one ndvintage over that of Pamanuja Nadhya, and Sreekanthi in the foot that he espluns the instance of 'hat somehow, while the other writers ful to make out much of it In fact, they seem to huve lost sight of its unportinco Dr Thibaut has also neglected to consider its importance But Vallabha mwages to interpiet it, in an exactly oppo ite way, by showing the appropriteness of the instance He says, just as wiz who is merely a syfircfera, who is not Brahman, is attributed as on account of his Brahmanhood, so the Jiratman on account of his Brilimanhood is described as far etc, though lie 13 34 Vallabha's explanation has this advantage that he has not to add words like gfe or syfu which are never suggestod in any of the Satris of Bidarajana either preceding or following this Satra. Bhiekara's reforence to fartuarit' ·35 2 315, in support of his reference of first '' to syfy, 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'aņkıra's arguments in favour of fauna deserve to be considered independently He observes in 2 3 29,90 lei अणुरात्मेति, उत्पत्त्यश्रवणात्, 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' Sankara thus advances three arguments in favour of the Jivatman's विभुत्व, , (1) उत्पत्त्यश्रवण, (2) परस्यैव ब्रह्मण प्रवेश, (3) argiantud It is worthy of note that none of these argumeats findany support from the Satras of Badariyana The first argument, which S'anharagnies, in favour of the forme of the Jivåtman, has been used by Bidaråyaņa to establish the eternity of the human soul, hence it cannot be taken to be conclusive lhe denial of fit does not conclusively prove that the Ilvatmın is far It cannot be sud because Jira's rufe has been denied, it 19 Brahman, and hence forze, The very argument goes against S'aņkara's viowy of Braat wluch he accepts to be without shaft all It cannot be sard becruse भविद्या has no उत्पत्ति It 13 ब्रह्मन् To this, it may be urged on behalt of S'aņkara that the acceptance of any duality being opposed to the प्रतिज्ञा of 'एकविज्ञानेन सर्व, विज्ञानम् , the नित्यत्व suggested by the denial of उत्पत्ति, results In अभेद-ब्रह्मन् , while अनादित्व alone suggests मिथ्यात्व as in the case of a fear, that is, there cannot be two things eternal hence the first of Jivo, taught by the Satrabala, terches that Jipe is Brahmad, and hence for while aferent thougla af lins in end, hence it is first To this argument, an answer is furnished from the Sutras of Bidarayını, Even accepting the Jivatman to ·36 be नित्य and अणु there is no विरोध of the प्रतिता of 'एकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानम् ' This प्रतिक्षा can be fulfilled by nccepting the Jivâtman to be an 3437 of Brahman, as taught by Bådardy ann later on in अशो नानाव्यपदेशात् , etc, or by taking the humın soul to be a gift of Brahman as done by Mimbarka or parte or farmers by Rîmânuja, and by taling the 22 311a to be pary with Brahman on the principle laid down by the Satralîra in atrapahirapoeta for 2 1-14 The according to Bidariyana, 18 para with अशिन् Brahman, the शक्ति 1s अनन्य with शक्तिमत Brah man, the विशेषण Is अनन्य with विशेभ्य Brahman, hence the knowledge of safra Brahmın includes the knowledge of 17 Jiratman The afat on the other band goes radically against S ankara's views because it can be possible of fulfi ment only when there is 'one' and 'all, and that 'one' 18 'all' The difficulty arising from the Vedio pissages teach ing the farct of Bralıman can well be anen ered on the principle laid down by Badariyana in 2017 21 27 Thus the denial of the off of the human soul cannot be worked out to prove that Jiva is Brahman fag It cannot be taken to be the wen of the author of the Sotras The second argument of Sankara is based on Passage from the छान्दोग्य (VI), अनेन जीवेन आत्मना अनुप्रविश्य THAT IFatlo l'ara Brahman's entrance is taught in this afa lonce says S anbarı, that the Jigât.van is the same as Para Brahman-fax According to the reasoning of S'ankara, in the first place, there can be no srast, the con being व्यापक Nor can re interpret प्रवेश in the sense of सयोग, for Brahman being 4797 inside and outside the ult, even without the declaration of a Brahmancould have develop ed names and forms With this श्रुति if we read 'द्वा सुपर्णा fa 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 derelops names and forms The difficulties, presented by the अद्वैतश्रुतिs and व्यापकत्वश्रुतिर, can be answered by Badariyana on the authority of at hinata' 2 1 27, Hence the argument of Parr Brahman's gaan is not conclusive on the point of Jiva's विभुत्व. The third argument of Sanları is alatt This argument is based on the passage of the stairun heli runs thus -'स एप अणिमा ऐतदात्म्य इद सर्व, तत् सत्य स आत्मा तत् त्वम् afir' It is trught by Uldâlaka to his son retaketu. Ihıs argument is on the whole stronger than the two preceding But even here one cannot say that this argitaraat 18 in the sense of S ankara The m' of a parte as' Ranga Rumánuja remarks, refers to the The Vedic passage has been spoken with a view to teach a 'the hoon ledge of cvorything by the knowledge of one' With this end in view Uddilni z torches his son that this whole Visible unserse is ऐतदात्म्य-प्रार of सद् It is मत्य because सद् 1s its आत्मा, श्वेतकेतु thou art that-ऐतदात्म्य--, a प्ररार of सद्, na being a pronoun refers to the noun taristal But apart from this, the fact remains that Jivn as such is not Brahman, then why does ufo say so? To the Vardıkr tho letter of the Veda is all in all, Its authoritativeness cannot be questioned by him Acoording to Sankara al fe is possible thus refers to Bralımın, freed from far and its products 115. omniscience, on nipotence etc, iphile refers to the huinan soul, frced from afarat and its adjuncts *74*, Buna अंशत्य पर्तृत्व, etc Thus in botl तत् and त्वम् । लाभाणिक Tecond ary sense is to be preferred in perfect disregard of the förut-primary cense S ankara's preference for secondary 1 एन्दोग्यटीक भानरम Series ·37 € ones that can be made out is this, that the Supremo enters with the Juvâtman, and then derelops names and forms The difficulties, presented by the अद्वैतश्रुतिs and व्यापकत्वश्रुतिर, can be answered by Badariyana on the authority of at hinata' 2 1 27, Hence the argument of Parr Brahman's gaan is not conclusive on the point of Jiva's विभुत्व. The third argument of Sanları is alatt This argument is based on the passage of the stairun heli runs thus -'स एप अणिमा ऐतदात्म्य इद सर्व, तत् सत्य स आत्मा तत् त्वम् afir' It is trught by Uldâlaka to his son retaketu. Ihıs argument is on the whole stronger than the two preceding But even here one cannot say that this argitaraat 18 in the sense of S ankara The m' of a parte as' Ranga Rumánuja remarks, refers to the The Vedic passage has been spoken with a view to teach a 'the hoon ledge of cvorything by the knowledge of one' With this end in view Uddilni z torches his son that this whole Visible unserse is ऐतदात्म्य-प्रार of सद् It is मत्य because सद् 1s its आत्मा, श्वेतकेतु thou art that-ऐतदात्म्य--, a प्ररार of सद्, na being a pronoun refers to the noun taristal But apart from this, the fact remains that Jivn as such is not Brahman, then why does ufo say so? To the Vardıkr tho letter of the Veda is all in all, Its authoritativeness cannot be questioned by him Acoording to Sankara al fe is possible thus refers to Bralımın, freed from far and its products 115. omniscience, on nipotence etc, iphile refers to the huinan soul, frced from afarat and its adjuncts *74*, Buna अंशत्य पर्तृत्व, etc Thus in botl तत् and त्वम् । लाभाणिक Tecond ary sense is to be preferred in perfect disregard of the förut-primary cense S ankara's preference for secondary 1 एन्दोग्यटीक भानरम Series ·39 If the reasoning above adopted is correct, then S'ankara's remark, Aire garrafiratyfactura97294764f73117 El qo', has no berring whatever so far as the Sîtras of Bidaråyaņa are concerned It also follows from what has been said above that Sankara's interpretation of the next three Sutras 23 30 31 32 does not seem to bring out the view of the Satrakäia The Sûtrnkâra nowhere suggests this बुद्धिसंयोग or उपाधिसयोग The Satrn, "यावदात्म. भावित्वाच न दोष तद्दर्शनात्,' is not very clear The objection why low ta-Juve is said to be the highest Brahman is set aside by saying that once the Brahmanhood of the Jivâtman becomes munifest, he continues for ever to experience Brahmitvi and with it fasa also It is well said 'व्यापफ्त्वश्रुतिस्तस्य भगवत्त्वेन युज्यते। आनन्दाशाभिव्यक्ती तु तत्र ब्रह्माण्डकोटय । प्रतीयेरन् परिच्छेदो व्यापकत्व च तस्य तत् ॥ Anu Bhasya 23 30. The Brahmanhood-fayret etc, before the Jivâtmın experience, HETAT, is latent in him, 10 the state of ten, fa , etc, develop in him on the analogy that gera which is latent 10 2 child develops in him when he attaids puberty. 'पुस्त्वादिवत् तु अस्य सतोऽभिव्यक्तियोगात् 2 3 31 The next Sutra confirms this view Hence the Jovaiman according to Balaraj ana 18 ay and not 779 or fay as Sankara says, the flyi man is spolen of as Brahman in a secondary sense so long as he is in ATGT but when he is in मुक्तिदशा, when his महत्व becomes प्रकट-hre मन्वन्यपदेश । मुख्य --in primary sense Thus it appears that I nhara has clearig inisunderstood the Sut a 2 ? 29 Regarding this Ur Thibaut also observes 'Wow, in the first place, nothing in ontest warrants the explan tion of the first 'tut by huddh And, which is more importint in the second pl ce, it is tuore 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 sumsåra state. The essence of the soul in whatever state, according to S'ankara's system, is knowledge or intelligence, Whatever is due to its association Tith the buddhi is non-essential, or, more strictly, unrel, false. (Vedanta Sūtra 1 page 55 ) Hence S'ınkara is not right in turning the जीवाणुत्ववोधक Shtras as belonging to पूर्वपक्ष. The next adhiharana, consisting of Satras 33 to 39, establishes that the Jivåtman is a hartâ. In support of the Jivatman's hai tritva, the Satrahârı gnes the following reasons -(1) शास्त्रार्थवत्त्व, (2) विहारोपदेश, (3) करणोपादान and (4) क्यिाव्यपदेश The me in the Satrı 2-3-36, 824EITT क्रियाया न चेनिर्देशविपर्यय ' ends the list of reasons given by the Sitrabara in support of the Jupitman's kar trutva. The next three Stras 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 pleasınt as well as unplensant objects, so the Juâtman doos actions which are sometimes beneficial or harmful to himself, becausc his powers are crippled, and he has no affin which helps one to perceive what is हित or अहित 'उपलब्धिपदनियम , 'शक्ति fariya', 'Atamara,' 2.3-37-38-39. The 'a' in the last Satra, 'समाध्यभावाच' ends the list of reasons given for हिताहितरण After once referring the Sitra 'उपलब्धिवदनियम ' to हिताहितकरण- 19, S'ankara's rcferring the next Sûtru feferrat' to refuto Buddhi's hartritva, and then again the last Sutra FITTara' to show that the Juatman 18 a kartî, is rather forced. The propriety of 'i' comes in thic way, and Badarayana's rending 'समाध्यभावाच' instead of 'समाधिभावाच' तक also a difficulty to meet thich we have to strain ourselves to make out the sense, ·It is very pre The next Sutra is '7277 ata 23 40 important. The diversity in the interpretations of this Sutri by different Bhishyahůras has enbanced our interest in it. S'aņkara in this Satra puts forth the view that the Lartritia of the Jiritman, established by Badurayaņa in the previous adhikarana, is not Jivåtman's Anale Lartr. atva but unfifafa, the Jivåtman's hartritva is a product of nescience, as a matter of fact, the human soul is one of With this end in view, S'apkara proceeds to interpret the Sätra thus -The 'z' in the Satra is used in the sense of fa' and thereby it refutes the view, pat forth in the vious adhikaraña that Jivatman 19 & FThilaeaf The Juvâtman's ad, according to S'ankara, is not fartifak in the sense that heat is far fa# 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 19 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 simile of the carpenter is to be taken as follows the cirpenter 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 as bus body goes, so too tlie soul in its exertions with regard to the organs, manas, etc, is an agent, but not an agent with regard to his own self The soul, as opposed to the car. penter, has not lile luim, limbs with which it could take 6-7 ·42 up the organs, manas, ctc., 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 Bidardyana uses thc 'q' in the senso of q? How can one convince the opponent that '7' is used in the sense of a'? It is more than probable that S'aņkara is trying here to put forward a view that seems to have been never thought of by the Satrakára. It is certain that this is not the view of the Satrakara, and one cannot seriously dispute that S'aņkara here is reading his own individual opinion into the Sûtra of Bådardyana. This opinion is streng. 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 Badarîyana 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 emua enf, 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 at 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., (arna urina), at will works or does not work, Hence no afHTETIT. Vallabha also considers this Satra to be a supplement to the theory of the Jivâtman's per propounded in the preceding Sätras. According to him, the Jivatman is not only a Kartå but a Bhoktâ also. It is not necessary, says ·43 does something, and enjoys it. Vallabha farther says that apica by its very nature is not g 09--unpleasant; drinking milk, etc, is gaty pleasant In either case the view that the Juvâtman's Fira 15 औपाधिक or आविद्यक, and that he is परमार्थत an अकर्ता 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 Sankara. It has been shown that S'aņkara's rendering of the Sutra, ha a 27' 2 3 40, is forced The Satra does not seem to consider the question whether the Jivatman's in 13 स्वाभाविक or औपाधिक, but 2s Ramanuja remarks, this Sacra teaches the 947 or take of the Juvâtman at will, just as a carpenter works or takes rest at will. S'iņkara cannot quote any Satra to prove the seca of the Jivåtman to be औपाधिक or आविद्यक This Sutra cannot help him much If the Juvâtman's Enrafarmera is to be questioned at all, it can be referred to be due to it on the authority of the next Sutra, 'परातु तच्छुते' 2-3 41, rather than to बुद्धि or उपाधि S ankara has, however, independently of the Sätrakara, advanced the following argumeats against the Jivåtunan's स्वाभाविक कर्तृत्व (1) If Jiva's कर्तृत्व 1s स्वाभाविक, then as अमि cannot be free from heat, so Jiva cannot be free from Fist, hence अनिर्मोक्षप्रसग (2) कर्तृत्व 1s दुखरूप (8) मोक्षसिद्धि 1s referred to FETGEEN soul (4) Someyfa passages teach Jiva's with to be a tlak For these reasons, says Sunkara, the Juvatunan is an af The first objection can be met by taking the interpretation of the Sætra like Râmânuja. On the other hand, if gies for 18 insisted upon, then as ge 18 अवेतन, there can be no motive for भोगावाञ्छा, ete , hence कर्तृत्व would be forcy Vallabha also advances the same argumeats in different words He observes, entra ·अनिर्मोक्षः, पराधीनकर्तृत्व एवैतदिति; साक्ष्यस्य तन्मतानुमारिणो वान्यस्य भ्रम एव, कतृत्वे न मुक्तिरिति, नपुंसक एवमुच्येतेति बाह्यवत्, निरिन्द्रियस्यैव समाधिरित्यपि, करणत्वेन बुद्धिवन्न केनापि दृप्यते, तस्मात जीवस्य स्वाभाविकं कर्तृत्वम् , ध्यायतीव लेलायतीवेत्यपि परधर्मानुकरणम् । अयमप्येको धर्मः, स्वाप्ययसं. पत्त्योद्मव्यपदेश पुरस्कृत्य सर्वविप्लवं वदन् उपेक्ष्या. Agnin 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 दुःख in आनन्दमय-all these go to suggest that Sankara is in. flueuced by deeply pessimistic leanings. When pica 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 प्रारूपात्मविज्ञाने देहाद्यध्यासाभावेन वर्तृत्वामावात् कमानधिकार इति वाच्यम, निरध्यस्तरेव देहादिभि. धर्मकरणसंभवात् , मत एवं जीवन्मुक्तानां सर्वे व्यापाराः, तथाच स्मृतिः, 'नैव किञ्चित् क्रोमीति युक्तो मन्येत तत्त्ववित्, पश्यन् पृण्वन् स्पृशन् जिवन् अनन् गच्छन् स्वपन् श्वसन, प्रलपन् विसूजन् गृहन् उन्मिपन् निमिपन् अपि, इन्द्रियाणीन्द्रियार्थेषु वर्तन्ते इति धारयन, ब्रह्मण्याधाय कर्माणि संग लत्तवा क्रोति यः, लिप्यते न पापेन पनपनमिवाभसा'. 'ब्रह्मार्पण ब्रह्म हविः ब्रह्मानौ ग्रह्मणा हुतं, मौव तेन गन्तव्यं ब्रह्मर्मसमाधिना'. These quotations from Geeta slios homes are to be per. formed. They do not say that Jiva is an af, but that he bas to be a cat with by his side. The misery is due to अभिमान and not to कर्तृत्व, Hence Badariyana teaches thab Jiva's वर्तृत्व is due to पर-मात. The yra passages can be explained otherwise. The quotation from छान्दोग्य does not teach कर्तृत्वाभाव, but that कर्तृत्व is duo to आत्मन-बान (7th प्रपाठक). Badariyana teaches the same in परात्तु तच्छुतेः 2-3-41. To add to all this, the Sutrakira nerer suggests any of Saakara's arguments, but boldly goes on declaring Jiva's waica. Hence the most skillul advocate of S'ankara rould fail on this point. Thus the Jiratman's वर्तृत्व is स्वाभाविक.

·46 If we follow S'anhara's Teasoning, this out of Quran Agua goes away. But then we have to cast aside the purport of all the Satras Hence Bådarîyaņa must have in bis mind a view, which refutes this objection of â qh, etc, and at the same time, is thoroughly consistent The difficulty can be solved in two ways —172, (1) by referring this contradiction to Brahman's free and the letter of the Veda, the Veda teaches that Brahman gives fruits, it may be according to #s, or may not be, though giving fruits according to Brahman is independent of F#, #hen Brašman gires fruits according to His sweet will, even then He is not liable to đ974, ate, for Veda teaches so, (2) by toking the brand not as जीवकृतप्रयत्नापेक्ष as all the आचार्यs have done, but as पर--(महा) gsgarder I lie advantage of taking the Satra this may 15 clear. We have not to bring in the word ata from the drift of the #19, but from the Sutra just preceding Accord. ing to this view, the trhole are becomes 5EISTYTA IN START परिणामात् 14 26, it is taught that the सृष्टि 1s आत्मसृष्टि and praefà, in 2 133 ataag atar åter, it is taught that this आत्मसृष्टि आत्मकृति I लावल्यम्, 1 2 3-43 'अशो नानाव्यपदेशात् , etc, at is taught that the Jirutmen is an 45t of het, in faza a fatifea raty gryfarizi 325, it is taught that thc Jivat man's Brahmanhood is farlies--has become latent--by the opformara of Brahman, and to Brahman are due bondage, etc Hence it appears that Brab man, for His own sport alone, out of Hoe snect will, develops Himself into Jada Jiva, and still remyping transcendent, determines that a particular Jisatman will do a particular action, and Ho will gire him a particular fruit. So according to pratosi, Brahman rules His 678, Jiras As is they are stra with Sim The human soul's position can be compared to an actor He has to play the rart allotted to him in ·47 Anita; the happiness and misery trouble him so far as he forgets that his wrica 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 sonl realises that Brahman for His sport guides him to do this or that, he ceases to be miserable; his limited ideas of foreira vanish; he experiences argenti agda '. Forgetting his own fira, 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 stress of Brahman nars. The sea becomes thus a sourcs of pleasure, -and not a source of misery as Sankara says. Brahman makes Jiva work according to His अभिध्यान and लीलार्थ- कृतप्रयन, otherwise His विहित and प्रतिषिद्ध would be purportless, The part allotted to Jiva by Brahman to play would be jeopardised. Thus this Jada.jivâtmaka—Nåmardpåt. maka-Srishti being rf1-597715fà, being Brahman's ett, Brahman is not liable to the shortcomings of partiality and cruelty. The wording of the Satra, ffen. sfar-instead of feffade-also helps us. In this way also, we have to deny in Jiva his efast in agra, and emphasise that he is a creature guided by Brahman's will in all his actions. This seems to be the view of Bådara yaņa suggested from the Satras. With Sankara we can deny Jiva's fan in da, but unlike him we prefer to refer all human activity to Brahman as source, and not to say gf, etc. The section, consisting of Satras 2-3-43-53, deals with the question of the relationsbip of the soul to Brahman. According to Bådarayana, the Jirâtman is the star of Brahman; Brahman is ifte, while the Jivâtman is sin. Like master and servant, the human soul is not different from Brahman, but like spark and ite, he is a 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 Sutrakara. However, S'ankara does not like to accept this vier. Accord. ingly, S'ankara changes 'ai' into 34757'. To take sia in the sense of अंश इव' is clearly modifying the view of Badari. yaņa. Even though certain passages of the Upanishads declare Brahman to be निष्कल निखयव, that does not justify us in rejecting the texts which teach the act of the Jivåtman. Adopting the reasoning which Bidarayana has worked out in 2-1-26-27-'कृत्स्नप्रसक्तिनिरवयवत्वशन्दकोपो वा,' 'ध्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात् , the difficulty can be removed by accept. ing Brahman's swartups to be निरवयव, 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 जीवस्याशत्व- मिति वाच्यम् , नहि ब्रह्म निरंशं साशमिति वा वचिद् लोके सिद्धम् , वेदैरसमधिगम्यत्वात्, सा च श्रुति यथोपपद्यते तथा तदनुघनेन वेदार्थविज्ञानार्थ युक्तिवक्तव्या, xx तपा युक्ति- विस्फुलिंगा इवामेहि जडजीवा विनिर्गता । सर्वत पाणिपादान्तात् सर्वतोऽक्षिशिरोमुयात् ॥ निरिन्द्रियात् स्वरूपेण तादृशादिति निश्चय । सदंशेन जडा. पूर्व चिदशेनेतरे अपि॥ अन्यधर्मतिरोभावान्मलेच्छातोऽस्वतंनिण. । ब्रह्मवादे अंशपक्ष एव' 2-3-43. This seems to be a very fair view of interpreting Badarayana's Sâtras. But in spite of what Bådariyapa and Vallabha might say, the fact remains that this difficulty has been fruitful in producing numerous theories as regards the relation of the liuman soul with Brahman. The rery word sia, though clearly meaning an अवयव, has been subjected to yield senses which, if not trong, cannot be accepted to be correct, or at least cannot be supposed to represent the true viery of Bidariyans.

·49 S'ankara has been honest in saying that he does not accept the theory that the Jivâtman is set of Brahman, when he says that should be taken in the sense of a '. But other Acharyas have worked, from the word 37', a sense suitable to their views It need not be remarked that, according to Bådarîyaņa, ata means a 'part'. The Vedio Mantra using the word 'real also suggests the same thing Let us see what Bb1ekara says. He remarks, *343278 frenatait, te PRERT dogfifa', but this sense is not acceptable to him, and he remarks, falte auta safa, किन्तूपाध्यवछिनस्यानन्यभूतस्य वाचकोऽयमशशब्द प्रयुक्तो यथाविस्फुल्गिस्य'. Thus, according to Bhiskara, 31 means saalea parang forcerza Brahman bas 3a, the sta, because the Vedic passage, 'यथाग्ने धुदा विस्फुलिगा', teaches so Thrs अश 18 भिनाभिन्न with Brahman, his firaca is Emila, while faca is standarta Bhaskara is right in remarking that the Jivåtman is 043 of Brhman is sprrk is of fire, and that he is firata because ofa and a support it, but he 18 wrong in saying that भिनत्व 15 औपाधिक, for the ध्रुति passage quoted does not supportit. Ramanuja takes the word a in the sense of fafore- वस्त्वेक्देश, and so does S reekantha The relation between Brahman and the Jivatmın 19 that of fastcy and favor Nimbârkal takes to mein af The Jivåtman is a afth of Brahmın Hence, according to him the relation between the Jipatmın and Brahman is that of it and ATH. S reekantha’ also accepts this view Accordiog to Madhva, 34733 are different like song and others, or non different like hands, feet, eto To the 1 भशो हि शक्तिरूपो यह्य 2342 वेदानकौस्तुभ of sreenarass Nimbarka 2 Sur R Bhandørkar's Vaishnavism p 161 3 Vids Ramanaja s and 6 res Kantha 8 Bhashyas on thu Sutra • and Madhya's Bhashya ·52 formed कर्मठ actions To them the कारण was neither बधरूप nor दुसरूप nor आवियक, but a परम ब्रह्मकर्म They bad a manifestation of ब्रह्म In कर्म कर्मसु ब्रह्माभिव्यक्ति' This seems to be the proper view of looking at the connection between the to Nimânsia, and it appears that Sankari is perhaps driving at the same thing when he observes in ang atraure' 1-1-4, 'न हि धनिनो गृहस्थस्य धनाभिमानरहितस्य तदेव धनापहारनिमित्त दुस भवति, न च धुण्डलिन कुण्डलित्वाभिमानरहितस्य तदेव कुण्डलित्वाभिमाननिमित्त मुस भवति। मिथ्याभिमानस्तु प्रत्यक्ष सबन्धहेतु' So it followe, from what Bidar îyanı and S'aņkarı any, that area is a cause of misery, but then the र्तृत्व without देहाध्यास--देहसबन्ध is not to be referred to sfèrunt, gfe or safe as S'ankıra says, but to Brahman-Tas Badariyana says. Thus the performance of Lurmas, without GETZT JETfara, as #s, produces in one ब्रह्माभिव्यक्ति in Ms, and ब्रह्मज्ञान produces ब्रह्माभिव्यक्ति in ज्ञान The two Miminsås thus help cach other, and suggest the Ideal of Brahman as मानक्रियाविशिष्ट, the किया referring to सर्प, FT to face and the two together to e7779179, thus giving the full conception of afegits This seems to be the view of Badariyana, and to are unable to reconcilo S'rnkara's reasoning in 'ar fram, and the sccond interpretation of TARTU 191th the Satras of BednrayanAccording to Badariyapa, the human soul can be free from misery, ctc , only when ho realises that lie doos not do anything, but Brahman Para does it-or males hum do it ludya as euch has no place in the system of Badar iyana Then comes the Satra, '397#ta mea. This is read by Bhashars as 'भाभासा एवं च' He rojects the roading of S'ankara rith this romarh - THERAPEUTTAEAETA शाशविपाकल्पस्याचेतनस्य कुतो पयो मोक्षो पा कर्माधिसरो घा। न च परमात्मन ससारित्यमस्तीत्युक्त पुरस्तादको नार्य पार इति' Ramanuja rants to favour Bhas Lara's reading, rod renders it by THE. It matters little whether the Satra is read 15 35677' or From what has eco $31d above, it is not possi. आभसा ·58 ble that Badarayanr could have meant Ta' to refer to the Jivatman's being a f#22T STATE of Brahman, Vallabhr drives at the same thing, when he observes, 'ननु सचिदानन्दस्य ब्रह्मणोंश सचिदानन्द एव भवेदत क्य प्रवाहे प्रवेशो भगवतश्च सर्वकार्याणि तत्राह, आभास एव जीव , आनन्दाशस्य तिरोहितत्वात xx न तु सर्वथा प्रतिविम्ववन्मि थ्यात्व xx अतो न मिथ्यात्वरूप आभासोत्र विवक्षित'. Before concluding the sitafaalituli, the Satm 1 4 22 may be considered Sankara adopts the view of argint -- 'दर्शित तु पुरस्तात् काशकृत्स्नीयस्य पक्षस्य श्रुतिमत्त्वम् ४४ काशकृत्स्नस्याचार्यस्यावि कृत परमेश्वरो जीवो नान्य इति मतम् , आश्मरथ्यस्य तु यद्यपि जीवस्य परस्मादन न्यत्वमभिप्रेत तथापि प्रतिज्ञा सिद्धेरिति सापेक्षत्वाभिधानात् कार्यकारणभाव कियानपि अभिप्रेत इति गम्यते, औडुलोमिपक्षे पुन स्पटमेवावस्थान्तरापेक्षौ भेदाभेदौ गम्येते, तत्र काशकृत्स्नीय मत श्रुत्यनुसारीति गम्यते, प्रतिपिपादयिषितार्थानुसारात् 'तत्त्वमसि' इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्य' Sankara anterprets काशकृत्स्नमत thus- 'अस्यैव पर- मात्मनोऽनेनापि विज्ञानात्मभावेनावस्यानादुपपनमिदमभेदेनोपक्रमणम् '. Rama nuja also takes काशकृत्स's View as सिद्धान्त View, and expluns thus -'य आत्मनि तिछन् आत्मनोऽन्तर' इत्यादिना जीवात्मनि परमात्मन आत्मतया अवस्थिते Vallabha explaing it thus -'भगवत एवा वस्था जीव', but he takes काशकृत्ल 8 view to be different from that of Bidariyana-'अवस्थया व्यवसायात् सिद्धान्नाद्विशेष' What ever may be said as regards the view of Post it is certain that we cannot say with perfect confidence that it is the view of the Satrakıra Bidarayana distinctly says that the Jiva 18 347 and hence to take काशकृत्स्न's View 78 that of Bidaraani, and to take it either in S anhari's sense or Rimánuja's sense is certainly 1. strain on the Satra When the scope of the वाक्यान्वयाधि- करण is considered, one sees that after establishing the ब्रह्मवाक्यत्व of मैत्रेयीब्राह्मण, Budarayana quotes the opinions of these Truters, UE, आश्मरथ्य, औडलोमि and काशकृत्न, to show that according to their views also the ब्रह्मत्वप्रतिपादकत्व मैनेयी- ब्राझण 1s not वाधित Therefore it is not proper to work out Bidar tyana's rnew that अविकृतब्रह्मन् is the same as जीव fieed from अविद्या, ete , from काशकृत्व S Tiew, ·54 Hence the conclusion is that the meeting sila' is not the view of the Sutrakira, neither is the human soul afàlema nor an STATE OF SHL in Sankara's sense According to the Sätrakara, the Jivåtman 18 37 of Brahman as & spark of fire, at is er with Brahman, as 277 is with the afita, still Brahman is ef%, greater than the Juvåtman, The Juvâtman is a waf inheriting his are from Brahmap He is नित्य Re Is अणु, but in the stage of ब्रह्मभाव, he experiences fax, etc, which ever remain permanent, on the analogy that the crown prince becomes the king It ap. peurs thus that Bidarayıņa recepts afecta', and not S'nnkara's absolute Elevat'. This conclusion 18 strengthened by the remark of Sir R Bhandarkar that S'Ankara s system should be more fitly called "Singularism', rather than Blonism or Adraitism Tode Vaishnav- Ism, p 159 JAGAT. The sccond Sætra of Badarîyata giros tho setor of Brahman Irom this definition of Brahman Tre know that according to Badari sana this uniscrse 1 Brahman's कृति and परिणाम Brahmin is both tho material and the efficient cause of the universe It 18 important to note here that the definition of Brahman giren by Badarliyana must be of tho kime Brahman tehoso investigation he has proposed to undortale in the first Satra arat all, that 15, Brılman alonc, puro and simple, whose inrostigation Badarigana hag undertalco, is tho material as well as tho eficient causo of this unrcrso. Bidarayant again rerorts to this question in 14 23 27. While refuting the Sänkbya's aglama, he elaborates his dortrine which lie has expressed in brief before. Tho Sutra 'htfaz alapzYTTET 1-4 23 dcolares agunst the Sankhya that Brauman is IT as well as ·55 fafanart of the universe. The site and tras of Uddalaka naturally yield the same sense To support Brahman's कर्तृत्व and प्रकृतित्व, Badarayana entes ब्रह्मन् 3 अभिध्या Brahman's ईक्षा, काम and बहुभवन support Brahman's उभयविधकारणत्व The ध्रुति and स्मृति both teach that the universe has tts प्रभव and प्रलय In Brahman This is also a reason why Brahman 18 both the material as well as the efficient cause of the uni- Terse The next Satra, za afer45 1-4 26, throws much light on the system of Bådarayana Whether one takes 'आत्मकृते परिणामात्' as one Sutra, or 'आत्मकृते ' and 'परिणामात्' as two distinct Sutras, the result is almost the same The Sutra is based on a passage from the तैत्तिरीय 27. 'तदात्मान स्वयमकुरुत This passage suggests the कर्मत्व and कर्तृत्व of Brahman, 'आत्मानमिति कर्मत्व स्वयमकुफ्तेति कर्तृत्वम् How can the "पूर्वसिद्ध' sat Brahman be कर्तृ and कर्म 2 rhe answer to this objection is 'परिणामात् The पूर्वसिद्ध sat आत्मा ब्रह्मन् developed itself into the universe Brahmın 18 th Thus Brahman's प्रकृतित्व 15 प्रसिद्ध एव ब्रह्मण प्रकृतित्व प्रसिद्धम् 1 427Though Brahman 18 the material cause, it does not require a seprrate fafitir as in the case of an earthen pot and a potter. In the world, one sees that the guet and fafia 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 यत्पुनरिंदमुक्त मीक्षापूर्वक कर्तृत्व निमित्तकारणेषु एव फुलालादिपु लोके दृष्ट नोपादानेष्वित्यादि, तत्प्रत्युच्यते न लोकवदिह भवितव्यम्, न ह्ययमनुमानगम्योऽर्थ , शब्दगम्यत्वात्त्व स्यार्थस्य यथाशब्दमिह भवितव्यम् शब्दश्वेक्षितुरीश्वरस्य प्रकृतित्वं प्रतिपादयतीत्यवो. TH' This is what S'ankıra 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 anlara on these Sätrag (1 4 23 27) is correct as it stands, the qualification which he has 10 hus ·56 mind and which he suggests by the use of the word ofere instead of Brahman, cannot be justified as legitimate. A Nimbärka vriter Kesavabbatta Kashmatria thus criticises Sankara:--'परमते तु तत्त्वं दुघर्ट, कार्यस्य कल्पितत्वांगीकारेण फुलालबदुपादान- गोचरप्रयत्नचिकीपादिमत्त्वासम्भवात् xx दृष्टान्तासंभवादिति संक्षेपः. N. B. pp. 351-352. The same writer then criticises lidmânuja, 'tag farfaffeta erditate17q etc., pp. 352-353 N. B. Thus in order to emplasize onlar ise of Bralman, Ramiauja and S'reekantha accepted frafalgar as 3969, Bhaskara and Nimbarka accepted ब्रह्मन् ७ शक्ति as उपादान, Nfadhva accepted प्रकृति to be the 3417, Vijnanabhikshu also accepted sztà to be the उपादान, the difference being that his प्रकृति is अविभक्त with Brahman, and that it becomes the 54t7 under the 3RT of Brahman, while wat is only a feat. Here it is quite clear that all these writers, though modifying the ra FESTA'S 396776, do not reject it altogether. Now remain the two writers Sankara and Vallabha. Their rieryg are entirely opposed. S'apkara by delegating Brahman's 34tet tar to the sphere of sfarsit rejects it, while Vallabha like Bidariyana, following strictly the letter of the Veda, accepts it out and out. In rejecting Bralıman's 391577ar, S'ankara has to subject the whole body of the Vedanta Satras to a secondary sense. la teaches TFT and at the same time its fakta, Badarayana does not care for the objections based on ał if the letter of theyla is strictly followed. This view is followed by Vallabha, who, like Badarayaņa, gives greater weight to the word of the yfa than to pure reason 95 nf, wben they appear opposed to each other, Other Acharyas have tried to folloty Badara- Jana with slight changes to satisfy reasons. It is only S'ankara who in rejecting Tata fattandet.has chalked out lines of reasoning ichich run in an entii cly opposite direction, Sir Ramakrishna Bhandarkar says the same in Jis recent book Vaishnavism etc., pp. 158-159, 160-161.

·57 Drawing a distinction between Spinoza's Pantheism and Uprnishad l'antheism hesiys-Brahmın is not exhausted in the world, but it exists separately also. But the objection to this view 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 Bâdarayana in Brıhmisktras (2-1-26-27). The argument is that though the Upanıslınds state that the constituent cause of the world is Brahman, they at the same time affirm the existence of Brihmon separately from the world, (Ch. U. III, 12 6 and VI, 3, 2) The two rre inconsis. tent on the theory that Brahman is a 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 human intellect This solution of the difficulty is inadmissible to non believers in the sncred texts, but it shows that Bådtråyanı does not agree with the latter part of Spinoza's detination of Pantheism, i e, according to hun the sicred texts do not affirm that "God exists only as rezlısed in the cosmos the cosmos exists only as a manifestation of God" The inconsistency pointed out hy him is based on the impossible conception of Brahman's being divisible into parts 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 fiom another point of view it remams pure and becomes the object of contemplation and devotion. Whatever it may be, Bå laruyana's view appears to me to be correct, and the Pantheism of the Upinishids is not exactly the same as that formulated by Spinoza Х We have noticed above the manner in which Bada 8 X ·Q0 of the universe. Madhy, not accepting this, has failed to make out anything of the Brahma Sætras, Sir R, Bhandarkar most accurately remarks, 'He denies his (Brahman's) being the material cause of the world. All the Satras of Bådarayana which set forth that doctrine have been interpreted by him in an entirely different way. Probabiy he would have set aside the Brahmar Satras altogether, but he could not do so, since the work had acquired an ud. contested authoritativeness as regards religious truth before his time He had therefore to show that his system did not go against the Bruma Sûtras and therefore accepted them and interpreted them in almost & fantastic manner, Texts from the Upanishads, too, which do not agree with his doctrines be treats similarly.' Vaishnavism S'alvism. p 58. To a certain extent thus remark of Sir R. Bhandarlar apphes to Vijnana Bhikshu also The difference between Madhva and Bhikshu is this \adhja Tants to empha- Size TYSTI FATITETS4, while Bhiksha 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 inodify the TFTURIT of Bidariyann, is the ferr of faalà If Brahman were taken to be the material cause, it would undergo change, and consequently it would be erface and cease to be Brahman, fatiusgaFT To void this difficulty S'agkara delegated Brahman's crusality to fait fait कल्पितेन च नामरूपलक्षणेन रूपभेदेन व्याकृतान्याकृतात्मकेन तत्त्वातत्त्वाभ्यामनिर्वचनी. a la afcercariah PELETTERE sanud 9127 Riminuje for the same reason did not accept the setT9fon, and substituted for wstead of pure Bradman of Badarayans 'मृत्मवर्णादिवद् ब्रह्मस्वरूपपरिणामस्तु नैवाभ्युपगन्यते, अविकार mafaniraniya 21-13. R. B Anand Press 11 23 Sunular is the reasoning of Sreekantha. Nimbůrka and Bhaskara > ·61 for the same reason substute an instead of Brahman, 'ब्रह्म स्वशक्तिविक्षेपेण जगदाकार आत्मान परिणामयति N. B 847-57 परिणामो द्विविध , स्वरूपपरिणाम शक्तिविक्षेपलक्षणपरिणामश्च, ४४ श्रीपुरुषोत्तम स्वात्मक- स्वाधिष्ठितनिजशक्तिविक्षेपेण जगदाकार स्वात्मान परिणामयति केशवभकाश्मीरिन् . 'परिणामात परिणामोन शक्तिविक्षेपरूपो, न तु स्वरूपपरिणामस्तस्मान विकारसभावना वकाश इति' परपक्षगिरिवज्र p 369 Thus according to Nimbarka writers, परिणाम Is not Brahman s but its शक्ति, the modi fication owing its existence to the fear of fart Similarly Bhushara 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 Vyn nabhikshu for the same reason rejects Brahman's उपादानकारणता and substitutes अधिष्ठानकारणता of Brahman 'ब्रह्मणश्च स्वाविभक्तप्रकृत्याद्युपष्टभकत्व साक्षितामानणेति जगत्कारणत्वे ऽपि न ब्रह्मणो विकारित्व' भिक्षुभाष्य p 32 112 Madhya also for the same reason refuses to accept Brahman's उपादानकारणता Vallabha only is an exception to this rule He accepts like Badaraynne that Brahman alone is the उपादानकारण Thus he accepts ब्रह्मस्वरूपपरिणाम In this he seems to be following Bå lurayını 19 remırked by Sir R. Bhandarkar on PP 160 161, in Varshnavism etc It has been shorn above that according to Bâdarayana, Brahman is the material as well as the efficient cause of the universe, in other words, this Jagat 1s ब्रह्मकृति and ब्रह्मपरिणाम To this the Sankays raises an objection in 2126 कुलप्रसक्तिनिरवयवत्व शब्दकोपो वा' If Brahman were the material cure, then either there would be कृत्नप्रसक्ति, and hence मूलोच्छेद or the निरवयवत्व प्रतिपादक Vedic passages would have to be struned ſo this the anster furnished by the Sûtrıkåra is very aguificant The Sutrakar. says 'श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात्' 2 127 As श्रुति ·50 > of the universe Madhri, not accepting this, his failed to make out anything of the Brabia Satras Sir R Bhandarkar most accurately remarks, 'He denies his (Brahman's) being the material cause of the world All the Sätras of Badarîyaria which set forth that dootrine have been inter preted by him in an entirely different way Probably le would have set aside the Brahma Satrus altogother, but he could not do so, since the work had acquired an up contested authoritativeness as regirds rel, ons truth before his time He had therefore to show that lirs system did not go against tho Brahma Sitrus and thore fore accepted them and interpreted them in almost a fantastic manner lexts from the Upanishads, too, wlich do not agree math his doctrines he tronts similars Vaishnavism Sanism p 58 To a certain extent this remark of Sir R Bhandarkar applies to Vijnina Blutkslu also The differenco botireon Madhvi and Bukshu is this ~\adhi 7 wants to cmplia Bize VR IGFAHTE TERT, while Blil sluu is anxious to work out an अविरोध between tho गांख्य, वैशेपिर योग An Vedanta etc, in offort though praecworthy, cannot be justificd But tho snost important roson plich lol all tho rritors to modify the Tia of Bilarnynn7, 19 the four of fazla If Rrahman were takeo to lie the linternal crusc, it would andorgo chango, and coacquently it would be efore and CC180 to be Brahmin far To avoid tlus difficulty Sanlara delegated Brahmin 8 crustlity to alone tofaut कपितेन च नामरूप रणेन पभेदेन व्यानाध्यापनात्मकन तावातावाम्यामनिर्वाचनी येन प्रन्न परिणामादिसनव्यवहारास्पदच प्रतिपद्यत 2127 Ramanuja for tho samo reason did not accept the RTO ROTTA, and substitutod farfalafTetatt instead of pure Brahman of Badartyan. 'मृत्युरादिवत् प्रापरूपपरिणामस्तु नवाम्युग्ग यते, अविकार fantaua. 2113 1. 1 Anand P1c98 1 23 Simlar is the reasoning of Srcehantha Nimbirka and Bi Askara ·61 for the same reason subsıtute afert instead of Brahman, 'ब्रह्म स्वशक्तिविक्षेपेण जगदाकार आत्मान परिणामयति'N B 347-57 परिणामो द्विविध स्वरूपपरिणाम शक्तिविक्षेपलपणपरिणामच xx 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 owing its existence to the fear of faFITS Similarly Bhaskars writes 'शक्तिविक्षेप कृतवान् 1-4 25 P 85 Bhaskara Bhashya अप्रच्युतस्वरूपस्य शक्तिविक्षेपलमण । परिणामो यथा तन्तुनाभस्य परत नुवत् ॥ 21 14. 'स हि स्वेच्छया स्वात्मान लोकहितार्थ परिणामयन् स्वशक्त्यनुसारेण परिणामयति भास्करभाष्य 2114 Thus Bhaskara also does not accept ब्रह्मपरिणाम' Viyntnabhikshu for the same rerson rejects Brahman's उपादानकारणता and subst tutes अधिष्ठानकारणता of Brahman ब्रह्मणश्च स्वाविभतप्रत्याशुपटभकत्व साक्षितामानणेति गत्कारणत्वे ऽपि न ब्रह्मणो विकारित्व भिक्षुभाष्य p 32 1 12 Madhva also for the same reason refuses to accept Brahman s उपादानकारणता Vallabha only 18 an exception to this rule He nccepts like Badarayana that Brahman alone is the उपादानकारण Thus he nccepts FF7679 F# In this he seems to be following Bâ laryan is remarked by Sir R Bhandarkar on PP 160 161, in Vaishnivism etc It has been shown above that according to Brdariyaņa Brahman is the material ag well as the effic ent cause of the un rse, in other words, this Jagat is ब्रह्मति and ब्रह्मपरिणाम To this the Sankhya raises an objection in 2 126 कृत्स्नप्रसक्तिनिरवयवत्व शब्दकोपो वा If Brahman were the material eru e, then either there would be wrap ud bedre retard or the fagerare sfante Vedic passages would have to be struined To this the answer furnished by the Satrakira is very significınt The Sttrahara says 'श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात् 2127 As श्रुति ·60 of the universe Madhe, not accepting this, has failed to make out anything of the Brabını Sätras Sir R Bhandar kar most accurately remarks, 'He denies 1719 (Brahman's) being the material cause of the orld All the Satras of Badaryana which set forth that doctring have been inter preted by him in an entirely different ray Probably he would bave set aside the Brabo Satris alto other but he could not do so, since the work had acquired an un contested rathoritatireness as regards religious truth before his time He had therefore to sbot that his system did not go against the Bralım? Sutrns and there foro accepte i them and interpreted them in almost a fantastic manner Texts from the Upanishads, too, which do not agree with kis doctrines Inc trcats simularly. Varsliņarism S anism p58 To a certain extent thus remarl of Sir R Bhandarhar applies to Vujnina Bhushu riso Tho difference between Madhiva and Bhihshu is this - fadhi ? wants to empha BIZE FIETSTESTule Blul shu anxious to nork out an अविरोध betireon the सारय, वैशेपित योग anTedanta an effort thoug! prarsen orths, cannot be justifica But the most important rorson which led all tho writers to modify the #STITUTTI of Billy inn, ss tho ferir of fazla If Hralıman were then to be the material cruec it would andorgo chaogo and co scquently it would be face and cenac to bc Brahman fattig Fath To avoid clus difficults Sanhar delogated Brahmin 8 causality to ea33 77 पपितेन च नामरूपमोन रूपभेदन व्याम्ताभ्यानात्मकन तत्त्वातत्वाभ्यामनिर्वचनी in a f7747f1 1524787753 afara 2127 Râmn our for tho sino reason did not accept the info, and substituted for fortfarzancto instea l of pure Brahman of Bidariyan. 'न्युवा दिवद् प्राम्परूपरिणामस्तु नाम्गुरगयते, अविकार malattayà 21 13 1B Anand Press ]] 23 Similir is the reasoning of S reclanthn Nimbirka nnd Blitskira ots ·61 for the same reason subsitute Analiti instead of Brahman, 'ब्रह्म स्वशक्तिविक्षेपेण वगदाकार आत्मान परिणामयति' N. B. 347-57 परिणामो द्विविध, स्वरूपपरिणाम शक्तिविक्षेपलक्षणपरिणामश्व, ४४ श्रीपुरषोत्तम स्वात्मक- स्वाधिष्ठितनिजशक्तिविक्षेपेण जगदाकार स्वात्मान परिणामयति' केशवभाकाश्मीरिन् & 'परिणामाव परिणामोध्न शक्तिविक्षेररूपो, न तु स्वरूपपरिणामस्तस्मान विकारसभावना- वकाश इति परपक्षगिरिखन p. 369. Thus according to Nimbarka writers, परिणाम 19 not Brahman's but its शक्ति s, the modificntion owing its existence to the fear of fark. Similarly Bhaskarn writes 'शक्तिविक्षेप कृतवान्' 1-4-25, p. 85 Bhaskara- Bhashya 'अप्रच्युतस्वरूपस्य शक्तिविक्षेपलक्षण । परिणामो यथा तन्तुनाभस्य पटतन्तुवन् ॥ 2-1-14. 'स हि स्वेच्छया स्वात्मान लोकहितार्थ परिणामयन् स्वशत्यनुसारेण परिणामयति' भास्करभाष्य 2 114 Thus Bhaskara also does not accept घन्मपरिणाम Vynanabhikshu for the same rerson rejects Brahman's उपादानझारपाता and substitutes अधिष्ठानकारणता of Brahman 'ब्रह्मणश्च स्वाविभक्तप्रकृत्याद्युपटभक्त्व साक्षितामानेणेति जगत्कारणत्वे. ऽपि न ब्रह्मणो विकारित्व' भिक्षुभाष्य 232 1 12 Madhye also for the same reason refuses to accept Brahman's उपादानकारणता. Vallabhr only is an exception to this rule He accepts like Badarayana that Brahmin alone is the उपादानकारण Thus the accepts ब्रह्मस्वस्पपरिणाम In this he seems to be following Bîlariyunn as remarked by Sir K. Bhandarkar or pp 160 161, in Varshn.vism ete It has been shown above that according to Bâdariyana, Brahman is the material as well as the efficient cause of the universe, in other words, this Jagnt 1s ब्रह्मति and ब्रह्मपरिणाम To this the Sandhyr raises an objection in 2 1-26 Paraftifitayan शब्दकोपो वा' If Brahman were the material eruse, then either there would be कृत्नप्रसक्ति, and hence मूलोच्छेद, or the निरवयवत्व. stanica Vedic passages would have to be struned To this the anstrer furnished by the Sætrakára is very siguificant The Sutrakāra says 'श्रुतेस्तु शन्दमूलत्वात्' 21-27 As श्रुति ·not think, he would have proceeded to qualify the sense of the futras 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 saying that as a rule cause and effect are similar, but since there is a dissimilarity between the cause Brabmin which is fra, and tho effect Jagat which 18 zada, 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 Bådariyana's tendency to reject independent reasoning and falling back upon the words of the श्रुति 'ताप्रतिष्ठानात्' etc, 2-1-11. The Satra 2-1-13 also is important. It deals with the question that even though the cause Brahman is the 1. भन भने परिणामशब्द कार्यमात्रपर , न तु साय कार्यात्मक परिण मारः, तदनन्यत्वम्' इति विवर्तवादस्य वक्ष्यमाणत्वात् । रत्नप्रभा. pp_341. 342 N. 8. edition. 2. य चोपादानपरिणामादिभाषा न विकामिनायेगापि तु यथा सरियोशदानं रज्जुरे भन जगदुपादानं द्रष्टव्यम् etc, भामती pp. 842343 N S edition. SI2.1.4 विलक्षणवादस्य तथाल २ शब्दात्' Sankura quotea a view of some one whom Govandanand calls एकदेशी thug-योऽपिकधि- दाबक्षीत सुवा भगतश्चेतनपतिका तलेनैव सरस जरावेतनमवगमविश्वामि, प्रहतिरूपस्य विकारे मन्वयामीनात, अविभावन तु चतन्यस्य परिणाम विशेषाद् भविष्यति, यथा स्पष्टपैतन्या- नामप्यमनां स्वापमूधिवस्या निन्दन बिमारते, पर्व वालोछादीनामपि चेतन्यं न विभाव- विध्यो, एकरमादेव च विभादितारिभावितत्वना देशेषानुपादिभावाभावाभ्यां च कार्यकारणानामात्मना चतनवाधिशेड गुण प्रशानभावोन विनयने, तथा च पार्थिवत्वाविशेषेऽमांसपोदनादीना प्राया महिनो विशेष परस्परोपकरिव भवस्वमिह पि भविष्यात विभागणमिदिरा एक न विरोत्रय इति । तेनापि कथचितनाचेतनत्वलक्षण निरक्षणव परिहये।, शुद्धपशुबिवलक्षणरव नैव परिहियन'. Jn the 216, 'दृश्यते तु', Sankars remarks on tara Tre thas- योऽपि चननकारणभवणवनेर समस्लस्य जगतश्चेतननामुरप्रेझो तस्यापि विज्ञान चाविज्ञान च इति चेतनाचेतनविभागाण विभावनाविभावनाम्यानन्यस्य शयन एवं योजयितुम् This Sankars supports the rner of the एकदेशि. Who is this एकदेशिन् ! Can thus rnew be referred to Sir R. Bhandarkar's Them tboat Vallabha "The laysterious poker which causes the differences by rendering certana qualities imperceptible, Vaishnarism ete, p. 161, ·65 same, and the way and 14 are deal with Brahman, the भोका does not become भोग्य nor भोग्य भोका. This is a fact evidenced by our everyday experience. 4, ait, aty etc., though अनन्य with the समुद्र, there is no इतरेतरभावापत्ति. A ring, a necklace, though as gold ornaments are 84884 with gold, the ring does not become the necklace, nor the necklace the ring. S'apkara, after once explaining the Satra accurately, adds 'यद्यपि भोक्ता न ब्रह्मगो विकारः, 'तत्सृष्टा तदेवानुप्राविशत्' इति स्रष्टुरेवाविकृतस्य कार्यानुप्रवेशेन भोकृत्वश्रवणात् , तथापि कार्यमनुप्रविष्टस्यास्त्युपाधि- निमित्तो विभाग आकाशस्येव घटायुपाधिनिमित्त इत्यतः परमकारणाद्ब्रह्मणोनन्यत्वेपि 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, S'ankara wants to refer this Satra to 72967, while the latter Satra refers to pat stage according to him. This distinction of er 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 E477' merely refer to the everyday experience. The experience is 80 very common that the Satrakara does not consider it eren desirable to point to any particular instance to support his view. The view expressed by S'ankara that Jivatman is the same as Brahman, the difference being caused by suf, has been shown to be not countenanced by the Sûtras of Bådarayana. In a sonse, the Jivitman is no fasort of Brahman, but an niat. But the Satrakârı here wants to point out only this much, that though the Jada Jagat and the Chetana.livatman, both of them have their source in Brahman, still the Jada does not become Chetana, nor Chetana Jada. Hence the But is not open to any objection. 9-10 ·66 Then we come to the Sutra तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणान्दादिम्यः' 2-1-14. This is one of the most important Sütras in the Brahmamiminsâ. Except Madhva, all the Acharyas are unanimous in their referring this Satra to a passage from the 6tlı prapatlaka of the Chhandogga. Bhaskara bags he has written a Bhashya on the Chhändosya, 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 Badarayaņa as a whole, it appears clear that they fulf! 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 SERR*****STRE" 2-2-14 has been written to set aside the doubt caused by words like ani 0,779 etc. Accordingly, the Satrakára says that these words mean that cause and effect are ear. It is to be noticed that the Sutrakin does not say that the effect is the same as the cause, but that they are app. From the word 'Paratione fails to work out the sense that विकार has no existence. 'न तु वस्तुबत्तेन विकारो नाम कम्चिदस्ति. Neither the yfà passage referred to, nor the wording of Sätra lends support to what Sankara observes here:-PATCH घटकरकाद्याकाशानां महाकाशानन्यत्वं, यथा च मृगतृष्णिकोदवादीनामूपरादिभ्योनन्यत्वं दृष्टनरस्वरूपत्वात, स्वरूपेणानुपाख्यत्वात्, एवमस्य भोग्यभोक्त्रादिप्रपञ्चजातस्य ब्रह्मwythathurata scopa 2-1-14, This absolute negation of the existence of the ind as such is very soriously criticised by Blåskara, Ramanuja, Vijnanabhikshu, Keśava Bhatta Kashmirin and Vallabha. The text of the Chhandogya here referred to is this:-'यथा सोम्यैकेन मृत्पिण्डेन सर्व मन्मयं विज्ञात स्थावाचारंभ विकारो नामधेय मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्'. The meaning that naturally suggests itself from the text is this:--The knowledgeofone ball of earth gives knowledge of all that is made of carth, though there is a different name and also form ·67 faatk( 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 y The passage cannot certainly be taken to mean tbat effects like pot etc. do not exist at all like the mirge, but that they exist in cruse, they have no independent existence, the difference za nime does not create a new object independent of the cuuse Rightly does Vallabha observeAFFTC fannst नामधेय मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यमिति, तर विकारो वामानेगैवारभ्यते न वस्तुत इत्यर्थ प्रतिभाति, तथा च सति कस्य ब्रह्म कारण भवेत् अत श्रुतिवाक्यस्यार्थमाह, आरभण- शब्दादिभ्य तदनन्यत्व प्रतीयते, कार्यस्य कारणानन्यत्व, न मिथ्यात्वम् ।' The sage Uddalakn wants to teach his son S'vetaketu "the knowledge of all by the knowledge of one 'Non the knotledge of all is possible only when fall' has existence and 18 etape with one, then only the knowledge of 'one' can produce the knowledge of 'all' To explain this, the sage Uddalaka gave three instances, from all of which the relation of cause and effect is suggested-that is-Uddalola 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 is the effect, the knowledge of cause Brahman produces the knowledge of effect the world, the reason being that they are na, 35 effect is tart with the cause From this it is impossible to concede that the cause Brahmın exists while the world is non existent, hko mirage The fact that the Upanishad gives three instances of carth, gold, and zron teaching the relation of cause and effect, and nowhere mentions, any of the instances viz Fishi, aforisia etc , tchich S'ankara so zery zealously puts side by side with the above- 3n entoncd ones, in his Bhashya on the Chhåndogya, as well as here, suggests a iny strong inference against Sankara that the Sitahara has in his mind not the doctrine of faed of S'ankara, but the doctrine of MA of Brahman alone, ·68 orin and that the world is not an effect of illusion, but that of Brahman, the cold is not a dream on a grand scale, birt a real positive something which has its orgination, existence and absorption in Brahman. True that in the Sutra 'मायामान तु कात्स्न्येनानभिव्यक्तस्वरूपत्वात्' 323, the sutrakira distinctly says that the स्वप्नसष्टि 19 मायामात्र, and whether re take 'माया' in the Bhaskara's sense of अर्थप्रत्ययशुन्यत्व, Nimbarka's and Ramanuja's sense of माश्चर्यात्मकत्व, or in Vallabha's sense of सर्वभवनसामर्थ्य, or in Sankara's sense of दृष्टनरस्वरूपत्व or अनिर्वचनीयत्व, the fact remains that according to the Sutrakhra, the world is विधर्मि, from स्वप्न 'वैधाधन स्वमादिवत', that the स्वमसष्टि may be मायामान, but the मभरधि 19 not so, it is not मायामात्र but and ब्रह्मानन्य Bulsharn well observes in 3 23.-'ये पुनर्जागरितावस्थापि मायामानमित्याघोषयन्ति ते सूत्रकाराभिप्राय नाशयन्त श्रोत्रियजन मोहयन्ति'. Again in 'वैधम्याध न स्वप्नादिवत्' 2-229 he obserres to the same efract -- बौद्धमत वलविनो मायावादिनस्तेप्यनेन न्यायेन सूत्रकारणैद निरस्ता पेदितव्या , यदि वाखोों नाभिप्रेत स्यात् किमर्थमिदं यतते सूत्रकार " etc Tho Sutra 'नाभाव उपलब्धे' (2228)also suggests that according to the Sätrahara the world is not a nonentity. Thus though the world 18 not a nonentity, it does not follow trint the Sutrahir tahes it to be a sepamte entity from Bralıman and independent of it This is that lo drives at, in tho आरभणाधिकरण Tho श्रुति passage also reads 'मृत्तिका इति एव सत्यम्' and not 'मृत्तिव सत्या', and the Satrakhre also words the Sutra as 'तदनन्यत्व' and not 'तन्मिध्यात्व or 'तदेवत्व'. These incts also go against Sankara swer of मिथ्यात्व, or जगन्मायिकत्व. I rom this, it follows that the view of the Satrabara as exactly similar to, if not actually the same, as Sankara tries to refuto in 2114 -'मन्वनयात्मर प्रन, यथा पक्षानवशारा एवमनास्प्रिाप्तियुक्त मन अत एकच नानायं चाभयमपि ससमेव, यथा वृक्ष इन्दरत्व पाया इति नानालं, "या, समुदात्मनात्वं पेनतामाया मना मानान्यं, यया च मृदात्मनाचं पसरावादात्मना नानात्व, त्यांगन नामोश.

·69 व्यवहार सेत्स्यति नानात्वाशेन तु कर्मकाण्डाभयौ लौकिक्वैदिकव्यवहारौ सेत्स्यत इति, एव मृदादिदृष्टान्ता अनुरूपा भविष्यन्तीति' +++ 'ननु मृदादिदृष्टान्तप्रणयनात् परिणामवद् ब्रह्म शाखाभिमतमिति गम्यते, परिणामिनो हि मृदादयो 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 प्रतिपतु, etc 1s also groundless in face of 'श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूल्त्यात्' 2-1-27. His other objections are met at length by Bhaskara, Râminuja, Kesava Bhatta and Nimbarha, but space at our disposal forbids us from entering into the full discussion of the same here The श्रुति 'यन तु अस्य सर्वमात्मा एव अभूत् तत्केन किं पश्येत्' also teaches not 'सर्वाभाव ' but 'आत्मन सर्वभाव In the stage of ब्रह्मभाव the सर्व does not cease to exist, but the consciousness that ai is a different entity from Brahman vanishes and the consciousness that Brahman alone 1s सर्व is generated. Against Sankara's 'जगन्मिथ्यात्व Vijnana-Bhikshu advances a queer but not unreasonable argument thus -'प्रपञ्चस्यात्चन्त- मभावे यत्प्रमाणमारभपाशब्दादिक तत् सन वा, आधे वाघ, अन्त्ये हेत्वसिद्धि , सम्मान सदसत्त्वविकल्पपराहतैरारभणशब्दादिभि प्रमाणे. प्रपचात्यन्तमभावो न सूत्रकारेगा- गुन्मत्तेन सापयितु शक्यवे' p 281 भिभुभाष्य Ch. se Bhaskara also observes in 2-1-14 thus 'न हि सूनकार चिन्मायाशद प्रायुक, यत्र स्वप्मज्ञानान्मायामान तु कात्स्न्येन अनभिव्यक्तस्वरूपत्वादिति हि यत्रोत वैधयांच न स्वमादिवदिति वैधयमुक्तम्, ईक्षते शब्दमिति चारभ्य प्रत्यधिकरण स्मृतिमन्ना रेण नोपपद्यते सूत्रकारस्य, स्मृत्यनवकाशदोष इत्यारम्य सात्यायुद्भावितपणोद्धारार्य प्रत्यधिकरण प्रयासोनर्थक स्यात्', मायामानन्दे 'म वियदश्रुते रिति चारभ्य मूठन मु. त्पत्त्यादिविचारोनर्थक स्यात्' xxx अपि च मायाशब्दमानेण कृत्यो बद मुग्नेय स्वर्गापवलक्षण यथाभूत प्रत्याययनप्रमाणमसत्यमिति वा कल्पयिनुमिति हानन प्रश्न वेदार्थ यथा वहेधूमशक्त्या यया प्रवर्तन्तामिति' मा मा pp 99 100. One cannot but concede that the above-mentioned arguments of Bhîskara have much force Keśaya Bhatta Kashmirin, Råminuja and Purushottama have also said mach against S'ankara All the writers on the Vedanta Sätras, income form or other, accept the परिणामवाद and जगन्मत्पन्न, and this ·70 fact by itself is an almost certain indication that the Sitrakara lias noithor in bis mind the doctrinc of Feren nor faces of the world. In his zeal for HFYnar. S'ambara forgets to whatilie is being drifted when he remarks aa- मविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्व महत्व सर्वशक्तिमत्व,नपरमार्थत ' etc. He himself feels conscious that Badariyana's gafame. प्रतिज्ञा and 'जन्मायग्य यत' ure being put to a strain The Sætras following in this ficut also confirm the view expresscd above. The Satra 2 1-15, S'ankara reads also as watert. The explanation which follows this Sutra reading, according to S'anlara himself, confirms the view that tho world is only an appoint of nas e of TT), and as e IS 24774 12th 79, 80 is the world with Brahman. From this it is quite clear that according to the pier of the Satralfra as interpreted by S'anlara here, the strelas does not mean मिथ्यात्व of जगत्, but merely an अवस्थान्तरत्व. The next Sutra 'सत्त्वाचावरस्य' also teaching the सद्पत्य of Jagat, confirms the appara existing between a cause and ad effect The Sutras 2-1-19 and 20 2150 confirm the view of fagna expressed above. Difference in and fe does not produce a new substance, e may be in a different form from the aros, pis may perform different functions but still the पट 15 अनन्य with तन्तु, and उदान, etc. are अनन्य with प्राणवायु 'ज्ञाननियाभेदात्सुनद्वयम्' A. B The Sutras "उपसहारदशनानेति चेन्न क्षीरवद्धि' and 'देवादिवपि लोके' 2 1-24 25 deal with the question that Brahman does not need any external an4a By its own natural powers likegods at develops the universe out of itself The Sutras 2 1-26-27 declare that as Veda teaches the efecte of afazjaert and ब्रह्मपरिणाम, there is no कृत्मप्रसक्ति or निरवयवत्वशब्दरोप The सृष्टि is in itself, its powers are wonderful. Ha a fafaru . The Sätras 2 1 30 31 take up another similar question. at2011 agita' (faqatala CUR'Braliman is possess- ·71 it ed of all powers, and even though it has no organs, creates the universe etc , the Veda teaches so. S'ankara's remark on सून 'प्रतिषिद्धसर्वविशेषस्यापि ब्रह्मण सर्वशक्तियोग सभवतीत्येतदप्य विद्याकल्पितरूपभेदोपन्यासेनोतमेव' is quite out of place The Satra kara declares the सर्वशक्तियोग of ब्रह्मन् as based on दर्शन, Veda, while Sankara wants to refer it to अविद्या Why should self-satisfied Brahman create this world when it h18 no 7157 to fulfil? To this qnestion an answer is furnished by 'लोकवत्तु लीला कैवल्यम्' 21-33 Sankarr very beautifully explains the Sutra thus -ययपि अस्माकमिय जगद्विम्वरचना गुरुतरसंरम्भेवाभाति, तथापि परमेश्वरस्य लीलैव केवलेय, अपरिमित- शक्तित्वात् । यदि नाम लोके लीलास्वपि विञ्चित् सूक्ष्म प्रयोजनमुत्प्रेक्ष्येत तथापि नैवान किञ्चित् प्रयोजनमुत्प्रेक्षितु शस्यते, आप्तकामश्रुते , नाप्यप्रवृत्तिरुन्मत्तप्रवृत्तिर्वा, सृष्टि श्रुते सर्वज्ञश्रुतेध This is quite in the strain of the Sutra lära and we cannot understand why after this benutiful explanation, he thinks it necessary, practically against the Sittrakari, to add 'न चेय् परमार्थविषया सृष्टिश्रुति , अविद्याकल्पित- नामरूपन्यवहारगोचरत्वाद् ब्रह्मात्मभावप्रतिपादनपरत्वाचेत्येतदपि नैव विस्मर्तव्यम् The learned Satralira has dealt with the question that Brahman is the उपादान कारण, and though it as उपादान aror it is without any sort of farfar, the fate 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 it is tg, 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, hence this 19 possible In the last Satra Bidarſiyanı romoves all contradic 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 accordiog to 7ks of 1 This question is dealt at length in जीवविचारणा ·72 the individual sonls, but this directly goes against the stà passage face luchy areita' which distinctly teaches the एकत्व and अद्वितीयत्व of Brahman To such a difficulty Bâdarayana's answer is on the same priaciples which he has laid down in 2-1 27. The swarûpa of Brahman is such The प्रवाह may be अनादि, still ब्रह्मन् 1s एक and अद्वितीय, Brahman though giving fruits according to FÅs 19 in dependent of it In short, it is possessed of all yâs, there is no contradiction as such According to the reasoning of S'ınlara, the caplanation given by the Satrahara in refutation of the & shoz is quite out of place According to him the fact and faguan, the area of Jivâtman and Paramâtman nro all creatures of farat and with the removal of eplan, they vanish into nothingness To conclude, the Sâtralära holds that this world is an effect of Brahmın, is real Brahman has, for its IT केवल, without any other प्रयोजन, and without any organs or any external means, by the natural powers of itself, developed itself into theunis crse without itself undergoing any change The world is extra with Brahman in all its three stages It has no existence independent of Brahman, but at the same time it is neither foi nor an absolute non entity. It is not a fan of Brahman, but a real wilful परिणाम of Brahman It is आत्मकृति and आत्मपरिणाम or प्राकृति 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. Ile fourth chapter of the Branma Sutrag deals witů the question of liberation The first pida deals with the question of singles or liberation in life of the Brahmavid. The hnowledge of Brahman puts an end to is good ·73 cause, the ✓ 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 Faiq The body of the ब्रह्मविद् continues to live so long as has आरब्धकर्मs are not ended, 4-1-19, Vhen the body: falls away, he becomes joined with Brahman 3 Agnihotras etc, which are focus, are to be performed by the garage, for they are useful in the acquirement of the This is the general reasoning of the Sutrihårı, but this reasoning directly goes against that of Sankara According to S'ankız qh, aac, everything is the creature of nescience By the ब्रह्मज्ञान, the अविद्या 1s destroyed, and when the afant is destroyed, its effects vez, i, tretc etc , must also vanish, on the principle that effect and cruse are ofF4, and that in the absence of effect cannot exit 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 searance becomes Brahman at once If this position is not accepted as being contradicted by our experience, then two alternatives come in, either the air is not thoroughly obtained, in which case there is no piangiti, or if agina is obtained, then body etc, which continue to exist after the autof aferent are not creatures of artan From this it appears that the body etc continue to exist even a ter the acquirement of ब्रह्मज्ञान, difference being that, after PETITA, FÅ and its products zitt etc, do not touch him ( SETE) The la performs कर्म, these ws are this, and not his own, It is worthy of note that the Sætrabara says it,' meaning thereby that this do not touch the path He becomes असंग Thus though the state is lying and doing orery- 1. OTRYTA Falizace zant aq477 4 1 18 इतरस्याप्येवमरुष पाते 34114 walaupiti na para 4115 मोगेन तिरेक्षपयिवाय संपय 4119 भग्निहोत्र दि तु सत्कार्यायैव तदर्शनात् 4 1 16 the . 3 ·74 thing, he is untouched by good or bad actions His existence is for the enjoyment of its begun to be enjoyed. This seems to be the view of the Satrakära about जीवन्मुति Sankara 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 नितिश्च विद्यावत उच्यते । तयोश्वाविवक्षाकारण नास्तीत्यत पाप्मप्रहाणपूर्वकैश्वर्यप्राप्ति स्तासा फलमिति निश्चीयते। निगुणाया तु विद्याया यद्यपि विधान नास्ति, तथाप्य. कर्नात्मवोधात् कर्मप्रदाहसिद्धि । 4 1-13 When the trachs are ended by enjoy ment by the body, that body of the Brahmavid falls away The second y describes the process by which the body 18 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, 'स्पटो टेकेयाम्' Sapkara remarks -तस्मादविद्ध द्विपये प्राप्तयो गत्युत्क्रान्त्यो विद्वद्विपये प्रतिपेध इत्येवमेव व्याख्येय, व्यपदेशार्थ वत्त्वाय । न च ब्रह्मविद सर्वगतनमात्मभूतस्य प्रक्षीणकर्मण उत्क्रान्तिर्गतिर्वोपपद्यते, निमित्ताभावात् । 'मत्र ब्रह्म समभुते' इति चैवजातीयका श्रुतयो गत्युत्कान्त्योरभाव सूचयन्ति ।'. The उत्क्रान्ति here spoken of by the Satral ara is quite consistent with his arrangement. In the first 96 the Satrakara describes the state of maila iu life, in the second उत्कान्ति, in the third how and by which path he reaches Bralıman (fà), and in tho fourth tho e the ampare enjoys after reaching Brahmad. In this general arrangement the Satrab ira nowhere espressly says that the उत्नान्ति and गति have no reference to the ब्रह्मविद्. The question of uitgit is altogether different, which is possible only through the singular grace of Brahman, In the case of the favoured antag, there is no detention even for enjoying आरण्यकर्मs. His दायकर्मs are taken away by his sons, good is by his frionds and bad ones by his 'तस्य पुत्रा दायमुपयन्ति मुहद साधुकृत्या द्विपन्त पापकृत्वाम् . Badarayana suggests this in 'अतोन्यापि वेषामुभयो' 4.1-17. enemics ·75 Thus through the grace of Brahman, the sis are ended, and the surface at once enjoys Brahman. This is only a suggestion which is not possible to carry further than this All the systeis refer to Jaimini and Badarayana by the word उभय, and refer the श्रुति passage to काम्यमंs. 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 darayanm Views the गतिश्रुति as belonging to अविद्वद्विषय In the third pida of the fourth chapter after describing the stations through which the soul of the paraç passes by the path of 417, Badarayaņa says that the galera reaches Brahman from where there is no return, In the same pida Badarayana mentions to views of Bidarı who holds that the final goal to which the Brahmavid is said to reach is ari, and of Jaimini who holds thnt the final goal to which the Brahmavid reaches is far, and not afanire S'ankara accepts the new of Bâdarı and rejects that of Jaimini. In '7ar afarrataefer 4-3-14, S'ankara takos great pains to show that the nagfds are not to be accepted in their primary sense, but as referring to lower Brahman, they are to be finally rejected. The principal reasons which led S'ankara to reject the forefas in their primary sense are expressed by him thus:- ह्यसत्यपि सभने मुख्यस्यैवार्थस्य ग्रह्णमिति कश्चिदाज्ञापयिता विद्यते। परविद्याप्रक रणेऽपि च तत्स्तुत्यर्थ विद्यान्तराश्रयगत्यनुकीर्तनमुपपद्यते, 'निष्वान्या उत्क्रमणे भवन्ति इतिवत् । 'प्रतापते सभा वेश्म प्रपद्ये' इति तु पूर्ववाक्यविच्छेदेन कार्यपि प्रतिप्रत्यभिसधिन विरुध्यते। सगुणेपि च ब्रह्मणि सर्वात्मत्वसकीर्तन 'सर्वमा सर्व. काम' इत्यादिवदवकल्पते । तस्मादपरब्रह्मविषया गतिश्रुतय ।' 4314.S. B. N. S p 497. From this one sees that S'anhara's main difically consisted nu t'nd 'tuna or fara between the after ufa and the 5414859 of Brahmin In the absence of सभव, 1.4 37.11. 2 4 3 11 14.

·76 $998 hc, there is no reason why the aforylas ghould be accepted in their primnrs sonec. His othor oxplanations vi:., 'पापि प्रविप्ररभिसंधिनं विष्न्यते' and 'सगुणेपि प्रमणि ४४ STEETT', arc questions of plausibilitics which stand or fail with the main argument. From what has bcon stated abovo it is important to noto that Sankara does not ndducc any Satra of Birinrayana in support of his theory, and thereforc tho sustained reasoning that he has worked out for rejecting the trufà loses all its force. Beforc we oxnminc his argument in favour of the rejection of the गतिश्रुतिand insistence of the निर्विशेषश्रुतिs, let us advert to the question of the imp. It is admitted on all hands, that the afayfas, as they stand, do present a contradiction with the aim of Brahınan. But on this grouod alonc, it would not be proper to reject the fayfas. With this we have to bear in mind what the learned Satrakâra has anid about Brahman and tho letter of the Veda. As a faithful interpreter of the Satras of Badariyaņa, one has to abido by his reasoning and conclusion. The position would be the sumo which he assumed in 2-1-26-27, yang शन्दमूलत्वात् ।'. The difficulty put forth by Sankara arises only when unlike the Satrakara one fails to put an in. plicit faith in the letter of the Veda. In the TO HATOKITE as is written by the Satrakära, one is surprised, wly S'ankara tries to modify and correct not only tho clear sense of the yfàs, but that of the Sätras also. The result of this is often unpleasant when one sees that Sankara’s modified interpretation not only goes against the wording of the Satras, but directly contradicts what he himself has just said before. In this connection, Bhaskara rightly defines the position of the Satrakära in 1. Second interpretation of 164410 559 Second interpretations in 2-1-27, 2-1-29, are instances out of many.

·77 his Bhashya on page 238, 4-3-13, thus:-- TEI + + न चास्माकमर्थवादत्वकल्पना, यथार्थतार्थग्रहणे किं नामानुपपन्नम्. Thus Bhaskara seos no difficulty in accepting afayfes in their primary sense and 214469 of Brahman, Vallabha's position is also similar. According to bim the slagta has no contradiction with the 6414489 of Brahman, for both are taught by the Vedas, and that Brahman's swarupa is such as would admit the possibility of both the alternatives. Vallabha's commentator algo observes on page 1368:-fea, afla गौणः शब्दो दृष्ट इति नैतावता शब्दप्रमाणकेर्थे गौणी कल्पना न्याय्या।'. (अ. भा. प्रकाश B.S.S.). On the question of fagfa Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva, Vallabha, S'reekantha and Bhaskara are all at one, and this seems to be strong ground to hold that the Satrakâra had never in his mind the difficulty of 'असंभव' between the गतिश्रुति and the व्यापकत्व. The Satrakâra's attitude is the one declared by Vallabha in 1-1-4, 'facendaftari o srecut pautes It follows therefore, that Sankara’s interpretation of the wayfas in the for 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. Sankara 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 64197 (2) Brahman is fafara (3) Jiva is syntafora. (4) गतिश्रुतिs refer to अपरब्रह्मन, (5) No गति is spoken of in परविद्या. (6) The distinction between 97 and 2797 is based on the xfa passages, '(1) गमन is due to युट्युपाधि, (8) Jaimini's view is mentioned by the Satrakåra later for the development of intellect (Harrasta)."

·78 The first objection is met by Bhaskara and Vallabha by shorring the possibility of sea as being due to ton प्रारप्प. 'मन गरंभोगनिमित सांपवनिमितमिति निमित्तगमस्येवत्यदोष.' Fays Bhaskara in 4.3-13. 'न च व्यापकत्वं गन्तव्यत्वे पापक, प्रारमोग विना तत्प्रान्त्यमभार, यदा या तगोगसमाप्तिस्तदा तत्र सत्याप्तनिष्प्रत्यूहत्यात्' says Vallabhn in 4.3-14. The second and third objections are answered by what has been said before in reference to Brahman and the human Soul. It has been shown that the Satrakara does not hold the distinction between 9 and 15th, hence the fourth and sixth objections are answered. 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 sant 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 stretry, 2, 74, data, गीता, पुराण and वाजसनेय, to support his view that there is गमन in परविद्या. The tendency of the Satrabara is to accept the gfas always in their primary sense, hence man is in the primary eense, and not in a secondary sense, as due to it. Thus the 7th objection is anstered. The last objection is certainly very werk. One does not understand why the Sätrakara should put his doctrine in the mouth of Eảdari, why he should place the firar view first and you view after it. S'aņkara says that it is done with a view to develop intellect Fl. 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 S'apkara’s interpretation though fairly correct so far the Sætras are concerned, becomes altogether opposed to the view of the Satrakära the moment Sankara'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 sea, the Sutras of Bâdardyana become quite consistent. The holy words are: TETT arafat: 7ama's 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 Badarůyana should begin and end with Sätras 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 his faithfulness to the Sätrakâra is concerned, Râmânuja and Nimbarka have clearly an advantage over S'ankara in this, that their vieivs evolve from the Satras of Bådardyana with less difficulty. When the Sätras and S'ankara's commentary dealing with his 977 forum 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 Sankara to deprive the sayfas of their primary significance, for, it is a view not favoured by Badarâ yana, 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 Pled there, the fourth gr describes the mode of his enjoyment there. After reaching Brahman, the Brahmavid gets fanfamia, but all the same She is erfahren with Brahman. For the sake of enjoyment, he becomes manifest in a new form which, though salah 1. अप्रतीकाबनानयतीति बादरायण उभयवादशेषात् तत्कनुश्च 4-3-15. 2. सम्पquania: da 07 4-1-1, 8. we ea ECRIR 4-4-4. + ·80 with Brahman, is later according to Jaimini, 'face according to Audulomi, while they according to $Badarayana; there is no faster betsreen Jaimini's and Audulomi's views, as both are possible according to Badarayanı, Being efforts with Brahman the Brahmvid derives everything by Brahman's #454. Like Brahman he is startinfo. There is a difference of opinion between the views of Bidari and Jaimini, the former believes in the absence of it etc., of the safare, while the latter believes in the presence of rett etc., on the authority of Chh, U. 7-26-2, Bwhile Bådara gana believes in both the rievs, (Bulan). With these Tete etc., the Brahmavid enjoys ta. The absence of भोग spoken of in श्रुति has reference to स्वाप्यय, and श्रुति teaching in refer to in. The 10ean of the Brahmavid is limited to the extent that he cannot like Brahman create Jagat. His 11098 is eternal. With 13 Brahman the Brahmavid by area form enjoys eternally. He 18 does not return to Sansara. This seems to be the general outline of the modo in which the Brabmayid enjoys in the Bralımaloka. The Brahmaloka is eternal. In this there is a general agreement among Ramanuja, Nimbárka and Vallabha, The Satras of Badarayana 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. A furatga311&: 4-4-5. 2. no-ima agmeratae), : 4-4-9. 3. एवमुपन्यासापूर्वभावादविरोधं बादरायणः 4-1-7, 4. संपल्यादेव तु तच्छु: 4-4-8. 5. *3 ez nina: 4-4-9. G. BHTA GROC 214 4-4-10. . d anafana PID 4-4-11, 8. krogumų TOPHISTI 4-4-12. २. सप्ययसंपत्योरन्यतराझमाविष्कृतं हि 4-4-16. 10. गाम्याशरद प्रकरणासानी- 712 4-4-17. 11, fafigi igloant 4-4-19, 12, 1781*. Part 14-4-21, 13. maile TN FIA. JETE 4-4-2..

·from the lines of the Satrakära. His attempt to reconcile Andulomi's view with that of Jaimini on the authority 81 'इदं तु पारमार्थिक कूटस्थनित्यं, व्योमवत्सर्वव्यापि, सर्वविक्रियारहित, नित्यतृप्त, निखयवं, स्वयंज्योति स्वभावम्, यत्र धर्माधर्मी सह कार्येण कालत्रयं च नोपावर्तेते, Alergartre HITEH. "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 Brahman, or ratber, since the identity of the Soul with Brahman has 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 not 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 Badarågana. S'ankars's conception of Liberation has much in common with that of the Sånkhya. The highest aim of the Sankhyal is to free himself from the gala, so the greatest aim of a S'apkara is to free himself from the faran. With the destruction of otaan, its creatures viz., bis Jivatva, bis NETT, everything vanishes, and ho remains what he was, viz., 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'apkara's attempts to force up his doctrines in aitgalia and Bådari suggest his departure 1. Vide S'apkhya Kârika 62-68. and Vacbespatimisra's Palacio 11-12 ·82 of Bådardyana in 4-4-7, PayTrafficgánrenaren arter47:" results in a contradiction. He says:-Jaafa yanato मानस्वरूपाभ्युपगमेऽपि व्यवहारापेक्षया पूर्वस्यापि उपन्यासादिम्योऽवगतस्य ब्राझै- श्वर्यरूपस्याप्रत्याख्यानादविरोध बादरायण भाचार्यों मन्यते'. The contradiction arises from the fact that there come in tutt, ctc., creatures of Ignorance after the Ignorance is destroyed. Govindananda thus puts it 'अखण्डचिन्मानज्ञानान्मुक्तस्याशानाभावात फुत आज्ञानिकधर्मयोग इति'. Vide also अणुभाष्यप्रकारा pp. 1396-1401. The liberation in the sense of Bådarayana 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 Sätrakara's conception of Brahman is at great variance with that of S'apkara. As Dr. Thibaut observes:- "They do not set forth the distinction of a higher and loter knowledge of Braliman, that they do not acknowledge the distinction of Brahman and Iswara in Sankara's sense.' Vedanta Satrag. 1, p. 100. According to the Sätrakara, the Brabpan is possessed of *all attributes, and all wonderful powers. By its very swarupa, it is possessed of all contradictory attributes. The negative vedic passages liko ahala'deny in Brahman all the earthly attributes, whilo those like a tri" etc., aflirm in Brahman all divinc attributes. Thus Brahman is giratu as is accepted by Vallabha and Nimbarka. Tho absolute negation of all attributes, and describing Brahman as fw19, is a vior isbich does not find any expres. sion ia tho Satras of Bidardyana. The subject of negation in negatire l'edic passages has reference to what is non-Brahman as is romarked by the author of Bhashya. Prakasa. B.S.S. p. 953, atsafaqat to its न्तनिवेश्येतरं निपेपति, न तु सर्व मिथ्याहत्येति गुधीभिरवधेयम्'. Neither is Brahman deroid of all attributes. Het fort 767 ·83 Afaanhanayugomaniei là atzett'. Aņu, B. P. p. 948. This Brahman which is spoken of in the Upanishads as safa afa' or as 'hit' is an independent. It is Sad-Chid- Ânande. 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 sectaifa, 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 2410 19. 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 bo meditated upon as the ansat, 4-1-3. The in. finite? variety is united in the Brahman. Sages like Vamadeva, in the stage of Brahma-Bhira, have experienced this Sarvatva. Brahman is gera in the universe by Sad, Chid, and Ananda. It follosys from this, that the author of the Satras follows a process quite opposite to that of S'aņkara's, in working out his Pan. theism. He does not deny everything of Brahmap, but unlike S'apkara, afirms everything of Brahman. In the case of the human soul also, the view of the Satrakira is opposed to that of Sankara, As.Dr. Thibaut puts it, the Sūtras'do not, with S'apkara, proclaina the abso- 1. भात्मेति तूपगच्छन्ति पाइयन्ति च। तत्र सर्वेषां सर्वभाव सनियरसंगात् समिकमेवेति qatl Ang Bhashya B. S. S. p. 262. 1-1-29.

·84 lute identity of the individual and the bighest Self: Introduction to Vedanta Sutra I. p. 100. According to the Sutrakâra, the human soul springs out of Brahman as spark out of fire. It is atomic. It is part of Brahman, and as the sig of zifeta Brahman, it is part with it. It is Kartçi and Bhoktri, but its activity has its source in Brahman. In the stage of Brahmabhara it experiences fura, etc., with its Anutva. It is neither an me nor a fafáa of Brahman. It is not a creature of nescience, nor is it the same as Brahman differentiated by a fact. It is not a non-entity but a real entity. As regards the universe also, Badarayaņa and S'an. kara arc opposed. As Dr. Thibaut puts it:-"They do not hold the doctrine of the unreality of the world.' According to the Satrakära, the universe has for its material and efficient cause Brahman alone. Though Brahman alone is the material cause, it does not undergo any change whilo developing itself into the universe. As efficient cause Brahwan is neither cruel nor unjust. The world is way with Brahman, in the sense that the effect is er with the cause. As tho effect exists in the causc in all the three stages of origination, existence and absorption, similarly the universe, in all its threo stages, exists in Brahman, and is story with it. It is a real development of avikrita Brahman. The Satrakûra doos not, like S'ankara 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 Magh. From the description given of the path leading to * Brabran, aud tho inode of enjoyment of $ in the ·85 fourth Adhylya, the conception of Moksha, according to the Satraktra, is different from that of S'aņkāra. It is a strge attained by a gradual course of spiritual development, and not a stage which has existed at all times, but which is concealed through afhet, and which is rovealed by the destruction of अविद्या. From the Satras of Badarayana like 'hta afat TK', we distinctly understand that the Satrakåra favours the परिणामवाद and not the विवर्तवाद of Sankara. In this respect, aş is shown before by a quotation from Sir R. Bhandärkar's Vaishnavism etc., Vallabha's safton is the one approved of by the Satrakára. It should not be supposed that thereby either of them accepts the proposition that Brahman thereby undergoes any fare. According to both of them, Brahman's causality and transcendency are both possible. In all the instances given by the Satrakara, and in the older Upanishads, nowhere do wo 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 fa gives the instance of Ę and Ce, Sankıra tries to incorporate शुक्ति and रजत. Vade छान्दोग्यभाष्य. VI. There is again a distinction to be drawn as to the attitude of the Satrakara and Sankara towards other systems. S'ankara's attitude to the ICT seems to be very hostile, while Ramanuja and Bhaskara look upon both tho Miminsås as forming one S'astra. Upavarsha, whose view, Bhaskara follows, is said to have written one Bhashya on the two Miminsås. Vide #76277714 p. 6. and TH104SATZT. P. 47. According to Sankara, nothing remains to be done in the stage of प्रात्वावगति. 'तस्मान्जानमेकं prat farat TTTATTET TREAT dtugga'. S. B. 1-2-4. p. 18. This absolute rejection of Fis cannot be traced to any ·86 Sätra of Bådarayana. In 4-1-16, the forests like fata etc., are to be performed by the Brahmavid. This would go to sbow that the Brab mavid has not to reject the performance of this, but the mode of performance is different. Again in 3-4-26, paraan ng pangararra', the absolute disregard of is not accepted. It cannot be taken that the two Minänsas form ope S'Astra, 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 Sankhyay, Kanadas, and the Bauddhas, S'ankara follows the Satrakůra in maintaining the strict reality of the universe, and the causality of Brabman; but once that is done, he rejects the same riew, consigning it toafaon. Sankara has been rightly and repcatedly charged with these contradictions by his opponents. From that has been said above, we come to the conclusion that S'aņkara's esoteric doctrine, viz., the Niya- Fada is the development of the Sankbga and Buddhistio tenets, blended with misinterpretations of the passage of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, referring to the creation of the dreaming soul on the lines of Gauda. pada, and it has nothing to do with the Satras of Badarilyona. After showing numerous contradictions in the system of S'ankara from bis Bhashya, Col. Jacob remarks:-"To me, therefore, it seems impossible to comic to any other conclusion than that the fafarziacenfècus, 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 doctrines as to be unablo to abaka thema off oven when propounding an antagonistic system.' Vedanta-Sära. Intro. p. 9. This suggestion of Col. Jacob is as original as it is true. If tro take S'ankar's Bhashya, and do away with those portions which superim.

·87 posc his doctrine of mfaat, from what is left of his commentary, a general system, representing Bådarayana's view, can fairly be worked out Vallabhr's Apu Bhashya seems to answer the above description When we read Col Jacob's remark with the observations of Sir R Bhandarkar, pp 160-161 Vaishṇavism etc, the inevit able conclusion one comes to is this, that Badariyanı represents in his Satras a system which corresponds with one which Vallabha propounds in his Bhashya, 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 like he Yerezina प्रणयनान् परिणामवद् ब्रह्म शास्त्रस्याभिमतम् 2 1 14 यत्तूत स्वरूपोपमर्दमन्तरेण कस्यचित्कूटस्थस्य वस्तुन कारणत्वानुपपत्तेरभावाद्भावोत्पत्तिर्भवितुमहंतीति तद् दुरुक्तम् , स्थिरस्वभावानामेव मुवर्णादीना प्रत्यभिज्ञायमानाना रुचकादिकायकारणभावदर्शनात् ' 2 2 26 P 246 Thus while dealing with Sankhya, Bauddha and others, he puts forth Bidarayaņı's doctrine, but that being dono, he rejects Bâdariyana s view, and puts forth bis own Hence the conclusion is that Badırâ yana and Sankara both hold different if not opposed, Rao Bahadur Rangâcharya has published a book, called väferstaan of S ankaracharya This book is different from that of Madhaya'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 Mahabharata, there is a significant fact that S ankaracharya, the author of the book, dret a distinction between the two ylews Otber writers also refer to two views of Vedanta which go to show that Badariyapa and Sankara hold different views In the Tatparya Taka of the F419975, 41 19, a reference to the to views is thus made ---मा भूदयं नामरूपप्रपच शून्यतोपादान , Views ·88 मपि तु ब्रह्मोपादानो भविष्यति, ब्रह्मैव प्रपञ्चरूपेण परिणमवे मृत्तिकेव घटशरावोदच. नादिभावेन, न च एवं नित्यत्वव्याघातः, परिणामेऽपि तत्वानपायात तहक्षणत्वाव नित्यतायाः, यदाह यस्मिन् तत्त्वं न विहन्यते, तदपि नित्यमित्येक दर्शनम्', 'अपर च ब्रह्मैव अनादविद्योपधानाभेदात् नामरूपप्रपंचभेदेन विवर्तते मुखमिव एकमनेकमणि, कृपाणादर्शभेदानकविधं प्रतिबिंबभेदेनेति, तत् एतद् दर्शनद्वयम्'. It is quite clear from this quotation that even Naigâyikas had to draw a distinction between the reforma of Bidarayana and विवर्तवाद of Sankarn. Moreover, Sankara's preference for the views of Badari, Kasakritsna and Audulomi, sug gests the inference that S'aņkara had in his mind a system different from that of the Satrakara. To add to this, Sankara's own statement, at the close of the introduction of his अध्यासभाष्य, suggests the same conclusion, as is pointed out by R. B. Rangicharya, 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 Vedanta Satras of Bådara yana-that is, to put into the Satras wlint he himself understood to be the teachings of the Upanishads,' and not that Badariyana understood thom to be. 'यथा चायमर्थः सर्वेपो वेदान्तानां तथा वयमस्या शारीरकमीमांसायां प्रदर्शयिष्यामः'. 'Even orthodox Advaitins soem to accept this view in a genoral sort of way, and there is a'stanza attributed to Madhusgdana Sarasvati which gives a not. ably cleror expression to it. The stanza 18:- न स्तौमि तं व्यासमशेपमर्थ सम्यद् न सूत्रैरपि विनापि ते. संप्रधितासिलार्थ ते शंकरं 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'ankaracharya: and one need not therefore be surprised when one 800s them occasionally making a distinction betroen tho Satralara mata and the Bhashyaldra mata. Tho distinction between a Vyasa mala and a Vedanta mata as घयन्ध।

·89 brought out in the Saryn-Siddhinta-Sangraha clearly confirms the position of Dr Thibaut as to what bind of Vedanta 1t 19, that is rerlly represented by the Vedanta Satras' Introduction to SS of Rangûcharya pp 16-17. From this it appears that so far as the Satras of Badara yana sre concerned, S'ankara's claim to be the faithful expositor is very weak The question as to whether Badariyana'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 Sankara'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 Deusden are not entitled 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 critic of S'aghara viz, Rimannja Hence let us hear what he says on p 124 of his Introduction to Vedanta Sätras I. 'Sankara's method (of higher and lower Brabman) 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 Sankara between Brahman and Isvara 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 choice had to be made between those texts which 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, lny very little stress upon personal attributes of the Highest Being, and hence, S'anhara is right in so far as he assigns to his lypostatized personal Isvara a lower place than to his absolute Brahman That he also futhfully represents the prevail. ing spirit of the Upanishads' xx 'If so, the philosophy of S anlara would on the whole stand nearer to the teach. ing of the Upanishad than the Satras of Bidariyana.' 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, Badarlyana or any Vaidika Acharya would not like to make a choice between the two Compare Jayagopala s introduction to hta 1947164 साबदुपनिषदोनेकविधा, काथन केवलपूर्णपुरषोत्तमतमा रिसायनप्रतिपादिकाल, काधन केवल पुरुषोत्तमस्वरूपप्रतिपादिका , पथा गोपालतापिनीकृष्णोपनिषदाय । काश्चन पूर्णपुरुषोत्तमस्त Farmharqarafika**(Raula@astra TIERRA gratu475974 767 समेन सह सर्वकामभोगरूपफलस्य च प्रतिपादिका', यथा वित्यिोपनिष मुण्डकोपनिषदादयः । কাথৰ কৰিমুসিসেjদখিড়কি, যা মানুহৰীঘাথে যায়। যা बन केवळाक्षरतानमाप्तिसाधनप्रतिपादिका, यथा पदारण्याछान्दोग्योपनिषादय । काश्चन मुकिमावन भूलभनिशानाइसध्या सवैराग्ययोगसारख्या दिसतिपादिका, यथा सध्यासोपनिषदारणेयोप निषाकण्ठ अत्युपनिषदोपनिषदेतात्योपनिषदलाशान्युपनिषदमृतदिन्दर निपजोगिन्दगानिपयोगशि- खोपानिपयोगतत्त्व पनिषादय । काशन मानिशनसाधनमवणादितरसायनशरीराशीनामादिभोति काध्यामिकाधिदेवकाधुपदनिवारकसाधनप्रतिपादिका , पथा गरुडोपनिषदादय | Tide also Sir R, Bhandarkar a repark - The opinion expressed by some eminent scholars that the burden of the Upanishad teaching 1 the illusive character of the forld and the reality of the one 1001 only 18 manifestly wrong and I may eren say, 18 indicative of an cacritical judgment. As stated in the text the Upanishads from the Tery nature of the compilations cannot bot be copected to teach not one, but many systems of doctrine, YaishaTIID p 2. note 1 ·91 sorts of Vedic passages, but he would refer them both to Brahman, or, in the words of Vallabha, the Sutralara's postthon would be thrs -"तथा चास्थूलादिगुणयुक्त एवाविक्रियमाण एवात्मान करोतीति वेदान्तार्थ सगतो भवति, विरुद्धसर्वधर्माश्रयत्व तु ब्रह्मणो भूपणाय A. B p 121. If Bidariyani wore 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 10 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 Vaidika 19 to interprct the sense of Veda and not to subordinate one to the other 'आम्नातस्यार्थ प्रतिपत्तु mata görgeten! 143 p 150. S B (tert NSP), 'नहि वेदवाक्यानां कस्यचिदर्थवत्त्व कस्यचिदनर्थवत्त्वमिति युक्त प्रतिपतुं, प्रमाणत्वा faritent 1 3 2 15 pp. 357. S B text. Thus according to S'anhara also, the authoritativeness of Saguna and Nirguna Vedic passages 19 oqual, and so fır as the learned Satra Larn nccepts both sorts of ufàs and refers them both to luis Highest Being, Brahman, his interpretation must with justico be preferred to that of either S apkara pho gives promiponce to Nirguna yfàs, or Ramanuja, Madhva, and others, who put forth only Saguna yfas In this respect Badariyani is tollowed by Vallabha alone Hence, except in reforence to Vallabha, Dr Thibaut would not be quite wrong in saying that S'ankara by accepting to Brumans baut's claim that S'aplara's system would stand nearer to the Upanishads than that of Bidariyanı cannot be accepted as unchallenged, since lidariyani's mode of interpretation and harmonising the conflicting Vedic ·92 passages is better than that of S'apkara, since Bidariiyana unlike S'ankara bears in mind the rest 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 doserving equal prominence. Thus disagroeing with Thibaut in accepting that S'ankara is a better cxponent of tho Upinishads than Bidara gana, we must admit that S'ankara's systom might have lind its represontativos in Bidari, Kabakpitena and to a cortain extent in Audulomi. If the towcriog personality of Badaritz ana, ith his irresistible and hitherto unquestioned authority vero to be ignored from the field, then a chain of tradition of Sankarn's ssstein can be maintained from Bidari to Gaudapida, Gorinda and Sankara, and with this reservation Gouglis position would not be wrong. It may no, as pointed out by Bhaskara,' that S'nnkarn's *ystem ras independent of the Satrar, and that by the force of his powerful genius he atteinpted to saperimposo his syslom on thc Safras of Bildariyana. No other commentator has triod to correct or modify the Satras of Badarlyann, Thile Sanlara's commentator actually lays down the rulo that thorc 8 conflict with the Voda, they are to be misinterpretod. This is possiblo only if Sankaras undcrstood that there was a difference in the intcrpretation of the Upanishads between Bidaragana and themrelres. The spirit of S'apbara's kystom is cortainly pessimistic. His imagining the cristcuoc of $9.99 in tho 744, his doclaring that activity is .y, and a preferenco for tho 1, TUTTATT UTT! tant dem. m. r. 1. 2. dioA ramai y 8. D.N. s. l-1-19. I. P. 128. 129. 3. ***Sty? 7 elc. 1.1.19. p» 11. 8. D. 4. '* gurit' *-840. 8. 1. p. 192.

·93 negativo yfas, tend to the same conclusion. His rejection of man'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 pegativing ovorything of it except its existence, and declaring Brabman to be fata, he makes it difficult, if not impossi. ble, to distinguish his system from Buddhism, and it ap. pcars that his system has evolved in a transition period when the Buddhistic doctrine of Void was being driven out of the field. पामा स्वेन सदा निरस्ताहक सत्यं परं धीमहि ।'

·Appendix A. तेन यतैः प्रश्नोपनिपद्वास्यात् परापरे द्वे ब्रह्मणी अगीकृत्य, यदविद्याकतनाम- रूपादिविशेषप्रतिपेधेनास्थूलादिशब्दैझोपदिश्यते तत् परम्, यत्पुनर्नामरूपविशेषाणां केनचिद्विशिष्टमुपासनयोपदिश्यते 'मनोमयः प्राणशरीर' इत्यादिशब्दैस्तदपरमिति प्रति- पादितम् । वत्र किं मानम् ? न तावदस्थूलादिवाक्यम् , मनोमयवाक्यं च । तत्र परा. परशन्दयोरभवणात् । आये अक्षरशब्देनैव लक्ष्यनिर्देशात् । यदि च मुण्डके 'मथ परा यया तदक्षरमधिगम्यत' इत्यक्षरविद्यायां परत्वश्रावणात् तद्वेयस्याक्षरस्य परत्व- मिप्यते । वाटम् । तदा पुष्पस्य ततोऽपि परत्वमेव द्रष्टव्यम् । 'दिव्यो खमूर्तः पुरुषः स पायाभ्यन्तरो बजः, अप्राणो यमनाः शुभ्रो पक्षरात्परतः पर' इति तनैव श्रावणात् । न च तस्य यावद्विशेपचन्यत्वम् । तदरे 'एतस्मानायत प्राण' इति मत्रेण तत एवं सूटेः श्रावणात । 'अनिर्धे'त्यादिभिस्तद्पोपन्यासाच । नाप्यक्षरस्य तथात्वम् । अस्य- लादिश्रावणोत्तरं प्रशासनस्य वेद्यत्वद्रष्टत्वादीनों आकाशोपादानत्वस्य च श्रावणेन, मुण्डकेपि 'यत्तददृश्य'मित्यायुक्त्वा 'यद्भूतयोनि परिपश्यन्ती' त्यादिजगदुपादानत्वसर्वज्ञ. त्वादीनां श्रावणेन यावद्विशेषचन्यताया वक्तुमशस्यत्वात् । अत एव वाक्यान्तरेप्वपि द्रष्टव्यम् । सर्वत्र एक्स्यैव ब्रह्मणः प्रतिपाद्यत्वात् । अत एव श्वेताश्वतरेपि 'प्रधानक्षेत्रज्ञ. पतिर्गुणेशः, 'यो ब्रह्माणं विदधाति पूर्व'मित्यादीन् नानाधर्मवोधकानेव मयानुक्त्वा "निष्कलं निष्कियमित्युक्तम् । 'स वा एप महानज आत्मे'त्यत्रापि शारीरव्राह्मणे, 'अन्नादो वसुदान इति सर्वस्य वशी सर्वस्येशान' इत्यादयो धर्मा उकाः । स वा एप नेति नेती'त्युक्त्वा, 'अग्रयो न हि गृवते, अशीयों न हि शीर्यते, असोऽसितो न सजते न व्यथत इत्येवं निषेधो विटतो, न तु यावद्धर्मपरत्वेनेति द्रष्टव्यम् । अतो यत्रोत्कर्षस्य विधान्तिः, अक्षराद्वा यदुत्कृष्टं तदेव परमिति मन्तव्यम् । उत्तमुण्डक- श्रुतेः । 'अव्यक्तात् पुरुषः परः पुरुषान परं किञ्चित् सा काष्टा सा परा गति' रिति काठक- श्रुतेः । 'अम्भस्यपार' इत्युपक्रम्य, 'अत. परं नान्यदणीयस हि परात परं यन्महतो महान्त'मिति तैत्तिरीयश्रुतेश्च । पुरुषस्य च विरुद्धधर्माश्रयत्वमेतास्वेव प्रतिपादितम् । एतदेव परत्वम् । गीतासु च 'अन्यक्तोऽक्षर इत्युक्तस्तमाहुः परमां गतिम्, यं प्राप्य न निवर्तन्ते तद्धाम परमं मम । पुरुषः स परः पार्थ भक्त्या 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 । मत एव, 'न तत्समधाम्यधिकश्च दृश्यते' इत्यादिषु तस्य समाभ्यधिक- निषेधोऽपि युज्यते। न च पुरुषोत्तमाक्षरयोः परापरभावाशीकारे अद्वैतश्रुतिविरोधः । गणितागणितानन्दत्वधर्मभेदेपि नस्त्वभेदेन द्वैताभावे तदभावात् । अमिनादिवद्वैत.

·96 धीयमानज्ञानविषयस्य ब्रह्मण पूर्वम्, न तत्र चक्षुर्गच्छतीत्यादिना यावत्करणगम्यताया उत्तत्वात्तन्य ज्ञानस्य प्रत्यक्षादिरूपताया वतुमराम्यत्वादुपासनारूपत्व एव पर्यवसानेन तद्विषयस्य परस्याप्यपरत्वापत्तेश्च । नाप्युपशान्तत्वाभावात् । सर्वत्र परस्य ब्रह्मण एकत्वेन तस्य च विरुद्धधर्माधारताया उपपादितत्वेन तदभावस्यैवाभावात् । एतेनैव भवचनेनैव प्रोवाचेत्यनेनापि प्रत्यवस्थानमयुक्तम् । तनाप्युपशान्तत्वस्यैवोकत्वात् । लौकिकयावद्धर्मराहित्येनैव तत्सिद्धेश्च । एव मिन्द्रो मायाभिरित्यादिवाक्यानामप्युभय लिजाद्यधिकरणविवार एव विचारितत्वान तैरपि प्रत्यवस्थानावकाश । अतः परविद्या- सूक्तानामन्यत्राप्युक्तानां परब्रह्मधर्माणामनाविद्यकत्वादलौकिकैर्नानागुणैर्यु- क्तमप्युपास्यरूप नापरब्रहारूपमिति नौपाधिकम् । xxxxxxxx विञ्च, तैरपि क्वचिद्गौण शब्दो दृष्ट इति नैतावता शब्दप्रमाणकेर्थे गौणी न्याय्या, सर्वत्रानाश्वासप्रसादिति । 'तनिष्टस्य मोक्षोपदेशा'दिति सूत्रव्याख्याने यदुक्त तदपि विस्मृतम् । अथवा, 'ईक्षतिसूत्रावतारणे वेदान्तवाक्येभ्य एव युच्याभासवाक्याभा- सावरम्भा सारयादिवादिन उत्तिष्टन्ते । तत्र पदवाक्यप्रमाणशेन आचार्येण वेदान्त- वाक्यानां ब्रह्मावगतिपरत्वप्रदर्शनाय वाक्याभासयुच्याभासप्रतिपत्तय पूर्वपक्षीकृत्य निराक्रियन्त इति कथनालक्षणा विरहय्य वेदान्तव्यारयानमाचार्यस्यैव सम्मतम्, नास्माकमिति चोधितमिति प्रभुचरणैर्दिक्पदप्रयोगेण ज्ञापितम् ॥ p p. 1362--- 1868. Anu Bhashya Prakasa.

·Mr. Mulchandra Tulsidas Teliwala,
B. A., LL.B.
XIIIDEILDIXWIX TRIP
DESDEXCIDIDXXIIIIICTII
EDIDITC002 MODE
Bora, 2314 Seplember, 1837. Lell this Earlt, 26th June, 1927.

·MR. 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 upliſt of gizani, suddenly came to an end. A short sketch is given here, depicting his life-twork, 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 Bhrgucutchha or Broach situated on the right bank of the Narmada. It was here that king Bali performed his FIT4, and gave Lord a three steps of earth. It is the abode from most ancient times of Bhargava and other Brahmins Tell-vereed in piztus. Further up the river are situated the holy places of aqua and , the abodes of cyte and Takrat. Ho was born in a very rich and famous family of farmaita 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 flourished later than his namesake the writer of STETT on * 454) gavo bim a blessing that he would 8003. Ile replied that he was unmarried and there was no chance of marriage at that age, but the gre smiled and asked him to go homo. Tho Tera came to be true, be married and he had two sons. The family business via cotton also prospered, and their firm bad agents at Palej, Misagium and other places, and a branch at Bombay. A marriam of a member of the family was porformed at 078 two ·2 Gulalwady in the 3rd Bhoiwada, Bombay, with great pomp, and large vessels were given in gift by the family to Gulaliyady, which even now may be traced Their prosperity increased, and the cellars of their house wero filled with silver bars But when God shows special favour to any one, he takes away 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 which Iris pirents sore surrounded, Vulchandra inherited a very poor lean physical body At any time of life his weght was not more than 72 lbs, but this slender body con tained a spirit wiich was dauntless not rufiled by nny outward show or pomp, and oould easily spurn realth, of which his family had more than enough till ins birth Hlis carly years worc spent in playfulness and he pas accustomed to run on the city walls and swim in the But ho nas altays the top boy in his class His memory was 80 sharp that he could casily remember what lo rent once Ho ris the pot of lub teachers The light jou al nature of this pigmy monitor command od willing obedionco froin tho strongest, tallest and most mischicious boy in the class After presin, hus Mauri culation Lanbination in 1905 he joined the Wilson Col logo for further stu lles In the College liostel lic puched up some knowledge of singing and music froni lus Doccini friends He grduated BA with arran ng bus optional subject in 1901, and ho was a fasounto student of Mfr Bhadhamhar, Professor of Sanskrit In the absenco of any other calling lie took up goi crnment service as n teacher in the lipbinslono ligle "chool, Homlay Thence ho mas pelected for the Training Collego rith n echolar slup of Rs 50 per month, and t! 19 gave 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 Qualifies met at Baroda in 1906, the second at Patan in 1907, and the third at Nandurbar in 1909. After this, gleuforgat 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 doua world. Mr. Maganlal Ganpatram Shastri, the founder of the Parishad and the Magazine, found in him a young, able and resourceful co-worker. 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 reason which led him to this decision without consulting any one, is as under: From infancy, he often got dreams in which he found himself flying 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, singing in पलना and smiling at him. He got up with great joy, and after प्रात नित्यकर्म he went for दर्शन. He was greatly dehghted to bave the same a thera, not in dream, but in reality. There was Tracy and the Fath as adorned in the same Tasar as ho had seen in the dream, and there was the snne joyful, smiling look. While he was returning home, Mir, Jarkisandas, a life-loog friend of Telitala family, called him at his shop, congratulated him ·Gulalady in the ard Bhoiwada, Bomlay, with great pomp, oud larkin Trsula were given in gift is the family ( Gulniwaly, which cred non may be traced. Their prospírity inercini, and the collants of their houso wero Gollal trith wilver bare. But when God ahovs special Învour to any one, he takes away the burden of scalth, and it happroad to in this case, A ycar before the birth or sfulchandra there camc a kudden crash, there van a hcars loss and all tho moncy vanished, On nccount of worldly worrice and troubles sith which his zatenta mero furroundied, Julchandra inherited a rcry' pour, lenn, phynical body. At nny time of life his weight was not xoru than 72 lbs., but this slender body con tained a fpirit, which ras dnuntieng, not ruflled by any outward show or pomp, and could casily spurn realtb, of which his family had moro than enough till his birth. Blis carly ycars wore spent in playfulness and he was nccustomel to run on the city-walls and strim in the river. But ho was always the top-boy in his clayg. Mis memory was so sharp that he could casily remember what ho road once. Ho was tho pet of his teachers. Ilio light jovial nature of this pigny monitor commandod willing obedionco from the strongest, tallest and most inischicrous boy is tho clags. After passing his Alatriculation Examination in 1905 he joined the Wilson Col. logo for further studies. In the College hostel he picked up somc knowledge of singing and music from his Doccapi frionds. He graduated B. A. with an as his optional subject in 1909, and ho ras a favourite student of Mr. Bhadkamkar, Professor of Sanskrit. In the absence of any other calling, he took up gorernment service, as a teacher in the Elphinstone High School, Bombay. Thence ho was selected for the Training College with a scholar- .sbip of Rs. 50 per month, and this gave him an opportu- ·3 nity to read up the course for LL B For some time, ho lived with Mr Khimji Cooverji at Walkeshwar, as 1 tutor to his son The first acurenters met at Baroda in 1906, the second at Patan in 1907, and the third at Nandurbar in 1909 After this, giftige 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 core world. Mr Maganlal Ganpatram Shastri, the founder of the Parishad and the Magazine, found in him a young, able and resourceful co worker The fourth session of the afin 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 he 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 flising in the air, and some dreams wera suggestive of future events Whle at Broach, one early morning before leaving the bed, he got a dream in which he say श्रीनाथजी, the स्वरूप in the Broach temple, singing 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 have the same in thers, not in dream, but in reality. There was amaitu and the 1969 was adorned in the same Tame as he bad seen in the dream, and there was the save joyful, sailing look While he was returning home, Mr Jathisandas, a life long friend of Telujala 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 Sarad. Mulchan. 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 Naragandas Dalal who was the sub-tenant of Mr. Bhailal and tho Vas the Secretary of Pandit Gattulâlâji's stear. He helped Mfr. Kaslidas in preparing the annual feupont, 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 ÅETT along with the late Shet Tribhovandas Vurjivaodas J.P. The reader will thus see that but for 2257 to his grand-father, the ha of Mulchandra was impossible, that at the time of his birth, the worldly wealth was all taken away by way of space, the suggestion and facility to settle in Bombay was all due to the Almighty's helping hand, and finally the greatest convenience for his life-work, vis the possession of an excellent manuscript library of the ESTA was provided for him by God; and but for divino help, not one of these series of important events could. र.बुगु have been brought about by his . रा.५० own efforts. The astrologer of hus family predicted from liis qweet that he would perform a great and memorable 28, and after more than balf of his valuable publications were out, Malchandra himself understood the meaning of this 99, and whenever there tvero difficulties in his work on account of illness or want of funds or want of manuscripts, lie prayed to God, and the prayers Trore in many casos heard and difficulties solved. म.८ 90 9 १२ ·5 Long before this, Mr Maganlal Shastrı had begun to utilise the acuta afire fund for getting manuscripts copied from abast'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 be 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 3W T4 and frany, every night. The Bombay University prescribed for grilgamat great aglay prize for 1915 the following essay-Discuss how far har truly repre sents the view of the author of the ser as'. 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 writing 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 art 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 he's interpretation of mais does not represent arxiqu'3 views, but they hnd not before them sans and 98791, and so they thought that a had, kova ever, well succeeded in making 2 karty of all important उपनिषता If this view were correct, TT yould be wiser ·6 than ayu. Te have no doubt that a wide knowledge of अणुभाध्य, प्रकाश and रश्मि would dispel this view. Copies of the PC'ssay 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 11699 by the comparative method. In about 1915, at the request of Mr. Tribhovandas of Nadiad to translate सेवाफल, he began collecting साहित्य on it, and at first collected twelve Teekas, &ome in free of authors themselves. Such a collection was never to be found before in any one library or with any one atestat or ordinary isus, 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 greement. So many com. mentaries 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 ere subsequently traced and published along with ante. In this प्रकरणप्रन्थ, श्रीवल्लभाचार्य gives a brief and clear idea of the three sorts of realisations, according to one's fear i. e. (1) silff UTHTË, by which a po obtains & vision of God, and enjoys indescribable bliss with Him, as is revealed in the श्रुति 'सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म यो वेद निहितं गुहायां परमे व्योमन् सोक्षुते सर्वान् कामान सह मह्मणा विपश्चिता; (२) सायुज्य, as is stated in 'ततो मां तत्वतो झात्वा विशते तदनन्तरम् ; and (३) वैकुण्ठादिपु सेवोपयोगिदेह, as is stated in a day. It also describes the three hindrances in the path of realisation, उद्वेग, प्रतिवन्ध and भोग, and various means to remove them. In spite of the face, and the fifteen commentaries, the tra is difficult to under- ·8 of its फल, a description of मानन्दमय ब्रह्मन् and अन्नमय, प्राणमय, मनोमय and विज्ञानमय पुरुषा:. Though श्रीवल्लभाचार्य had no time to writo 1548 on various 34f1938, he clearly distinguished अमवाद from मायावाद and other वादs, and chalked out a clear linc; fazes showed by his writings how to progress on the line, and श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी and थीयोगिगोपेश्वरजी have done much by giving the meanings of various syla998, whenever they got opportunities, specially in $677 and 4. It is the duty of gras scholars to collect all the passages and compose उपनिषद् भाष्यs on these lines. धीपुरुषोत्तमजी has also written complete 376278 on some sqfareas, and it is our duty to find them out and publish them, oferint is another "TAUTAFA published by him with fourteen commentaries. In order to make afat EG, & man should stay at home (not to leave गृहस्थाश्रम) and worship God with पूजा, श्रवण etc., without caring for her if possible, and always engage his mind in wau etc., in such a way that he should gradually get प्रेम, भासति and व्यसन, towards God. By प्रेम, the attachment to the world vanishes, by Arif he gets that towards गृह and गृहस्थानां बाधकत्वं अनात्मत्वं च भासते, by व्यसन in मृष्ण, he becomes कृतार्य, having followed the उपदेश in मन्मनाभव ut etc. Even after reaching this stage, he should be very careful and live in the company of other 73 engaging himself in सेवा or कथा till he lives. सिद्धान्तमुक्तावली is another Wera published by him with nine commentaries. The सिद्धान्त in a nut-shell is कृष्णसेवा. सेवा is तत्प्रवणं 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 sure, 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 operatia ofore, the power of the Ganges to give a worshipper भोग and मोक्ष is आध्यात्मिक and the देवी गंगा is माधिदैविक, so are जगत, अक्षरब्रह्म and कृष्ण.

·9 Hence it is no wonder that it could show the whole जगत् to यशोदा in His mouth जीव Is अक्षरात्मक and अणु in essence, and not by sufe It becomes ससारी by उपाधि of अविद्या When अविद्या Is removed by प्रपत्ति, जीव knows its true nature of being a13, and worships gay as stated in यो यदश स त भजेत् or gets सायुज्य as stated in विशते तदनन्तरम् सिद्धान्तरहस्य Is another important प्रकरणग्रन्थ published by him with eleven commentaries He published with it the much-abused and misinterpreted YHT, 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 gfetestery may know it at a glance, and prejudices caused by rumours may be removed This sa teaches us that by establishing with me, all our 2149 are removed, that in all arg's 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 sitas are essentially of three different kinds is taught by श्रीवल्लभाचार्य in पुष्टिप्रवाहमर्यादा which is published with four commentaries 'इच्छामानेण मनसा प्रवाह सृष्टवान् हरि । वचसा वेद- मार्ग हि पुष्टिं कायेन निश्चय ।' In प्रवाह, फल is only जायस्व, नियस्व, in वैदिक मर्यादामार्ग, फल Is स्वर्गमोक्षादिरूप, and in पुष्टिमार्ग, फल 1s कायेन, आनन्दमात्रकरपादमुखोदरादिरूपेण पुटिजीवs are created for रूपसेवा of God, which #91 19 otherwise impossible In 7967, 08€, front and que there is no difference between gizata and God Among मिथतीवर, पुष्टपुष्ट are सर्वज्ञ, like नारद and ऋपभ, पुष्टिप्रवाहमित्र are क्रियारत like श्रुतदेव and निमि, पुष्टिमर्यादामिश्र are गुणज्ञ like भीम भगवान् Is the फल of पुष्टजीव, प्रकट or manifest in मजहृदय and in लीलास्थान वृन्दावन &c भवरत्न 1s another प्रारणग्रन्थ published with five commentaries It teaches that a ye who has devoted himself to the service of God should he is merely a servant of God, who 18 morciful, lie ahnald arising from any cause whatever, should remember that always keep his fert in tret and livo porcelullo, retso-ung. give up all anxieties ·10 PARET, he should give up fame, thinking that whatever God does, is His est; thus ho should stay on uttering श्रीकृष्णः शरणं मम. पत्रावलम्यन, the challenge affixed to the door of काशी. विश्वेश्वर at Benares by श्रीवल्लभाचार्य, is published by him with the commentary of gaat 431t. It is one of the most difficult अन्यs on वेदान्त re ever met with. वेदान्ताधिकरणमाला is a very clear and beautiful analysis by eitgaat rust of all the अधिकरण. The माला of the Fourth मध्याय was re-written by zitaitforeldest, as he could not get it. Mulchandra could fortunately trace a single manuscript in the Bhandarkor Research Institute, and pablished it together rith no. श्वरजी's. भावप्रकाशिका ब्रह्मसूतत्ति which he published is composed by the master-minds श्रीकृष्णचन्द्रजी and श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी. भुतिरहस्य contains the स्तुति of श्रीवल्लभाचार्य with quotations from वेद of his अमिस्वरूप. "गाररसमण्डन, स्फुरस्कृष्णप्रेमामृत, मधुराष्टक, प्रेमागत, परि- डाष्टक, गान्धि, मनोहत and हदयत्त are the अमेय group of प्रन्यs published by him. The full significance of mat: can. not be understood unloss ono studies (1) afectatef19 (2) रसनिष्पत्तिप्रकार given by श्रीवल्लभाचार्य in वेणुगीत and elaboratoly explained by guitar, (3) yfà passages quoted and explained in रासपश्चाध्यायी, (4) आनन्दमयाधिकरण, लिभ्यरत्याधिकरण and 9715274, (5) the synthotical viow of utama given in भागवतार्थनिबन्ध, and the various passages scattered in मुबोधिनी explaining the meanings of परब्रह्म, अक्षरग्राम, आत्मा and रस. If the ultimate ronlity wore only stay, 13, 64864, & &c., and nothing more, it is a question Trhy tho Vedas selectod for describing it the rord derirod from me to grow or incrcaso, e derimod from 7 to spread, and zu derired from my to taste. All tho three words aro positive, and signiſs growth like that of a n. sprogding liko that of n 7, and sport or det like that of a ?, respectively. The words themselves excludo the idca of a mere ferri, which is an illusion of tho mind, ·Broach from ferer incident on delivery in Diwalı, 112, About October 1917, and Mulchandra and his son were 11 and they inherently imply परिणाम, nmy, स्वरूपपरिणाम The श्रुति 'पूर्णमद पूर्णमिद' also explains that though the जगत् pro ceeds from se, he remains qui as before with a bas explained 2798 in detail, giving the meaning (1) of the whole HITIRITE, (2) of each (3) of each (4) of each ofta and (5 6, 7) of each 2174 F and , thus giving a synthetical view of the whole, and he states that a man who understands area thoroughly becomes T Fortunately the greater part of his commentary सुबोधिनी on भागवत has been published The first three Fres 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 CTA EFFET is in hand, and It will soon be in the hands of the reader The depth and grandeur of eftem raras 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, if on some era 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, highly devoted to her husband, and had a strong and healthy constitution Mulchandra's mother 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, vegetables and milk, but it was peaceful and contented H18 first son was born in 1914, and a daughter was born in 1915 But even this little happiness did not last long Ilis daughter died, followed by his wife who died at ·12 put to great difficulties for daily food. There were no means to cngngo a cook, or a servant to take care of the son. When the father went to court at 11 A, X. after lock. ing 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. Then 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 incoro was some small commissions which were given to him by the Chief Judge of the Bombay Small Causes Court, who appreciated his value, thereby showing bis great regard for him, for his sterling oharacter and great learning, For this work, pleaders asked him to fix time after 5-30 P. 2., which this junior Mulchandra did, but after somo 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 starcare and af गोली at the time of यज्ञोपवीत ceremony of श्रीब्रजभूपणजी. son of mitarsicantesaft. He had with him a company of friends including spaces, streets, and others. With their help, he saw the libraries of #et and gathered important information from manuscripts from all possible sources. He also sary the Nathadwara Library. The library of sifarraft, the second house in which श्रीहरिरायजी and योगिगोपेश्वरजी hou. rished, could not be seen, though many efforts were made, and it still remains to be seen with a view to find out all the ग्रन्थs of श्रीहरिरायजी and श्रीयोगिगोपेश्वरजी. It was at the time of this trip that the publication of effemtait was undertaken, and the circumstances under which it was done, and the important discovery of the qtos draft in the ·12 prut to great difficultica for daily fool. There were no mann to copo cook, or a scriant to take ciro of the kon, Wien tho fatlicr went to court at 111. 1. after lock. ing the room, the con papel his time fotochow with tho neighboura, nu if the fathor did not relum at GP, A., the Jondis ron would sit in front of tho door with a strcam of tears foring from his cyer dowo the checks, and with conlant sols srliich no amount of persuasion could check. When ultimately 110 did arrive, tho boy would dy into hix arrr, and would not Icaro him cren in bed and till next day's fateful liour 11 A, X. Onc fource of his little incomo as romo rmall commitrions which were givea to him by the Chief Judgo of the Bombay Small Causes Court, who njiprcciatrd his valuc, thcrcly shoting his great regard for him, for his sterling character and great Icarning. For this work, plorders asked him to fix time after 5-80 8. M., which this junior Mulchandra did, but aftor como litter experienccs of the above nature, ho avoided ca. gagoments after 5-30 p. m. It was ander such dificulties that the lifc-work of ulchandra was donc. In 1919 (Vnishakh 1975) ho went to estatuate and E. itaft at tho timo of arrira cormony of Art son of witamy ust. Ho had with him a company of friends including autimas, sporgentes, and others. With their help, he B2w the libraries of art and gathered important informa. tion from manuscripts from sll possible sources. He also sair the Nathad wara Library. The library of effects, tho second house in which श्रीहरिरायजी and योगिगोपेश्वरजी flour rished, could not bo seen, though many efforts were made, and it still remains to be seen thith a riem to find out all the अन्धs of श्रीहरिरायजी and श्रीयोगिगोपेश्वरजी. It was at the timo of this trip that the publication of sifugoti vas undertaken, and the circumstances under which it was dono, and the important discovery of the otuz draft in the ·13 हस्ताक्षर ofधीगुसाइजी which it led to, are fully deseribed in the introduction of eftfcqoftat. His second marriage took place at Surat in 1920, in Ita 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. श्रीब्रजरनलालजी of Surat graced the marriage procession by his presence. His second wife has two song and a daughter. In 1917, his friend to invited Mulchandra to Anand, and told him in the course of conversation that he had seen af 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 Mulchandra tried to collect f# 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 curtailed 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 sparre before his death,* In 1927, Shree Tibayat Maharaja Shree Gordhan. lalji and Lalbāvā Shree Dimodarlālji invited him to farar and he went there accompanied by his friends Messrs, Jamnadas Kanji, Gordhandas Pragji and Hira. lal Mulji. He was shown a fow pages of the 3rd 672774 .." r • After his death, the work is continued by us; the Fourth Pada of the Third **74 is published, the First Páda ol the Fourth R is al ready printed, and the Sesond Pide of the Fourth easte is in the press:

·14 tion of the first two 28 of the Fourth 2014 is subsequently added by ritgeiszit. A minute inspection of the manuscript left no doubt in Mulebandra'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 Sampradāyika Gāthās 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 શ્રીટિપ્પણીજીનું શોધન કરી અમે મુદ્રણકાર્યમાં ફલપ્રકરણના પ્રથમાધ્યાયના અન્તભાગપર્યન્ત આવ્યા. પરિવાર એ સાધનીકારિકાનું વ્યાખ્યાન કાંઈક વિલક્ષણ લાગ્યું. આથી શ્રીપુરુષ- રમજીત પ્રકાશ જે. આ પ્રકાર પણ શ્રી પુરુષોત્તમને નિજ શ્રીહસ્તાક્ષર લખેલે અમારે ત્યાં વિરાજે છે. તે જોતાં નીચેની પંક્તિ વાચવામાં આવી "भत्र कारिकाव्याख्यान टिपपणीपुस्तकेषु दृश्यते सत् पाण्डुलिखने मास्तीति श्री. સૌરાપnt as mતિતિ, utarf તપેત ” અહિં કારિકાવ્યાખ્યાનનું દર્શન ટિપ્પણીપુસ્તકમાં થાય છે, પરુલિખનમાં નથી, તેથી શ્રીગોકુલનાથજીનું તે હોય એમ લાગે છે, લેખીતથી પણ તેમજ ભાસે છે. એ કારિકાવ્યાખ્યાન 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 – જીવરામો નિા ના કાકા છે समाते श्रीभाचार्यजीनी कारिका ५॥छे, ते मध्ये पहेली कारिका जे 'क्रिया सर्गपि सेवार पर कामो न विद्यते । तासां कामस्प संपूर्तिनिष्कामेनेति तास्तथा ॥१॥ pread કિવન. આના પછી મુદ્રિત થીટિપ્પણીછમાં વિદ્યમાન સંસ્કૃત વ્યાખ્યાન અક્ષરશ: આઘાત લખેલું છે. શ્રીગોકુલેશના અતરંગ સેવકે એઓ- શ્રીને પુરુષોત્તમભાવથી શ્રીજીસંજ્ઞાથી વ્યવહારે છે. આથી શ્રી પુરુષોત્તમજીનું કથન કે આ વ્યાખ્યાન શ્રીગોકુલનાથજીનું છે તે સુદઢ થાય છે. આ તે અપ્રસ્તુત પ્રસંગ , પરંતુ આ શીપુત્તમજીની પંક્તિથી અને વાર્તા સ્કરી. આ લેખથી

·This line of eigen led to another lipo of thought,
Its substance is -Having corrected the press copy
of fifcoquiloft with the help of nine manuscripts, we came
to the end of the first अध्याय of फलप्रकरण
The explana
tion of fly waifo at seemed strange to us, therefore we
referred to श्रीपुरुषोत्तमती' प्रकाश on it
We have got a copy
of it in luis own handwriting Therein we read the
following line --"The explanation of 77713 seon in Recruit
manuscripts, but it is not in the rough draft therefore it
apporrs to have been written by enigmata=it, the style of
writing also leads to the same conclusion” This opinion
of श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी 1s supported by another manuscript of कारिका-
312477 which is witli us
The following 13 found written
in that minuscript - At the end of the 26th all there
are five and a hall पारिकाs of श्रीआचार्यजी, the first of which
is feruaffe etc
This irriting is composed by aftftThis
is followed by the explanation given in ferroit manuscripts

·16 i, e., that the 'rough draft must be of eftfagutit, and it must be in श्रीबालकृष्णजी' मंदिर as श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी lived at Surat. Led by these inferences, ye yrote a letter to start about it who searched his Libiary, 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 shastmait to show us the Fier deposited in 191. The Maharaja kindly granted our request, and the next morning-the Rasotsava day, we were overjoged to have the दर्शन of श्रीटिप्पणीजी in the handwriting of श्रीगुसांईजी himself, referred to as rough draft by Algart. Besides tracing the original of Rogoft, 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 वैष्णवs give the date of श्रीमद्वलभाचार्य's birth as 1529, and not 1535, and the place of birth as 315147 and not 42. Qfulchandra got an old manuscript of rites from these is, in which one old mini (about 3rd or 4th) about 1744 47 or ordinary matter was deleted, and the nate specially mentioning date and place was substituted, soratching out the old one. There was not tho slightost necessity of scratching out the old na but the writer purposely did it with an ulterior notivc. The manuscript was returned, and since then it is not produced by a 0 though repeatedly demanded. From the time te bay tho mss., we were convinced about the ipterpolation, thus leaving no doubt that the date given by te 1529 is not correct, as also tho placo 167474. 3. Very little was known to the hear about » -- traft. It was be who pointed out the deep obligation under which eigent was to his yo 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 1984 fratele showing which portion was written by fizicularisit himself and which was collected, set right or written by श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी, 4. It was he who obtained the Fourth yr of श्रीपुरुषोत्तमजी' अधिकरणमाला from the Bhandarkar Research Institute, and published it. Therilanesat could not get it, and so he wrote out the Fourth 28279 himself, which also has been printed as an appendix, thus facilitating & comparison between the writings of two master-minds, 5. A copy of some portion of the team 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 art and gfa. 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 2 rough draft* of the same portion of the rest104, and he had no difficulty in tracing it to Tuascutitz, the learned शात्री of काशीस्थ श्रीगिरिधरजी, and the टीकाकार of श्रुतिरहस्य. In the introduction to भाष्यप्रकाशरश्मि ३-1-1 published in samyat 1982, Mulchandra wrote on p. 12 ag under:-"In conclusion we ought not to omit reference to one syork which passes in the name of 45157 of S'ri Vallabhlichirya. Some passages of the farenium 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-Sudhi. From the style, this seems to be a clucasy attempt of a writer of recent times. All copies seen by us are new. The stýle is suck as leaves • The draft is truth as at present.

·18 little doubt in our minds as to the spurious nature of this production." · Notwithstanding this, Dir. Jethalal Shah, who has recently published gee of 9-3 bypas writes in his introduction on p. 9, "...a81a della1411 ans માને છે કે શ્રીવલ્લભાચાર્ય બ્રહ્મસૂત્ર ઉપર બે ભાષ્ય રચ્યાં હતાં તેના પુરાવા તરીકે પુષ્ટિભક્તિસુધીના વર્ષ ૬ માં પ્રકટ થયેલા લખાણને રજુ કરે છે અને તે પ્રકટ થયેલું લખાણ તે “શ્રીમદ્ભાષ્ય અગર બૃહફભાષ્ય” છે.” To attribute to Teliwala what he deliberately considered "spu. rious' is misrepresenting a departed scholar, misleading oneself and misleading the public. His conclusion which he puts in bold type on p. 16., "yltonen 402-4ax yog 01104 paij Gel" is also due to ignorance. To say that ey*71624 derives its name from the sure of it is absurd, because the जिज्ञासा is not जीवजिज्ञासा, but ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा, and the अणुभाष्य is not जीवस्त्राणुभाष्य, but ब्रह्मसूत्राणुभाष्य. The present requiro. ments of the are not arguments based on antiqua. ted opinions, but investigation and research which would throw more light on the सम्प्रदाय. 6. It was he who identified a manuscript of gatfuaft now at Dabhoi, as originally belonging to staroitararat, son of श्रीगिरिधरजी, tha cldest son of श्रीगुसाइजी. Tho additions inade by figueza do pintat aro put into draokets in this manuscript. Whilo reading gapi, it was found difficult to establish any connection bettroch some sontences, which difficulty is removed by tguizat's additions being thus separatod. The AAAAREN is published from this manuscript, by Mulchandra. 7. The idea of collecting all the tas on terms and publishing them together as his, le successfully carried it out, and helped met and often with manns. cripts to complote the series. 8. He collected टीकाs of श्रीगुसाइजी on सिद्धान्तमुकावली and pointed out that श्रीगुसाहजी had made additions to the टीका at least four times.

·17. He 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 start 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 टीकाs, and those that were altered became known as श्रीवल- Haft's 1979, 10. He went to statere, identified the Fourth opera 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 eftyetarit. 11. He found out फलप्रकरणप्रकाश in the हस्ताक्षर of श्रीपुरुषो- murot and published the same. 12. He collected two copies of 14 atel, first in sity entertaft's own hand and got and identified a subsequent copy of Tort in which additions and alterations were made by sitgouderint. 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 Fi with him. 13. He threw new light on effganizat's life, which is published in thy Vol. IV and famousH 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- विलनाथजी of विजयनगर, where there was atemple of श्रीविठ्ठलनाथजी. 15. He obtained from an eart of yg the will of kiyeutamat and published the same. 16. He collected and published several fundas in पुष्टिमकिसुधा and वेणुनाद. help of etilgament of ast afat, Bombay, be 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 Teas 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 girare and his presence was required at any place, he never re. fused, but started immediately. He had thus to go to frete (near Indore), Mehemdabad, Patan, Savali and other places. The necessity of a Research Institute for the Ta 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 fell ill, went to Broach during the Summer vacation in the High Court, and when he returned in June 1927, he had not thoroughly recoverod. 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 vell as Sampradayika scholars. Mr. Woodroffe, Mr, Keith, the lato Mr. Tansukhram Mansukhram Tripathi, Anant Shastri of Shanti Niketan, Vidhushekhara Blattacharya, Bal Shastri and Nandkishore Shastri, all acknowledged his scholarship. Mr, Tazsukhram was always dolighted with his conrersation, and gave him from his vast collection whatever manuscript or book was requir·ed by him. Jr, Keshar Harsbad Dhrun uso much delighted to read his introduction of those that he esne to see him, and expressed a desire to read rith him 5577fce works, and forciant tras entrusted to him by Nr. Govardhabram's brother to make suitable chan. ges for the second edition. The guiding principle of his life was 'SaraCTIE Phrase in the अन्तयामित्रागण 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 vertinant pas in staat A only. There was therefore a touch of eynicists in his words, which were mildly sar. matic even when talking with men most highly placed in lule, 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 mischievous joy in his company.

·20 On account of his wide knowledge about the his. itory of the ente together with a clear perception of the facts of the case put before him, he was consulted by Tes in their cages, 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 Gopeshtarji who also won his case at Madras. Again, if there was an attack against the graveta and his presence was required at any place, he dever refused, but started immediately. He had thus to go to feetc (near Indore), Mebemdabad, Patan, Savali and other places. The necessity of a Research Institute for the 1974 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 lfulchan. dra wont to live there in Chaitra of 1983. But God willed it otherwise. He foll ill, went to Broach during the Summer vacation in the High Court, and when ho returned in June 1927, he had not thoroughly recoverod. Ho was attacked with unbcarable acuralgio pain in the head on 18th June 1927, and be passed array on 26th June 1927. Though he died young, his abilities as a great Scholar wore recognised by Oriental scholars as well as Sampradayika scholars. Mr. Woodroffe, Mr. Keith, the late Ar. Tansukhram Mansukhram Tripathi, Apant Shastri of Shanti Niketan, Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya, Bal Shastri and Nandkishore Shastri, all acknowledged his scholarship. dr. Tansukhram was always delighted with his conversation, and gave him froin his vast collection whatever manuscript or book was reguir- ·- co-operation. This leads us to pote anotlier important trait of his which was completo T14, ri:,, willing dependence on the vill and wisdom of the Lord, at all times, 21 ed by him. Mr. Keshay Harshad Dhruva vas so much delighted to read his introduction of LaFTAUCH that he cime 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 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 Toppe was in 1795#4 1957 only. There was therefore a touch of cynicism in his words, which were mildly sarcastic even when talking with men most biglly 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, alightly 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 whatever he could for them. We were sometimes oven 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 losed him, and they feel a void in their daily life without his cheorful presence. The compositors rould wlispor in your cars how he had helpod them, and allowed their pro-notes passed to lim 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 मूलम्, न युद्धयादिदोपाः शकुनीयाः ।" 9. 99. 9.9c. This was ingrained in him, and hence under most trying circumstances, he was most light-hearted. This sra resulted in other important traits, viz., 977, 99 and fa:fta, fearlessness, self-respect and selfsacrifice. Though he had nothing, he seemed to possess everything; he could talk straight to a king on equal footing, and while engaged in Huaranteren, 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, some times five, sometimes ten at a time, vent on till mid. night with the help of a jewel-lamp in the middle. Theret fraserief of Sarat, as well as most prominent persona. ges and was from Kathiawad, 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 manuscripts was patent to all, ·Ranchhoddas Patwari also sabscribed Rs. 231. Meetings many otbers followed in quick succession, A meeting neart fagrist 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 caste-dinner at his place, and there was none to ork 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 sas unjustly attacked in news 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 (**) simply marvellous. This concentration 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 silgratarust and at other times other great persons or TS. When he woke dext morning after such a dream, there was 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 aia in drcam. His sudden death was a great loss to the HFETY, and the hearts of almost all deras were moved by this great loss. Two telegrams were received from 111218ft eftitain. circost faanyera, 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 spara staterest to the same effoct, and was immediately held in Bada Mandir, Bombay, 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 Krishnalal Alohanlal Jhaveri. Gostami Sʻri 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. वी., एम. आर. ए. एस., वकील, हाइकोर्टना, जेठ घद १२ ने रविवार ता. २६ मी जुन १९२७ नी राषिए थयला अकाल अवसान बद्दल मुंबईना आचार्योनी, वैष्णवोनी अने सद्गतना मित्रोनी तेमज वखाणनारामोनी आ सभा पोतानो अत्यंत खेद प्रदर्शित करे छे, अने तेमना अवसानथी समस्त गुजरातने, अने विशेषतः पुष्टि- सम्प्रदायने गयली मोटी खोटनी दिलगीरी साये नोंध लेछे, अने सद्गतना कुटुंव उपर आवी पडेली आ अणधारी आपत्तिमा तेमना प्रति पोतानी दिलसोजी दर्शावे छे." This resolution was seconded in suitable language by Goswami Ş'ri Ranchhodlalji, son of S'ri Jivanlalji of Porebunder, and supported by Mr. Hanumanprasad M.A., the representative specially sent to Bombay from S'ri Nathadwar by S'ri Govardhanlalji Tilakayit Ataba. 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 संस्कृत साहित्यने सर्वांग सुंदर प्रकारे प्रसिद्ध करीने आपणने जे ऋणमां मुक्यां छे, ते ऋणमांथी काईक अंशे मुक्त थवाने तेमनुं योग्य स्मारक उभुं करवाने तथा तेमना कुटुंबना शिक्षणादि सर्व प्रकारक संरक्षणनो प्रबंध करवाने तेमने आ घंने बावतनी 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 Sankaracharya truly represents the view of the Author of Brahmasitras. A masteris essay, aiticism sober, unbiassed and scholarly. Should be carefully studied by all the students of the Brahmasdtra. ---Nodern Reviews for September, 1918. . ...... . . This is an able and scholarly dessertation on the well-known subject of the correctness of Sankara's interpretation of the Bralmasättas of Bådaråyana ...It must borever be sald to the author's credit that ke sets out the views of other Bhashyakäras like Råmanuja, Shrikantha, Nimbarks, and Phiskars 10 various places, and his exposition of the dificulties to which Sankaracharya is reduced by his desire to get the airgunayada out of the Satras, must be convinclog to all except those who are pronounced in their butiśashatvagraha" Indian Review for Norember, 1918 It is scholarly and shows warks of deep study and thinking -Dr.S K 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 rely as showing the differences between Sankata and Badarayana The discussion has brought to my mind a question to which I have clsewhere alladed, namely whether it is not better to bold to two apparently contradictory afirmations, leaving spiritual experience to realise rather than to neglect one at the cost of other. -Sir John Voodrof{c-Judge, Calcutta Itigh Court.

·. . १ . ० . ८ . ८ ० ० . . ० . ० ८ o ८ . . ४ ० . . ८ ० " . . श्रीमदल्लभाचार्याखण्डशुद्धाद्वैतब्रह्मवादोपयुक्तेपु संस्कृतमुद्रितपुस्तकेषु केपाञ्चिन्नामानि मूल्यं मार्गव्ययरहितम् । रु. आ. पे. १. गायत्रीभाष्यम्। २. तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । ३. छान्दोग्यप्रथमाध्यायभाष्यम् । ४. माण्डूक्योपनिषदीपिका। ५. नृसिंहोत्तरतापिनीदीपिका। ६. श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता तत्त्वदीपादिसहिता । अमृततरङ्गिणीसहिता। २ ८. शाण्डिल्यभक्तिसूत्रभाप्यम् । ९. जैमिनिसूत्रभावार्थपादभाष्यं सविवरणम् । १०. ब्रह्मसूत्रपाठः पाठान्तरसहितः। ११. श्रीमद्रह्मसूत्राणुभाप्यं मूलमानम् । ३ १२. सप्रकाशम्। २२ १३. त्रिसूत्रीसाहित्यमात्रम् । २ पाठकशास्त्रिटीकायुतम् । सप्रदीपं स्तवकद्वयात्मकम् । ३ सप्रकाशररिम-तृतीयाध्यायः । १६. अ. चतुर्थाध्यायप्रथमद्वितीयपादौ । १ १७. ब्रह्मसूत्रभायप्रकाशिकावृत्तिः । ३ मरीचिकावृत्तिः। २ १९. अधिकरणमाला। २०. अधिकरणसइग्रहः। २१. श्रीभागवतं सुवाधिनीसहितम् । प्रथमस्कंधः । २२. १ , द्वितीयस्कन्धः। ६ " तृतीयस्कन्धः सप्रकाशः। २४. , दशमस्कन्धजन्मप्रकरण सप्रकाशम् । ४ २६. सर्वसाहित्यसहितम् । ५ ३ फलप्रकरणं लेखसहितम्। २७. २८. प्रकाशः। २९. ३०. दशमस्कंधाष्टादशाध्यायः (वेणुगीतम्) सर्वसादित्यसहितः। " . १४. . " . ८ . . . " १ . ~ . . . " "प्रकाशः। २ १००००००००० . २३.. " . . " . " " . . " , योजना। " ० . " " ·रु. भा. पै. . ॥ 0 " " " . . " " . ० . ८ ० " " . . ० . . . । " १ . ० । . ० " . . . १ . ० " (२) ३१. श्रीमद्भागवतम् । सुबोधिनीसहितम् । दशमस्कन्ध- उत्तरार्धे प्रथममध्यायसप्तकंसलेखम् । २ ३२. द्वितीय २ ३३. तृतीय २ ३४. वेदस्तुतिसूक्षमटीका। ३५. श्रीदशमस्कन्धटिप्पणी । २ ३६. तत्त्वदीपनिवन्धः सप्रकाशः। ३ " सप्रकाशावरणभङ्गःप्रकरणद्वयमात्रम् । ७ ३८. भागवतार्थप्रकरणे स्कन्धद्वयार्थः। १ ३९. श्रीमद्भागवतं पालप्रबोधिनीसहितम् । २५ ४०. पत्रावलम्बन सविवरणम् । ४१. श्रीयमुनाष्टकं सर्वटीकोपेतम् । ४२. दालयोधः ४३. सिद्धान्तमुक्तावलिः १ '-४४. पुष्टिप्रवाहमर्यादा ४५. सिद्धान्तरहस्यम्। ४६. नवरत्नम्। ४७. अन्तःकरणप्रबोधः ४६. विवेकधैर्याश्रयः १ ४९. कृष्णाश्रयः १ ५०. चतुःश्लोकी १ -५१. भक्तिवाधिनी ५२. पञ्चपद्यानि जलभेदश्च ५३. सध्यासनिर्णयः २ L५४. निरोधलक्षणं ५५. सेवाफलम् १ ५६. पुरुषोतमनामसहस्रं चन्द्रिकायुतम् । १ ५७ निविधनामावलिः सटीका। ५८. मधुराष्टकम् सटीकम् । अमूल्यम् १ ५९. प्रेमामृनं परिवृदाष्टकं च ६०. साधलोकत्रयी शिक्षा सटीका। ८६१. विद्यन्मण्डनं मूलमात्रम् । ६२. सेसुवर्णसूत्रम् । ३ सर्यटोकोपेतम्। ६५. महाररसमण्डनम् । ६५. श्रीसर्वोत्तमस्तोत्रं टीशवपयुतम् । ६६. थीयलभाष्टकम् ६७. सौन्दर्यपद्यम् सटीकम् । ० " . . . " . . " . . " . . . " १ " . ० . . । ० . " " 10.००० ८ ८ ·१ . ८ ८ . . ८ ० १ . . ० . . 0 . . ८ ० ० ८ . . ० . . ४ . (३) रु.आ. ६८. भक्तिहंसः सटीकः। ६९., हेतुनिर्णयः १ ५०. वृत्रासुरचतुश्लोकी ७१. नामरलस्तोत्रम् ७२. ब्रह्मवादः। ७३. प्रस्थानरत्नाकरः। 1७४. वादावलिः। २ ७५. भागवतशङ्कानिरासवादः । ४ ७६. उत्सवप्रतान। ७७. द्रव्यशुद्धिः। ७८. निर्णयार्णवः। ७९. सेवाकौमुदी। ८०, अशौचनिर्णयः। ८१. भक्तिमार्तण्डः। V८२. ऊर्ध्वपुण्ड्मार्तण्डः। ८३. शुद्धाद्वैतमार्तण्डः सिद्धान्तमदीपसहितः। ८४. सप्रकाश शुद्धाद्वतमार्तण्डः प्रमेयरत्नावश्च । ८५. श्रुतिरहस्यम् । ८६. सत्सिद्धान्तमार्तण्डः। ७. प्राभजनः। ८८. मारुतशक्तियुतः। ३. वेदान्तचिंतामणिः। ९०. श्रीवल्लभस्तुतिरत्नावलिः । ९१. साम्प्रदायिकत्र्हत्स्तोत्रसरित्सागरः। ९२. श्रीमदल्लभाचार्यचरितम् । २ ९३. रसाधिमहाकाव्यम् । ९४. मनोदूतम्-हृद्यदूत च । गुर्जरानुवादसमेतम् । ९५ श्रीमगोपालपूर्वतापिन्युपनिषद् 96. An Examigation of S'ankara's refuta. tion of the Sambhya system 200 97. Discuss how far Sankara truly repre. sents the viety of the author of the Brahma Sutras. 0120 पंडित गठ्ठलालाजीनी पाठशाला केथिड्रलस्ट्रीट भूलेश्वर मुंबई ०२ . ८ . و ه ه ه ه ه ه ه ر له م م م م م م م م م م م . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ...