A CRITIQUE of THE BRAHMASUTRA (III. 2. I-IV) (With special reference to Sahkarawarya’s Commentary ) PART I INTERPRETATION OF THE SUTRAS (IIl. 2. 11-IV ) By P. M. Modi 1B. A. Hone, (Bom. Uni,), M. A. (B.H.U.), Ph, D. ( Kiel), Zale Vedanta Priseman (Bom. Uni. ), Professor of Sanskrit, Samaldas College, BHAVNAGAR, With A FOREWORD By Prof, Dr. S. N. Dasgupta C. 1 B, LBS, (Retd.), M. A., Ph. D.(Cal. et Cantab. ), D. Litt. (Hony., Rote), F.R.S.L. (Lond. ), King George V. Professor of Mental and Moral Science, Calcutta sity, Late Principal, Govt. Sanskrit College, CALCUTTA. freer’ ote aevenftfte qe! wart qaengy aerania eet iAll Rights Reserved reat (amararat) aderartt qr, area etree Soyafidate gayhraatehtTy | Madhnajidana: Prasthiinahhed By the same author 1, Translation of Siddhantabindu of Madbu- siidana Sarasvati (being Zala Vedanta Prize Essay). 9. eee Re, 8-0-0 2, Akgara: A Forgotten Chapter in the History of Indian Philosophy ... ... Rs, 5-0-0 8, Tho Bhagavadgita with Sankara’s Com- mentary: A New Approach sw» -Re, 15-0-C In the Press 4. A Critique of the Brahmasiitras: Part II: System of the Satrakara, Under Preparation 5. Essays on tho Bhagavadgita : Scripture of Disinterasted Action Printed by Gulabohand Lallubhai Shah, at the Mahodaya P. Press, Bhavnagar, and Published by Dr, P.M, Modi, Bhavnagar.PREFACE fans writing my thesis for Ph, D. and surveying the history and development of the conception of Aksora Brahman, [hit upon certain passages in the Brahmasitra which I tried to interpret independently of any commentator. I showed the interpretation to my Professor Dr. Schrader who, after comparing the same with those of Thibaut and Deussen, not only accepted it xs a part of my thesis, but advised me to write a critical interpretation of the entire Brahmasitra after my return to India, Accordingly I prepared an interpretation of Bra, Sa, III. 2 and sent the typescript to Professors Dr. S. N. Dasgupta (Calcutta ) and M. Hiriyanna ( Mysore ) and discussed it personally with Prof, R. D, Ranade ( Allahabad ) and the late Dr, A, B, Dhruva, who was then Pro-Vice- Chancellor of the Benares Hindu University, All these distinguished authorities encouraged me in my undertaking, remarking in general that my conclusions were ‘ reasonable ’ and my interpretation was ‘plausible’, This was their opinion about only a very small part of the work, which I could prepare during my leisure hours along with my college duties. But for writing down my views on a sufficiently large portion of the Brahmasitra, I thought I should work under the guidance of one of the above-mentioned scholars. I, therefore, applied to,the Bombay University for a research grant, which was kindly sanctioned, For a similar encouragement and for leave on duty for six months, in 1985-86, I approached the lute Sir P. D, Pattani, the President of the State Council, Bhavnagar State, on whose recommendation the Bhavnagar Darbar generously granted my request, Dr. Dasgupta whom I first approached for[2] guidance hed to sail for Europe. The late Dr. Dhruva happened that very term to retire from Pro-Vice-Chancellorship of the Benares Hindu University and on my request he asked me to immediately go to Ahmedabad, promising to work with me two hours a day during my stay with him, The result of all this is the present book on the Brahmasiitra. During these six months of my stay with the late Dr. Dhruva we met almost every day and I can say that almost every line of the work, which I wrote out every day beforehand and which is being published herewith, was discussed with him, Those who have studied under him know that he had the great commentaries (bhdsyas) and the sub-commentaries by heart. Thus, not only that he remembered the views of Safkaracarya and Ramanujacarya, but he could also immediately point out the interpretation of these views given in the Bhdmati, the Ratnaprabhd, etc., etc, Not only that he would make me refer to these to assure myself of my properly understanding Saikaracarya’s bhasya, but he would also ask me to see if the Satras can be interpreted as favourable to the Saiikara System independently of the Sarkara- bhagya, 1 always remember how he made me read works like the Jaiminisiitras and their bhdsya by Sabara, even when I discussed with him the meaning of the Brahmusiitras which though explained by Sankardoarya by quoting or referring to the Jaminisiitras, etc, cannot but in my opinion refer to the Upunisads. The fact that I happened to have discussed with himthe major portion of this book in its original draft strengthens me in my belief that I have rarely misunderstood or misrepresented the views, on the Brahmasitra, of this greatest of the Acaryas. Apart from this scholarly contact with the late Dr, Dhruva, there was another, not less enjoyable, side of my experience of him during this short stay with him as his neighbour in the Parimal Society, Ahmedabad, It was for me something which I had never experienced during my three[3] years’ studentship when I studied for B. A. and M. A. under his guruship (in 1920-28 ) at Ahmedabad and at Benares, Those who have been merely students of the late Dr. Dhruva know that there was always a curtain, as it were, between them and their teacher, This curtain was, I believe, lifted when I stayed with him as his neighbour in Ahmedabad and when every day after about two hours’ discussion of my subject, he was pleased to tell me or talk to me about his views on many other subjects or his experience of many great personalities of India, during the time that he prepared to go out for a walk, This side of my personal contact with the late Dr. Dhruva has left behind an indelible impression on my mind; it was unique in the sense that I got from the late Dr, Dhruva something at once more lovable and elevating than what I had done till then from any body else. I always love to remember it and I feel I would be ungrateful if I publish this book without a mention of it in this preface, During recent years I showed this work to Prof, Ranade and to Dr. Dasgupta and at their suggestion I prepared another book on the same subject, Thus, I have divided the work into two Parts, The main work is entitled ‘ A Critique of the Brahmasutra (III, 2, 11-IV ) and the first and the second Parts are respectively called ‘Interpretation of the Sutras’ and ‘ The System of the Sutrakara’, The first Part published herewith gives an interpretation of every word in every Sitra of Bra, Su, III. 2. 11-IV and the second Part which is ready for the press contains a summary, in twelve chapters, of the conclusions arrived at from the interpretation discussed fully in Part I. I am thankful to both these scholars for their kind interest in my work and for their useful suggestion to present the subject matter into two Parts. I have shown both the Parts to Principal R. D, Karmarkar, Poona, and he has also approved of the idea of publishing the work intwo Parts,C4) Tam greatly indebted to Dr. Dasgupta for his learned foreword to Part I of this book. He was kind enough to go through the typescript of the earliest portions of my work even before I made up my mind to write it in its present form. When the book was ready, he had a glance at the manuscript of the whole of Part I. Ho has been taking keen interest in my research work ever since I read a Paper on the Gaudapada Karikds in the Lahore Session of the All-India Oriental Conference (1928) under his Presidentship. I have always derived inspiration in‘my studies from his answers to my queries whenever I wr.te to him. His foroword has immensely added to the value of my work. Prof. M. Hiriyanna has kindly interested himself in my work since I published my thesis for Ph, D, He minutely goes through my letters and while he opined that my inferences were ‘reasonable’ he raised certain questions about the possibility of the loss of tradition, etc., implied in my interpretation offered in the present work and has thus made me discover and suggest a possible answer. In particular Satras also (¢. g., Bra. Si, IIL, 3. 23) he convinced me that Sahkaric”rya’s visayavdkya was correct, My correspondence with him has greatly profited me in the preparation of this book, Iam very thankful to this revered senior colleague for his closely scrutinizing my views, which has always encouraged me in my studies. I cannot underrate my debt to the works of Thibaut, Deussen, Ghate, Teliwala and others in the same field of research, I have been also considerably benefited by the study of the learned works, on the Brahmasiitras, of Dr. Belvalkar. It would be unfair on my part if I do not associate the names of two of my students, Messrs N. M. Mehta and J. M. Ashar, with the preparation of this book, Occasionally I come across students in teaching whom I algo learn, They were such students. With them I read the book ready for the press and on one or two occasions I thought it better to(5) revise my interpretation. Mr, Ashar is also responsible for preparing the Indices to this volume. I regret to note that Mr, N. M. Mehta is no more when this book is published. lam greatly indebted to my revered Prof. V. M. Mehtat, M. A, LL. B., and to my friends who prefer to romain unnamed, for their kindness in reading considerable parts of tho MS, and making valuable suggestions, The printing of the work involved, considerable difficulty and I acknowledge with tbanks the help I received from Messrs L. L. Mehta, Hormajshaw F, Cq,phbuilder, Gulabehand L, Shah and J. D. Dhruva, I also thank the editors of the Journal of the University of Bombay, Indian Culture, Indian Historical Quarterly, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Prabuddha Bharata, Review of Philosophy and Religion, and the Proceedings of All India Oriental Conferences, who have during these years published my Papers apd havo helped me in making known to scholars several of the views worked out and presented in details in this book. Principal T. K. Shahani, M.A., bas always taken keen interest in my work and has been very kind to me both in giving and getting me facilitios for the proparation and publication of this book. I acknowledge my deep debt of gratitude to him here. I express my deopost obligations to H. H. the Maharaja Sir Krishnakumarsinbji of Bhavnagar who generously sanctioned a special grant for the publication of the present work, as His Highness did for my earlier publications also. The author thankfully acknowledges his indebtedness to + It is very painful to me to mention that Prof. V. M. Mehta passed away just when the Prefaco was finally being seen through the Press.[6] the University of Bombay for the substantial financial help it has granted towards the cost of the publication of this bookt. I also thank the trustees of Seth Gurdhandas Soonderdas Charities, Bombay for the help they have kindly given me for bringing out this work, It now remains for me to crave the indulgence of sympathetic readers for errors of interpretation, exposition and expression, and of printing that might have escaped my attention. I am sorry that owing to the increase in the volume of this book when revised, I could not include in it some Appendices which were ready and which deal with my inter- pretation of Bra, Si, I and IIs, Parimala, Waghawadi Road, : BHAVNAGAR, S P. M. Modi, 7th May, 1943, + I gratefully acknowledge the fact that the Bombay University has already sanctioned another substential grant for Part II of this book, which is now in the press, * My Paper on the Scheme of Bra, Si, I. 1-8: A Rapprochement, published in the Journal of the University of Bombay ( Vol. IV, Part III, 1985) deals with my interpretation of Bra, Sa, I.CONTENTS FOREWORD by Prof. 8, N. Dasgupta INTRODUCTION __... we oe Two Parts... 4. se ee Contents of Part II... on ow ow viii-ix Important results of the author’s inquiry... ae ix 1, The Links in the Sitrakara’s System ... ix-xiii 2, The Importance of Brahmasitra III. 3 ... xiliexv 8. The Reconstruction of the Text of the Brahmasitra., 9 4. os, ne te xv-xvi 4, The Method of Interpretation to be applied to the Brahmasiitra ne oy xvi-xix 5. The Sitrakara’s Interpretation of See mee Merits of Badarayana ... aan oan wo. = XXiiexxv INTERPRETATION ow wee one fae 1-457 CHAPTER I BRAHMASUTRA III. 2 1-41... ee 1680 SECTION SUTRAS I. 11-19 Brahman unaffected by the Waking and other States, Two kinds of Srutis describe Brahman in all its (four) States... 1- 21 TI, 20-22 Veddhi ( inorement ) and hrdsa ( decree ment) of Brahman, due not to the Influence of the States, but to the Con- cealment of Brahman in its Effects... 22- 85smerION eUTRAS OL Iv. Vi VIL. BRAHMASUTRA III. 3. oes L 08 TL. Iv, Vi. VIL. 28-80 31-86 37 38-39 40-41 1-4 5- 9 10 LL-15 16-17 18-24 25-27 [8] Brahman is the Unmanifest and the Purusa (Katha Upa. IIL 10), Illustrations of the Nirakera and Sakara aspects of Brahman: Serpent and its Coil or Light and its Resort ... a oe A Parvapakga that the Poruge i is high than the Unmanifest, refuted ... The above refutation proves the 5 Omni presence of the Unmanifest ... oon The Reward (of Moksa ) is to bo had from this Unmanifest One oa Jaimini holds the Reward to be Dharma: Badarayana holds the Unmanifest Itself to be the Reward oy - CHAPTER Il One Brahman taught iti aLev eda Collecting of Information regarding Attributes, Method of Meditation, As- pects, eto, Difference of Two ee (Neaesaly) Attributes of Pradhana Aspect of Brahman ... ee ” Identification of One's Own Self with Brahman as Method of Meditation on Brahwan ... ” oo ” on Apirva as the Tnvisible Result of Meditation. The Principle of Apirva to be so understood in Similar Srutis, not in other Srutis wwe Meditation on the Pranava .,, ” rer 36- 45 46- 69 70- 78 74-76 77- 80 . 81-240 81- 89 90- 98 99-101 ». 102-110 111-115 . 116-127 128-188(9) axction sirnas rack VIII. 28-80 Option regarding Choice of Aspects of Brahman eae ae on 189-146 1X, 81-88 Attributes necessary for Meditation ... 147-157 X. 84-86 Practice of Meditation within One’s Self. 158-164 XI. 87-42 Interchange of Attributes of Avyatia and Puruga in Bruti, and its Result : No Objection to the Meditating upon Hither of the Two Separately... . s- 165-185 XII. 43-54 Solf-identification as the Method of Meditation on Puruga. Predominance of Pradbana over Puruga; yet Meditation on Puruga is also Brahmavidys we 186-214 XIII. 55-56 Meditation on Brahman based upon its Parts ... oe oe see woe 215-2246 XIV. 57 Number of Parts to be meditated upon... 225-228 XV. 58 Meditations on Brahman as consisting of Parts are each distinct from one another, 229-230 XVI. 59 Option regarding these Meditations ... 291-238 XVII. 60 Meditations on Brahman performed for some Desired Object... .a. 284-236 XVIII. 61-66 The Method of Meditation on Brahman as consisting of Parts .. 9... 237-240 CHAPTER III BRAHMASUTRA¢b III. 4 Se oeeee ere er 28 iesOd, I, (17 Aim ‘of human life achieved from the Knowledge of Brahman; the latter not subsidiary to religious Actions... ... 241-250 II, 18-26 Knowledge of Brahman, not a simple Reflection, but something to be Per- formed, or rather an Injunction, The Unanimity of Sense of the Knowledge of Brahman and Dharma ves ane 251-268[10] SRCTION SUTRAS paer IIL 29-89 Control of the Mind, the Senses etc., the very Basis. Saorifice, Donation, Austerity and the Duties of Orders of life must be compulsorily performed by Seekers. Their duties in Adversity. Optional Suppression of the Actions of an Order fora Seeker ... on oo see 268-280 IV. 40-42 No Reversion from Monkhood and no professional Duties for Monks except of a subordinate nature and that too in Adversity only... ae ee 281-287 V. 48-46 Duties of a Seeker who is i catade Monkhood - ves 288-298 VL 47-50 The Injunction of other helping ‘Actions, Optional except in the case of a House- holder... a s 294-800 VI. 51 A grhastha Seoker may perform ‘worldly Duties also, though not as a help to his Knowledge of Brahman ane se 301-803 VIII. 52 No Time-rule regarding the Achievement of the Moksa, even after the Praotice of its Means... a see 804-807 CHAPTER W BRAHMASUTRA IV. 1 ane . ae - 308-345 I. 1-2 Return of the Seeker of the Kawi of Brahman ae we . 808-312 Il. 3-6 Work of the Reborn ae his ae proach to, and his Precept about, Brab- man, Symbols of Brahman, and Parts of Brahman oo wee on w- 818-822 TI. 7-10 State of the Reborn Seeker of the Knowledge of Brahman... ... —... 828-8261] AMCTIGN SUTRAS PAGR Iv. i Residence of the Reborn Seeker of the Knowledge of Brahman foe a7) 807-098 Vv. 18 Same State to be kept till Departure... 329-331 VI. 13-19 Disposal of the Actions of the Seeker... 332-845 CHAPTER V BRAHMASUTRA LV. 2 ee gene ca ueneeeeeet te SA0=380. I, 1-11 The Union of the Senses with the Mind. The Union of the Mind with the Breath. The Union of the Breath with the Soul. The Union of the Soul with the Subtle Elements, The Same Departure before and also after the Attainment of Immortality esta ornate 8072002, Sontinuation of Seo. L 12-14 Departure of the senses, etc., even after the Attainment of Immortality, estab- lished oe ” aoe - 363-369 I The Union with the Supreme One i in the Heart... we ooo see 870-874 Ill. 16 The Nature of the Union: Non: Separation, 375-377 Iv. 17 Departure of the Soul from the Body through the hundred-and-first Artery... 878-382 V. 18-21 He joins the Rays of the Sun immediately on ‘his Departure... ... swe 888-387 . CHAPTER VI BRAHMASUTRA IV. 3 on eas os Loi The well-known Devayana Path begins 388-423 with the Flame ... aoe .- 388-390 IL 2 Wind, next to the Year . 891-394 Il, 3 Varuna, next to the Lightning ... . 395-398 IV. 4-5 Rays ete., are Conductors wee 399-401 Veue6 Conductor of the Lightning leads the Jiianin onwards .., aoe ase ave 402-408SRCTION SUTRAS [2] pace VI. 7-16 How far can the Vaidyuta Conductor lead the Knower of Brahman? Badari’s View : Only upto Prajapatiloka, which is an effect of Brahman (Sitras 7-11). Jaimini’s View: Upto the Para ( Sitras 12-14). Badarayana’s View: There is no Fault in Both the Views but Praja- patiloka is not an Effect of Brahman (Satras 15-16) ... vo ae ave 404-423 CHAPTER VII BRAHMASUTRA lV. 4 - vl oe 24-457 I. 1-3 Manifestation of the Original Form of - Released Soul after Union with Brahman, 424-428 I 4 Non-Separation of the Released Soul from the Supreme One... oe see 429-430 If 5-7 Nature of the Released Form of the Soul: Three Views aoe on we 481-436 IV. 8-9 Fulfilment of every Desire of the Re- leased Soul by mere Will: Self-lordship. 437-440 V. 10-14 Option of a Body in the case of tho Released : consistent with Fulfilment of Desires... ae » 441-443 VIL 15-16 Pervading Nature of the Relensed Soul... 444-447 VII. 17-21 Released Form of the Soul devoid of worldly Dealings, and Changeless ... 448-455 VIII. 22 Non-Return of the Released Soul... 456-457 aay eae eee 459-469 General Index... wee ee ane 459-460 a Index of Sanskrit Words | sos we wee 461-463 IIL Index of Works quoted f A, Upanisads es a ae wee 464-469 B. Other Works... 9. see nee ae 469FOREWORD Yauns ago, in my Second Volume of the History of Indian Philosophy, published in 1982, I said in my review of the Gita as follows :—“ God Himself is sometimes referred to is being avyakta (probably because He cannot be grasped by any of our senses ), as an existence superior to the avyakta which is described as a part of His nature, and as a category from which all things have come into being. This avyakia which is identical with God is also called akgara or the Immortal......In IV. 24-25, where it is said that all sacrifices are to be made with the Brahman as the object and the sacrificial materials, sacrificial fire ete, are to be looked upon as being Brahman, the word “ Brahman ” is in all probability used in the sense of God. In Gita V. 6, 10,19 also the word “ Brahman ” is used in the sense of God or Iévara; and in most other cases the word is used in the sense of God. But according to the Gita the personal God as Iévara is the supreme principle, and Brahman, in the sense of a qualityless, undifferentiated, ultimate principle as taught in the Upanisads, is a principle which, though great in itself and representing the ultimate essence of God, is never- theless upheld by the personal God or Iavara, Thus, though in Gita VII, 3 and X. 12 Brahman is referred to as the differenceless ultimate principle, yet in Gita XIV. 27 it is said that God is the stipport of even this ultimate principle, Brahman ” ( pp. 478-474). Dr. Modi in his dissertation, called Aksara, for his Doctorate in the University of Kiel, published in 1982, developed a similar line of thought and tried to follow up the concept of Akeara with avyakta as its synonym, in the Upanigads, in the Gita, and also in other literatures. The point that he urges is not so much regarding a personal or impersonal Brahman but2 the Brahman having a form and Brahman as without a form, that is, purusavidha and apurugwidha, We find also in Yaska the two concepts of the gods being purusavidha and apurusavidha, In the present work he tries to show that this problem existed also in the time when the Brahmasitra was written and some of the Brabmasitras appertain to this problem which has been wrongly interpreted by Satikara as that of saguna and nirguna Brahman. I had the privilege of pointing out both in my History and my Indian Idealism that the proper understanding and the interpretation of the mental situation that prevailed in the Upanisadic days is still an enigma to us. It had offered considerable difficulties probably at that time also and that the Gita and the Brahmasitras are two distinct attempts on different lines to explore it, The study of the Brahmasitras shows that many other attempts had preceded it but are now lost to us. There is also ample evidence to prove that the Brabmasitras must have been explained by many other writers before Satikara. Savikera, the most masterful of all the commentators known to us, had so smothered them that apart from certain suggestions, very little can be deduced about the views of those commentators from Saikara’s own commentary. The commentator’s who followed Sarikara mostly followed Sankare’s line of interpretation and differed only at particular points, where their own views were affected. Thus, a study of the commentaries of the great Aciryas, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha and Nimbarka, does not throw much light on the real meaning and purport of the Satras. Itis also to be regretted that so far practically nothing has been done with regard to a critical study of the Brahma- sitras, Dr, Modi has done an inestimable service in attempting a critical study of at least a part of the Brahmasitras, By a careful study of the Brahmasiitras he has practically succeeded in evolving a scheme, a sort of critical apparatus, which may be successfully applied to the Brahmasitras, to make them yield their own meaning. It is, no doubt, true that without3 Saikara’s commentary it might have been impossible for him to evolve that scheme but taking Sankara’s commentary into our consideration and applying Dr. Modi's scheme, it is easy to see how in many places Sarikara has, really, consciously or unconsciously, twisted the meaning of the Brahmasiitras to his own advantage, Let us take for example Satra III, 2.11 “nw sthdnato’pi parasyobhayalingam sarvatra hi”, Sahkara in interpreting this Sitra says that this Adhikarana is devoted to the interpretation of the nature of Brahman where the conditioned individual passes with the release of the conditions, on the ground of the Upanisadic texts, There are two types of texts, those attributing to Brahman qualities as sarvakarmd eto, (Cha: Upa. III. 14. 2) and those which declare it to be qualityless such as asthilam (By. Upa. Ill. 8.8), Sankara says that the opponent holds that since we have to be faithful to the Upanisads, Brahman must be qualified and’ unqualified, But this will be contradictory, The word sthdnatah might mean as conditioned by earth ete.; but that is also impossible, For, the association of conditions cannot change the nature of a thing. A crystal by the mere shadow of a red object cannot lose its transparency. So, in whatever character Brahman way be described, it must be regarded as being nothing else than qualityless, nirvikalpa Brahman. Dr. Modi takes the word ‘ sthana’ to mean the three states, awaking, dream and dreamless, Dr. Modi here urges that the use of the word api suggests the opponent’s view and the Upanigads teach two types of Brahman (1) one endowed with form: ( ripavat ) and (2) the other formless ( ariipavat ). He also holds that the word ubhayalingam means two types of Brabman ariipavat and ripavat and not saguna and nirguna, According to him, therefore, the Sitrakara finds no conflict between the texts sarvakarmad etc, and asthiilam ete,; for the two texts refer to two types of Brahman riipavat4 and ariipavat. The sentence sthanatak parasya ubhayaliigam means that according to the relation of different states Brahman is ripavat and aripavat, In the sugupti we have the aritpavat and in the svapna and jagrata we have the ripavat, In the fourth state or the turtya Brahman is neither rupavat nor a@ripavat, According to Dr. Modi, the Satrakara denies the view that Brahman is riipavat and aripavat according to the states of waking and dream and dreamless sleep in which it appears. But the Satrakira says that Brahman is ubhayalingam i. e. riipavat and ariipavat, in all the three states, According to Safikara the discussion is about savisesa and nirvitesa Brahman and the reply is that Brahman is nirviega everywhere i.e, in all the Srutis, Sarkara thinks that the expression ubhayalingasrutyanugrahdt ubhayalingam eva is the opponent's view, whereas Dr. Modi takes it to be the conclusion (siddhanta ) of the Satrakara, According to Dr. Modi’s interpretation the Sitra runs as follows :—parasya ubhayaliigam na sthanatah api sarvatra hi 4, e. the characteristic description of Brahman as riipavat and arupavat is not in accordance with the mental states of the Para but everywhere i, e, ( the description applies to the Para ) in all the states, According to Saikara the Sitra runs as follows :—na sthanatopi parasya ubhayalingam sarvatra hi, Here the Satra cannot be interpreted without assuming the words “ Brahma nirvikalpam””, He thus interprets the Satra by adding two words after the Sitra from his own mind The Satra would then mean “ Brahman cannot have two kinds of characteristics savisega and nirvitesa according to the limiting states (the earth etc, sthdna ). But in all Upanigadic texts ( sarvutra ) it is regarded as nirvisesa or nirvikalpa only”. We, thus, see that Dr, Modi’s interpretation is more faithful to the Sitra, Many questions, however, can be raised here as5 to whether Dr. Modi’s interpretation is justifiable according to the context or not, To this, Dr, Modi gives in most cases very convincing proofs in support of his interpretation ( Vide his interpretation of Bra, Sa. IIL 3, 14 for his arguments in the case of the illustration cited above ). The value of these, however, can only be adjudged when a scholar carefully compares Dr, Modi’s interpretation as it appears in the book with Salikara’s interpretation and tries to come to an impartial and balanced judgement, It must be said that Dr. Modi has learnt from Germany how to weld the critical apparatus to one’s best advantage. He appears at the sume time to be sympathetic and fair to Sankara and does not seem to read his own philosophical creed into the Brahmasitra, He proceeds by re~urranging the text of the Siitras and sometimes also the Satras of an Adhikarana into an order, which seems to yield a better meaning with the least assump- tion of other words, Sakara’s main defect seems to be the introduction of new words for his own advantage. Dr, Modi, however, follows the context alone as his guide and has strenu- ously abstained from the introduction of any word or idea not guaranteed by the context. He has, however, in certain places suggested new readings and tried to support them often quite successfully on critical, philological and contextual grounds. The results of Dr. Modi’s investigations may be classified in a twofold manner: 1) doctrinal and (2 ) interpretational. He holds that the Sttrakara describes the two aspects of Brahman as purugavidha and apurusavidha or ripavat and Griipavat and believes that they are on an equal status. The Purugavidha and the apurugavidha are both aspects of the Karana Brahman. The Sitrakara further discusses the three out of the six categories of Yaska, parindma, vrddhi and hrasa of Brahman, The change of Brahman is such that the effect or krti is identical with Brahman and increment and decrementé of Brahman are due to his own relative self-concealment. He speaks of three kinds of meditations viz, (1) the meditation on the limits of the puruga or the parts of Brahman as in sodasakalavidya and (2) the meditation on Brahman without thinking of his limits (%. ¢, contrary to vaiutnara aman end godutakalavidya ), These two meditations lead to Moksa, The third type (3) is kamya, Dr. Modi further discovers several Srauta and smérta Vedanta Schools which were the opponents of the writer of the Brahmasitras. He also discovers that the Sitrakira discusses the meditation on the Pranava as a symbol of Brahman, I would not guarantee the exactitude of these results but {would only say that they are quite plausible and thought-provoking. Dr. Modi holds that Bra. Sa. III. 3 deals with the method of meditation on Brahman and not with the gunopasaihara nor with the reconciliation of the different vidyas and vijndnas, The most important feature of Dr. Modi’s work is indeed the application of a critical method of study to the Siitras, In this respect he has, undoubtedly, proceeded much further than previous interpreters of the Brahmasitras, like Thibaut or Ghate, The Brahmasitras do not offer the same readings always in the works of the different Aciryas, But Dr. Modi, though he has generally accepted the readings as they are found in Saikara’s bhdsya, has yet suggested modifications in accordance with the critical necessity of the context. He has also in many places differed from Sankara as regards the allusions to the different Upanisadio texts, on which the meaning of the Sitras depends. On many occasions he has successfully contested the claims of a Satra for being treated as a hetu-Stitra and decided in favour of its being a pratijna-Sitra and vice versa, and in doing this he either regrouped the Sitras of » particular Adhikarana or ingeniously interpreted the particles hi, tu, ca, etc, and sometimes suggested differentv readings in the Satras, But he has seldom introduced new words for the interpretation of a Sitra as Sankara so often does. Following the same line of enquiry he has also sug- gested exact visayavakyas of several Satras, Though we may not always agree with all that Dr, Modi has suid, yet he seems to have proved to our satisfaction that at least in many places Saikara’s interpretation is either doubtful or unacceptable. Safkara seems to have been often interested in reading his own philosophy in the Sttras and loyalty to the Sutras does not seem to be his strong point. Dr. Modi further holds that for his doctrine of a two- fold Brabman Badarayana is probably indebted to Yaske’s conception of the purusuvidhu and the apurusavidha aspects ‘of the Vedic deities or to other previous Vedanta writers who had already adopted a view about Brahman consistent with Yaska’s conception of deities. That the idea of a personal Brahman and an impersonal one should have revealed itself clearly at some early stage of the development of Indian thought seems to be a very rational hypothesis. By his careful and painstaking and thought-provoking researches Dr. Modi has done a great service to those who are engaged in tracing the development of Indian thought from the eurliest times. It is precisely this period between the Brahmagus and the Brahmasitras the full history of which is now practically lost, that would require the most diligent application of critical study by which we may be able to weave a fairly correct picture of this obscure period. That Dr. Modi, instead of working in a stereotyped manner, in the beaton track, has showed his originality of approach to new types of thought that flourished before the Brahmasitras and has thus given us a new picture of the Brahmasitras is indeed a matter of great satisfaction. But the book has been so elaborate that, I fear, he would have but few readers, who would have the patience tofollow him carefully. He has not also applied his critical apparatus to the whole of the Brahmasttras but only to specific parts of it which he has selected for this purpose, I recommend this elaborate piece of research particularly to those who are interested in a critical appraisal of the meaning and significance of the Brahmasitras as they stand, unaffected by the opinions of any of the Acaryas. Dr. Modi, is, thus, to be complimented upon for contributing something substantial and original towards our unravelling one of the most obscure parts of the history of the Indian thought. Sanskrit College, Caleutta, S. N. Dasgupta. 18th September, 1941.INTRODUCTION. Hxrewira a fresh interpretation of the Brabmasitra (II. 2. 11-IV ) is offered to the student of this so-called third Prasthina and to the student of the Indian Philosophy. The reader must ever keep in mind -the tentativeness of the interpretation proposed here. This is bound to be the characteristic of any modern interpretation of any text of the Scripture (Sruti), The author of the present work confesses that though the general and most important part of his interpretation of Bra. Sa, LIL. 3 offered here is identical with the same offered in his doctorate thesis?, some important points of details of the same are quite fresh here. It was discovered in the course of his fresh study that the exact meaning of some Satras of Bra, Sa, II. 3 was different from that proposed in his thesis. Similarly, while preparing the present work he bad from time to time to make changes not only in the interpretation but also in the grouping of the Sutras into Adhikaragas, when having once arrived at a decision about tae same he discovered on a subsequent occasion that a new construction of a Satra or Sitras in question was the proper one. It may be that on a further inquiry some fresh points may arise, the solution of which may necessitate changes even in the portion of the Brahma- sitra treated here. Let us, therefore, keep an open mind?, while we study further. 1, Akgara: A forgotton chapter in the Histury of Indian Philo- sophy, Baroda, 1932, 2, Is will bo found that in the case of certain Siitras the present author has found no satisfactory interpretation till now and that he has admitted his inability to come to a conclusion in such cases, More-n The reader must bear in mind here that it is only an accident that I begin the work with Bra, Sa. IL 2, 11. It must be made clear that I do not regard the portion of Bra. Su, I-III. 2, 10 as an interpolation or a later addition, In fact, have discovered a very close connection between Bra, Sa. L 1-3 and Bra, Sa, IIL, 3, 11, 37-89, I have found no reason to doubt the genuineness* of the remaining portion ( Bra. Sa. I. 4, II, WL. 1 and 2, 1-10), As is very well known Bra, Su. II, 2. 11 begins a erucial Adhikarana, as it and the subsequent Satras contain what is called ‘ the discussion of Brahman ’ (tatpadarthavivecana). While writing my doctorate thesis (in 1930) 1 happened to study particularly those Sitras and prepared a small work on them, only a part of which was used for my thesis. Later on, I continued my study upto the end of the Brabmasitra. This is why the present work begins from Bra. St. LIL 2 11 and ends with Bra. Sa. IV. 4. I consulted some of my own professors as well as some others of established repute as to whether I should publish the portion of the interpretation of tho Brahmasitra, which I had prepared. Though some of them insisted that I should first write down my interpretation of the whole work, a majority of them approved of my idea to publish as much as was ready. over, in spite of the great omphasis he has laid on certain tenets of the Sitras which he thinks are as good as finally settled, he would be ready to consider any now interpretation coming from any source, because it is, though not impossible, very difficult to think of an interpretation of Sitras as ultimate owing to the very aphoristic style of the Sitras. 3. In an article in the Indian Historical Quarterly ( 1936 ) I have shown that Bra, Si. Il, 1 (Samrtipada) is very closely related to Bra, Sa. I, 4, Those Padas (Bra, Si, I. 4 and II, 1) deal with the Opposition of whas should be called the Smarta Vedanta and not with the Sainkhaya, The Sutrakira’s troatment of the Smirta Vedanta, however, applies to the Sarkhya also and this is the implied sense of ca in Bra, Sa, IL. 2. 1,iti I have, now, got with me most of Bra, Sa, L 1-IIl. 2, 10 interpreted according to the method I have suggested in the present volume. I do not personally find that any Sdatra out of Bra, Si, III. 3, 11-IV will have to be interpreted differently than in the way done here, in view of Bra, Sa, I. 1-3. Satras III. 3, 11, 87-39 give an indication to the interpretation of Bra, Su. I. 1-8. However, it is mainly due to the line of study I have followed that I publish the portion which I worked out and await another opportunity to publish other instalments of the interpretation of this great Prasthina. The task of interpreting the whole of the Brahmasitra at a single stretch is too big for a single person and perhaps there will be enough to be learnt from the criticism that the present work may stimulate. An important matter for which I have to apologise to the reader, is that from among the commentaries I have selected only Sankardcdrya’s commentary for particular study so far as the present work is concerned. I sincerely hope that no serious student will charge me with having an intention of insulting this great Acarya or of finding fault with his Bhdsya. Nor do I underrate the worth of the commentaries of other Acaryas or refuse to receive any help they may give in interpreting this most difficult of the three or four Prasthanas. Here again, what has happened is that I have taken Saiikaracarya, with whose commentary I happen to be more familiar, as a type of the traditional interpreters, so far as the method of traditional interpretation is concerned, While examining Satkaracirya’s method of interpretation I have had innumerable occasions to criticise his Bhasgya, but I thereby do not intend to offend him or his followers. All the same I beg to be pardoned if anybody feels offended with my criticiem of Sankeracirya’s Bhagyas, 4. “Any attempt at a more precise characterisation of the views of the Sitras is bound to contain many rocks of offence and sources of the spiritual disturbances” —Sir 8, Radhakrishnan, ‘ Indian Philosophy ’, Vol, Il, P. 444, I hope, I do not become a source of such a disturbance,iv My only justification for presenting this volume to the student of the Brahmasitra lies in the method that I have adopted in its interpretation. The method is the modern method described as historico-critical-oum-philological method, which I personally believe to be the most reliable method and the greatest gift that India has received from the study of our Scriptures by western scholars, I believe, neither Deussen, nor Thibaut, nor Teliwala nor even Ghate who alone discusses the question of correct method of interpretation, has applied this method in its proper perspective to the Brahmasitra, No doubt I have received valuable help from their works. Here I may state that I have made an effort to carry further the inquiry undertaken by these pioneers into the original sense of the Brahmasitra, and I must leave it to those who are qualified to judge how far I have succeeded in it, I shall be satisfied if it is felt by the learned that the application of the modern method as is generally understood, and to the extent it was possible for me to follow, is a justification for writing ® work liké this®, In one chapter of Part II, Ihave examined the traditional method of interpretation as illustrated by Saikaracarya and in another chapter I have shown what the modern critical method should be. Here I may mention one very important feature of this method, The Acaryas start with the belief that all the Prasthinas teach the same doctrine. They try to discover this one doctrine in the Prasthanas and write commentaries on them with that in mind. Saikaricirya seems to have got 5, Vide the Introduction to ‘ Studies in Vedantism ’ by K. C, Bhat- tacharya, Caleutta, 1909, He rightly complains against those scholars who dispose of important problems, ¢.g., those of “Indian pessimism and fatalism by a sapient reference to the climatic and political condition of the country”, But his attack on Thibeut seems to me to be unjustifiable, Vide also my Introduction to Chap. I of Vol. II “The System of the Brahmasitra ”.v his doctrine originally from Buddhism, Gaudapada, and some portion of the Brhadirayaka Upanisad, and then interpreted all the Prasthanas in the light of that doctrine. Ramanujacarya, according to the tradition, got a glimpse of his doctrine partly at least from the works of the Tamil Saints ( Alwars ) and Tamil Acaryas and then discovered the sgme in the Prasthanas with the help of the commentary of the Vyttikdra which he found in Kashmir. By an interpretation of the inspired works which the people at different times considered to be the canon of religion, each Acirya achieved a wonderful success in infusing a new life and spirit into the religion and philosophy of his age, suitable not only to the religious necessity of his followers, but also to the political, social and above all the intellectual environments of his time. The Acarya was not merely a critical interpretor; he was the religious guide too of his age; and he did his duty and achieved his goal thus, Unlike those Acaryas, the modern student does not start with the idea of a doctrinal uniformity of all the Prasthanas, though he does believe that underlying all the Prasthanas ( allotted to different periods ) there is a historical unity in the gradual development of thought.* It is evident that he is no Mathadhipati, ‘the Lord of a Sect’, nor does he aspire to be one though he should try to bring home to his own people the ‘truth that he discovers, by presenting it in simple, non-technical language. Such a modern student should, in my opinion, attempt to discover the original sense of the Brahmasitra by proceeding in two different ways, The first way is that after a preliminary study of the commentaries on all the Prasthanas, which would enable him to understand the 6. Vide K, C, Bhattacarya’s Introduction to his Studies in Vedantism, PI, VI-VIII for the distinction between the role of the philosophic systematiser and the critical or historical scholar. I fully agree with his idea of the latitude allowed to philosophic aystomatisation. However one may differ from the Acaryas, he can never charge him with “ intellectual dishonesty ”.vi traditional view’, he should start with an intensive study of the Brahmasitra text itself and refer to the Upanisads and the Gita again and again to see whether the result of such an intensive study of the Brahmasitra agrees with the doctrines of these Prasth@nas, The second way is that having equipped himself with the study of the commentaries he should classify the Srutis of the (twelve) Upanisads under the four heads corresponding to the four Adhydyas of the Brahmasiitra, viz., the Samanvaya, Avirodha, Sadhana and Phala Adbyfyas, and then see how these Srutis come into discussion under the various Sitras of each Adhyaya and try to find out how the Sutrakdra interprets the corresponding Sruti, in the respective Adhyaya (and also Pada, so far as possible ). I have tried to study the Brahmasiitra according to the first way only. It still remains to examine this Prasthina by the second method, Such an examination is bound to furnish us with invaluable evidence for the interpretation of the Sitras®, Owing to the incompleteness of the work in the above and in many other respects, it has been utterly impossible to discuss in this book such questions as “ which of the Acaryas represents even approximately correctly the view of the Sttrakara ”. Without knowing definitely the view of the 7, This point has beon amply emphasised by K. C. Bhattacarya in his ‘ Studies in Vedantism ’, Introduction, P. V. He says: “The Philo- sophical study should come fist in the order of time; the historical study of an ancient system of philosophy, to be of any use at all, must be preceded by an earnest study of the philosophy, in the expositions traditionally accepted as authoritative.” Such a sympathetic study means the study of the commentaries of the Acaryas. 8 This second test will yield important reeults about such questions as the following :—( 1) Whether by dartayatah and darkayanti the Siitrakara refers respectively to two and to several Srutis only or to two and more Srutis and Smrtis algo; (2) whether by eke he means only one Sakha of one Veda or several Sakhis of the different Vedas, stc., etc.vii Satrakdra himself, how could we compare those of the Acaryas with the same? The fact that several scholars have attempted to answer this question and have actually given various mutually contradictory answers shows that their very starting point is defective. The doctrine of the Sitrakara cannot be derived from an examination of some scattered rewarks in the Satras or from a few technical words in the Satras. Tho comparison of the Sutrakara’s view with the doctrine of Saikaricarya which I have given in Chapter 8 of Part II is thus only tentative and should be received with caution. I may now introduce the book to the reader. As is natural, I bave divided the book into two Parts. The first Part contains an interpretation of Bra. Sa. IIL 2. 11-IV. The second Part gives in twelve chapters an account of the System of the Sitrakfra derived from this interpretation, and also gives some suggestions for the correction of the text and some rules for its correct interpretation. In Part I, I have regrouped the Sitras into Adhikaranas and after giving my own translation of the Sutras of each Adhikarana I have given Notes. These Notes form the most important portion of the entire book. It is in these Notes that I give my reasons for not accepting Sankardcarya’s grouping of tho Sutras into Adhikaranas, for adopting a fresh one, for at times changing the reading in a Siitra or Sitras, for giving a certain sense to each word in a Sitra, for rejecting Saikardearya’s vigayavdtya and at times suggesting that there should be no vigayavdkya or should be a new visuyavakya, for almost all things that a reader would like to know about the interpretation of the Sitras given at the beginning of the Adhikarana, It is, again, in these Notes that I give full details of my explanation of certain Srutis, which I believe is in harmony with that of the Sitrakdra, of the loss of tradition as regards Bra, Sa. III. 8, of what I believe to be the origin of the Sitrakira’s conception of Brahman, ote., ete.ait It is by dropping some of these arguments and these details that I have prepared the account in the twelve chapters of Part IL. The first chapter of Part II in which I have summarised the Satrakara’s conception of Brahman and his method of meditation on Brahman, is based on my inter- pretation of Brahmasitra III. 2 and III. 3, ¢. ¢., the first two chapters of Part I. Sitras ILI. 2, 11-41 discuss the Satrakara’s conception of Brahman and it is in Bra. Sa. III, 8 that the Satrakara gives all pieces of information about the various meditations on Brahman which he collects from the various Upanigads. But for the sake of convenience I have not strictly observed the distinction and division between the two Padas made by the author of the Sitras. Chapter 2 discusses the comparative position of action and knowledge ( karma and jiiana ) in the attainment of Moksa, and the varieties of actions which a seeker (mumuksu ) may do as a help to knowledge directly or mediately; and thus it corresponds to Bra. Su. IIL 4, 4. ¢., Chapter 3 of Part I, Chapters 3-6 of Part II are summaries of the conclusions established in Chapters 4-7 of Part [, which deal with the interpretation of Bra. Sa, IV. 1-4. From the vigayavatyas of certain Sitras which I claim to have discovered, it appears that the Sutrakara understood certain Srutis of the chief Upanigads differently than Sankardcarya, and this difference I have stated in Chapter 7 of Part II, after collecting the scattered remarks of the Satrakira sbout the same from all the chapters of Part I. Chapter 8 presents a tentative comparison between the views of the Sitrakara and those of Satikaraoarya. In Chapter 9 of Part If I have explained how Bra, Sa. IIL. 3 is in my opinion the most important part of the Brahma- siitra, as it contains certain critical Sitras holding the key to Bra, Sa, I, 1-8. Chapters 10 and 11 of Part If discuss the method of interpretation of the Brahmasitra. In Chapter 10 I have examinedix the traditional method as presented in Saikaracdrys’s Bhasya, and pointed out how it is defective, I have also admitted that though some instances of defects given by me may be shown to be no defects at all, the general conclusion that the defects of the traditional method are to be classified under the particular heads stands, I may here add that the repeated reference to the same passage under different classes of defects was nacessary for me to illustrate what I think to be a mistaken way of interpretation. There is no intention, as there can be none, of disrespecting the Acarya or his followers. In Chapter 11, I have made some practical sugges- tions which may be taken as rules for attempting an approximately correct interpretation of the Brahmasitra, and which I have put into practice in Part [. In Chapter 12, I have made an effort to reconstruct the readings of tho Sfitras, and to regroup the Sitras into Adhiksranas so far as Bra, Sa. II. 2. 11-IV is concerned. This reconstruction of the text is the most important part of the textual criticism, because without fixing the text no correct interpretation of the same is possible, T may now briefly state the more important results which I have discovered for the first time in the course of my inquiry into the interpretation of the Brahmasitra, and about which I feel I have achieved very great degree of certainty, These results are in five different directions:—( 1) The links in the Sitrakara’s System, (2) The importance of Bra, Sa. TI. 8, (8) The reconstruction of the text of the Brahmasitra, (4) The method of interpretation to be applied to the Brahma- sitra, and (5) the Sitrakara’s interpretation of certain Srutis, 1, The Links in the Sitrakara’a System —(a ) I have finally settled that the Sitrakara believes in two aspects of Brahman, the purusavidha (the sakara) or the super-personal, and the a—purusawidha ( the nirakdra ) or the impersonal, not the saguna and nirguna as in Saikera’s System, Both thesehave attributes and are of equal status, as regards the attainment of Moksa, The Sitrak@ra refutes the views that the puruga- vidha is only a mental projection on the apurugavidha (the impersonal aspect, which is then the only aspect ), and that the purusavidha is a concession to those who cannot under- stand the formless one, and also that the purusavidha is higher than the apurugavidha, (b) The Sitrakdra also discusses the parindma, vrddhi and hrdsa of Brahman, the three out of the six states of an entity (bhava) mentioned by Yaska, The parindma of Brabman is such that the created world is also Brahman and consequently the vrddhi and hrdsa of Brahman are due to the less or more self-concealment of Brahman in what are its effects or parindmas. I have suggested that the Satrakara adopts, or follows a Vedanta School which had already adopted a view about Brahman similar to Yaska’s view about the two aspects of the deities of the Rgveda, which are both purusavidha and also apurugavidha. (¢) One very important fact about the Sitrakara’s discussion in favour of his System is that he refutes not only Sathkhya Parvapakgas but also several other Parvapaksas which can be classified under several Srauta and Smarta Vedanta Schools. In Bra, Sa. II. 3, the Sitrakara refutes a Vedanta view that beyond the Unmanifest Brahman there is a Principle called Purusa; another Vodanta view that it is only the Unmanifest Brahman which is meta- phorically to be thought of as Purusa; and a third Vedanta doctrine that the same principle is both the impersonal Unmanifest (Brahman ) and also the Purusa at the same time, These Parvapaksas of the Stitrakara throw a great deal of light on the Sitrakira’s intorpretation of the Katha and other Upanigads and the Bhagavadgita. Besides these, there are several other very important Parvapaksas, one of which, for example, is that the meditation’ on the Purusa is taught in the Sruti because it is easy to be performed by the individual soul who is encased in a body. Among the Sitrakara’s doctrines of minor importancexi discovered in this book I may briefly state the following :- (1) The Prajfpatiloka is an aspect (the personal aspect ) of the Karana or Mukhya Brahman ; it is not a Karya of Brahman, The Satrakira refutes the lokapatti doga on the Prajapatiloka, (2) The Sitrakara speaks of three kinds of meditations on Brahman. (a) Brahman thought of as not consisting of parts or limbs, (6) Brahman thought of as consisting of parts or limbs, e. y., Brahman conceived as Purusa or Vaigvanara. Both these meditations lead to Mokga, (c) Brahman thought of as the nama, ete The meditations of this third class are Kamya or voluntary meditations on Brahman intended to achieve some aim of the meditator. (8) Not a few Siitras discuss the meditation on Brahman as symbolised in the Pranava, though none of the Acaryas says that this meditation is discussed in ‘the Brahmasitra, (4) The Sutrakara explains Brahman and its meditations on the same lines as Jaimini explains Dharma and its performance, He says that because the line of explanation of the meditation on Brahman and of the performance of sacrifice is of the same nature, we have the ekavakyata—unanimity—of the two Kandas of the Veda. (5) The knowledge of Brahman is anustheya and is laid down by a Vidhi, the result of which knowledge is an Apirva, though unlike the performance of the Jyotistoma which guarantees the heaven in the very next birth, the practice of the means ( knowledge and actions) of Moksa cannot guarantee Moksa in the very next birth. (6) Regarding the actions which directly help the knowledge of Brahman in achieving Mokga, the householder-mumukeu has more duties to perform than mumukgus belonging to other orders of life—a view given by Safkara as a Purvapaksa in his commentary on the Bhagavadgita. (7 ) In the time of adversity (i.e, danger of losing life ) an ascetic seeker may perforw official (priestly ) duties both of a primary and a secondary nature like those performed by Usasti Cakrayana. (8) The Satrakara also allows a mumuksu to perform bis worldy duties in addition to those duties which direotly help knowledge in achieving Moksa, in orderxii that ‘ whatever he has begun be not obstructed ’, (9) Several religious good deeds including even those which the Sruti calls kamya karmans are to be performed by a mumukgu even after the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman till the fall of the body of the sage, because they help the knowledge directly in achieving Moksa, if they are performed by a sage with the idea of using them as a help to the knowledge. (10) The knowledge (of Brahman ) and actions co-operate with each other in the achievement of Mokga, though, of course, the former is the principal of the two. (11) The devayana is the Path of the Progressive Advance towards Moksa (not the Path of the Svarga ). The sasapatti (‘ union of the senses into the mind, that of that mind into the breath, that of that breath into the Light, aud that of that Light into the Supreme Deity’) takes place in the case of a seeker advancing on‘the Path. And that sarhpaiti plus utkranti ( departure of these from the body ) are necessary before a knower of Brahman attains his goal ( non-separation with Brahman ), (12) The Sitrakara does not want to add Devaloka, Indraloka, and Prajapatiloka to the list of worlds in the Chandogya Upanisad, (13) The discussion of sa enan Brahma gamayati (Cha. Upa. 1V 15.5) should proceed on the consideration of the conductor's ability or inability to go to Brahman himself, or on the consideration ‘ How far oan the conductor himself go’, and not on the question ‘ whether going to Brahman is logically possible or not’, (14) The meditators on the Pranava as the Symbol of Brahman are conducted by the Sémans ( not by a Vaidyuta Ativahika ) to Brahman (neu. ) according to the Prasna Upanisad. (15) The form of the liberated soul is free from the dealings of the world ( jagadvyaparavarjam ), it is not subject to any change (vikdravarti ), and it is a permanent form (tathd hi sthitim aha ), (16) One important fact which I have discovered is that the Sitrakara takes as authority for (the knowledge of) Brabman only the Vedantas, i. ¢., the Upanisads, and not the Samhita, the Brahmaya, the Aranyaka and the Khila (.c. g.,the Khilas of the Samaveda Raniyaniya Sakha ), He does not consider the attributes of Brahman mentioned in these non-Upanisadic Srutis as worthy of discussion in his Brahmasitra, though the attributes like saribhrti and dyuvydptt (mentioned in the Ranayaniya Khila of the Simaveda) are really the attributes of Brahman. 2. The Importance of Brahmasitra Il. 3:—A fact of supreme importance discovered during my study of Bra, Sa. IIL. 2. 11-IV is that the most important portion of the- entire Brahmasiitra is Pada 8 of Adhyaya III. This Pada reveals the Sutrakdra’s scheme of the division into three Padas, viz, Bra, Si. I. 1, 2 and 8, of the Srutis chosen by him for discussion in those Padas. The principle underlying this division is discovered in three crucial Siitras of Bra. Sa. ILL. 8, viz., Bra, Sa, IIL 3,11, 38-39, From these Siitras, we learn that (i) in Bra, Sa. I, 1 the Sitrakara discusses those Vedanta Srutis which deseribe the formless ( ariijpavat ) aspect of Brahwan and which the Sitrakira would also interpret as such, (ii) that in Bra. Sa. I, 2 he discusses such Vedantas as profess to describe the formless aspect, but as apply such attributes to it as would be properly applicable to the aspect with the (human ) form called the Purusa, and which, therefore, the Sitrakara interprets (in Bra, Sa. I, 2) as dealing with the Purusa aspect, and (iii) that Bra. Sa, 1. 3 is devoted to the construction of those Vedanta Srutis which profess to describe the Puruga aspect and which the Sitrakara also proposes to interpret (in Bra, Sa. I. 3) as dealing with the same aspect, I have given my reasons why I believe that the above scheme of the division of the Srutis into three groups, each of which finds a place in one independont Pada, is revealed in certain Sutras of Bra. Sa, IIL 3. I have also discussed the views of the Acaryas on the basis of the division of the Srutis into these three Padas. Besides the revelation of this scheme, there is another stand-point whichxiv makes Bra. Si. III. 3 the most important part of the entire work, As interpreted by me the Satras of Bra. Si. III.8 proceed from Adhikarana to Adhikarana to present in aregular series the information about the various items of primary concern to the meditation on the two aspects of Brahman, the purugavidha and the apurusavidha, of the Siitrakara’s System. Such a series of Sitras is not to be found in any other Pada of the Brahma- sitra, I have shown the importance of this Pada by comparing the aims of the Adhikaranas one by one as interpreted by me, with the aims of the same as outlined in the bhdsyas of Saikara and Raminuja, I think, the sequence of links of thoughts Ihave discovered is remarkably regular and, therefore, of great importance for the study of the work itself. It seems that the Acaryas, even Sarikaracarya, had no unbroken tradition regarding the interpretation of the Sitras in Bra, Sa. IIL 8. Iam at present unable to account for the loss of tradition but the fact that the tradition was lost is revealed by my discovery of the meaning of each of its Siitras. It is this Pada (Bra, Si, III. 3) in the interpretation of which Setkurdcdrya himself seems to realize that he is not quite sure about what he writes, as shown by me through his own statements in his bhdsya on this Pada, I have collected fourteen such statements to which I have proposed to add nineteen others from his bhasya. Also this Pada contains six tad uktam Sitras in the interpretation of which the Acaryas seem to have erred. Not only was the tradition about the interpretation of this Pada lost long before Saikaracarya, but, as Ihave discovered, the very text of this Pada had under- gone mutilation even before him (vide infra). There are other portions of the Brahmasitra which are also important, ¢. g., Bra, Si, III. 2. 11-41 and II. 1. The former contains the tatpadarthavivecana, The latter is called ‘ Smyti Pada’ which in my opinion uses the word ‘smrti’ not in the sense of Samkhya but in that of the Gita and which, as I understand it, gives the Siitrakara’s views on the various dootrines of thexv @ita which are not in harmony with those of the Upanisads honoured by the Sitrakare’ himself. But the importance of this Smyti Pada is partly at least due to the place which the Gita holds for us as a religious book. Tho Gita, perhaps had not so much importance for the Siitrakara who seems to us to be ready to give up the Smrti which contradicted the Sruti according to the rule laid down by Jaimini, In short, the value of Bra. Sa. III. 3 is immense and is derived from the help which that Pada renders in understanding the Sutrakara’s own System, his own work and, I must add, his views about several Srutis of the Upanisads ( Vide 5 infra ). 3. The Reconstruction of the Text of the Brahma- siitra:—We have referred above to the mutilation of the text of Bra, Sa. III. 3. It should be noticed here that in the course of my study of Bra, Si, I, 2, 11-IV, I have been able to suggest certain text-readings which are not found in the possession of any of the Acaryas who wrote a bhagya on the Brahmasitra, I have ventured to suggest these because I think that an intensive internal study of these Sitras would justify these inferences. The numbor of these is eight in all, and I requost the reader to go through my arguments in favour of theui given fully in Part I. Besides these text corrections, I have regrouped the Sitras into Adhikaranas. It is very well known that each of the Acaryas has an Adhikarana Patha of his own. In the course of my study 1 discovered certain rules which would negatively govern the establishing of an Adhikarana, ¢. g., (i) @ Satra with cw would never begin a new Adhikaraga, (ii) so also a Sutra with the statement of an argument only ( hetu, either by the particle hi or by a form of the ablative ) will never stand at the beginning of an Adhikarana, and (iii) other 1, Vide for a fuller disoussion my article “ Meaning of ‘ Smyti’ in the Brahmasitra”, Indian Historical Quartely, Vol. XII, No, 4, 1936,xvi rules which would possibly show the charaoterstics of the first and the last Satras of an Adhikarana. All these I have given in Chapter XII. On the strength of these rules, I have offered a reconstructed Adbikurana Patha. Thus, the correction of the readings of the text itself and the regrouping of the Sitras into Adhikaranas are two features of the inquiry I have made as regards the text of the Brahmasitra, 4. The Method of Interpretation to be applied to the Brahmasiittra:—Also, in the province of the method of interpretation the present work has brought to light certain new lines of appoach which, I believe, will stand any critical scrutiny. My inquiry in this direction is two-fold: (1) a study of Saikara’s method of Interpretation, Satkara being taken as a representative of the Acaryas, and his bhdgys as a type of the bhdsyas of the Acaryas, and (2) a study of the Satras themselves (without the help of any bhagy as far as possible ). I must admit that an Acirya is more than a mere interpreter. It is in the capacity of an Acarya that Satkara sometimes, after having interproted the Sttrakara in the proper way, openly sets aside the latter's interpretation of a Sruti and proposes a new one suitable to his own School 1 must admit this right of an Acarya, because [ would have accepted even the right of an Acarya to write altogether a new Brahmasiitra, Badarayana being only the first of such Acaryas. The duties of an Acarya’ require more rights than those accorded to an interpreter, and one more important privilege of that position ix the right to formulate a System of Vedanta (or Samkhya or any other) Philosophy to suit the time and circumstances and the temperament of the people whom he, as an Acarya, has to guide to the Path of Liberation, This privilege implies the right of interpreting the Scripture so as to enable him to base on it the System proposed by the Acarya, This ‘interpretation requires the ability toxvii harmonize mutually contradictory texts of the Scripture, in which the Scripture abounds. All the Kcaryas have wonder- fully suoceeded in this task, and Sahkara’s success is perhaps the most brilliant one. I appreciate his explanation of the contradictions in the Sruti and the Smyti and his System based upon it, I am, however, in the present book concerned with Safkara’s interpretation of only the Brahmasiitra, one of his authorities for his System; so, I take him here as an interpreter only, not as an Acarya. When I examine the method of Saikara’s interpretation, I must say, I find many difficulties in accepting his interpretation as correct, I have tried to study very minutely his bhdgya and have for the first time ventured to offer a detailed criticism of his method, pointing out the dofocts underlying his interpretation, I have tried to establish several conclusions about his method, of which the following seem to me to be very important:—-( 1) No scheme about the threefold classification of topics, viz, para vidya, apara vidya, and avidyd, is intended in the Siitras by the Sitrakara. (2) Sabkara sometimes gives two opposite interpretations of the same Sruti or Smrti, (8) Sahkara’s vigayuvdkyas in his bhagya on Bra, Sa. IIL 2 and 3 are mostly not correct in the sense that either no visayavdkya or a different one is intended by the Sitrakara, (4) Saikara’s interpretation of each Sitra in Bra, Sa, III. 2 and 8 involves too many unwarranted additions to each Satra, And (5) his bidgyw contains Parvapakgas which are wrong, or impossible if not altogether absurd when we look at the Sruti quoted or the sense of the Sitra itself, Studying the Sitras independently of any Lhdsya as far as possible, I have felt that the traditional method of seven indications for deciding the sense of a text ( lingath tdtparya- nirnaye ) is defective so far as the Brahmasitra ( or any other similar Sotra work ) is concerned, because the Acaryas and even the modern scholars who have mostly followed the samexviii method have come to divergent conclusions. I have, there- fore, made ten practical suggestions which may be added to those wade by Dr. Ghate. These suggestions, I believe, are made here for the first time on the grounds of a critical, comparative and philological study of the Satras, Of these, the following may be simply enumerated here as being more important:—( 1) The expression ‘tad uktam’ which occurs about eight times in the Brahmasitra (six times in Bra. St. Ill. 2, 11-IV) refers only to some of the Sitras in the Brahmasitra, that precede the partioular Sitra with tho expression (tad uktam), and not to other works like the Jaimini Siitra, the Upanisads, the Gautama Dharma Sitra, the Bhagavata and other Puranas, as supposed by Saikara and other Acaryas. (2) The bakuvrthi compounds, dnandddayah, satyd- dayuh, dyatanddayah ( Bra, Sa. IIL. 3. 11, 38-39 ) refer respectively to Bra, Sa. I. 1, 2 and 3, and suggest the soheme of three divisions of the visayavatyas discussed in those throe Padas, Similarly, all other bahuvrthi compounds, ¢. g., sabdddayah ( Bra. Su. TIL 3, 58 ), ete, should be explained as referring to the Sitras themselves and not to any other list of attributes or arguments mentioned either in the Upanisads or elsewhere (except a compound like ecdunddi in Bra, Sa, IH. 3. 1 which refers to a well established rule in the Jai, Sa). (3) On critical grounds I have further suggested quite new visayavdkyas in the case of several Sitras. Out of theso, I am quite sure of the correctness of about twenty visayavakyas suggested by me for the first time, These striking cases I have enumerated in Chap. XI of Part IL If thoy are really correct, they would help a great deal in deciding the nature of the Sitrakara’s System. (4) Three of my suggestions (Nos. 4, 5 and 8) are based upon a philological inquiry, such as a study of the words, synonyms and mutually contrary terms, Thus, I suggest that words like pradhana, puruga, sthana, upasamnhara, ete,, etc, must be studied from all the Siitras in which they occur, Studying synonyms, I find that artipavat and siiksma,xix pradhana and mukhya, eto, are synonyms. Ariipa in ariipavat finds a contrary term in ‘riipa’ in ‘ripopanydea’. The study of these last two terms gives a very important piece of information about the exact nature of the two aspects of Brahman according to the Sttrakira. (5 ) Sitras being elliptical by the very nature of their style require to be completed in sense by the addition of some words, I have tried to explain in each case what additions can be made to each Siitra adhering strictly to the context at the same time. In several of these (undoubtedly at least in eight ) cases a remarkably correct conclusion seems to me to have been arrived at, Attaching the same importance to the context, I have made a practical suggestion about the interpretation of the work, that words like atah, pirva, tad, tadd, anyathd, ete, cte,, must be interpreted in strict consonance with the context, I have proposed a fresh interpretation for several Siitras, adopting this suggestion as a rule of critical interpretation, and I believe that there are not a few cases in which my explanation, given for the first time, will be acceptable to the reader. (5) The Siitrakara’s Interpretation of certain Srutis:—One more direction in which my inquiry has led me to discover noteworthy results is the Sitrakdra’s interpretation of several Srutis, The consideration of this question is more closely allied with the Sttrakara’s System rather than with the interpretation of the Brahmasatra itself. But so far as the Brahmasatra deals with the Srutis, 1 have to discuss the latter from the standpvint of the Sitrakara, if their meaning can be made out from the several Siitras, T have alrendy noticed that by “ Sruti” the Sitrakara, for his purpose, understands only the Vodintas (not the Mantra and the other Srutis ), (a) The most essential piece of information discovered on this point is that according to the Sitrakdra the Udanisads describe the personal aspect of Brahman with the attributesx of the impersonal and vice versa (Bra. Si. Ill, 3. 87-42 ). It is on this fact that the Sitrakdra bases his doctrine of two aspects of absolutely equal status and gives a complete option of choice to a mumuksu to select either of the two, the immediate goal being the same. The Sitrakara, according to his own statements, as discovered and interpreted by me for the first time, says that the Srutis discussed in Bra, Sa. I, 2 and explained by him as referring to the sdkdra or purusavidha aspect may be optionally taken by a mumukgu as dealing with the nirdkara or apurusavidha aspect, because they profess to describe the nirdkdra, but do so with attributes some of which qualify the sakdra. Similarly, he holds that the Srutis he bas explained in Bra, Si. 1. 8 as dealing with the sakdra may be optionally taken by a mumukau as dealing with the nirdkara because they profess to deal with the sdara, but do so with attributes some of which properly belong to the nirakara, The Satrakara has refuted several important Parvapaksas raised against this theory of his interpretation of the Srutis and against his doctrinal views based on the same. These Porvapaksas and their refutations by the Satra- kara cannot be recounted here for want of space. (b) I have shown that there are Siatras in Bra, Sa. IIL. 8, which definitely mean that the akgara-Srutis which describe Brahman negatively ( neti neti Srutis ) are ‘ not useful for meditation’ (adhyantiya prayojunabhavat ) on either aspect according tothe Satrakara (Bra, Su, III. 8. 14; also see III. 3, 88 ). (©) According to a Parvapaksa (of a Srauta Vedanta System?) there are several Srutis, particularly Katha Upanigad TI. 10-11, which describe the Purusa or personal aspect ag higher than the Avyakta or the impersonal aspect of Brahman. (d-e ) The Satrakara refutes an opponent’s view which is, as Ihave shown, based upon the Mandakya Upanisad, that Brahman is really affected by the states of waking, dreaming and deepxxi sleep as also by tbe fourth state, and that because Brahman is thus affected, it is both ripavat or sdkara and arupavat or nirdkdra. This view is opposed by the Sitrakara on the strength of the Chindogya Upanisad which, in the opinion of the Satrakara, says that Brahman is unaffected by all these states, Another Parvapaksa, raised on the strength of the Mandakya Upanisad, holds that Brahman undergoes vrddhi and hrdsa because it is influenced by the three states and it is refuted by the Sitrakara by quoting the Chandogya Upanisad to show that the vrddhi and hrdsa of Brahman are due to the self-concealment of Brahman in its effects which are also Brahman, (f-g) The Brhadaranyaka Sruti which distinguishes the Projapatiloka from Brahman itself is, according to the Satra- kara, to be interpreted in the light of the Chandogya Upanisad and the Prajipatiloka is the sakdra aspect of the Kdrana Brabman itself and not a Karya of Brahman, Similarly, the Byhadarapyaka Srati, stating that the vital airs and the senses of the knower of Brahman do not depart when the latter attains to Brahman, is according to the Sitrakira to be interpreted in the light of the Chandogya Upanisad which, again, according to the Sitrakira, describes the depature ( utkranti ) of the sago along with the senses, ctc., when the latter leaves the gross body for his journey to the nirdkara Brahman. There are several other very important Srutis or Vedantas on the interpretation of which my study of the Brahmasiitra has, for the first time, thrown a flood of light, even a brief summary of which cannot be given here. Those Srutis will be found in Parts I and II. In a few Satras I have not been able to discover the vigayavakyus, though the sense of the Satras derived from the context assures me of very useful information regarding the interpretation of the Srutis referred to. If one approaches the Brahmasitra from the Srutis, after dividing the latter into the four subjects sccording to the fourxxii Adhyayas of the Brahmasitra, and if he tries to make out what interpretation the Sitrakara gives to these Sratis, instead of going from the Satras to the Srutis, I am sure, he would discover very valuable and fresh information, There are several Smrtis particularly from the Bhagavadgita, which the Sdtrakira understands and explains in his own way, or rejects if they openly contradict a clear statement of the Sruti (¢. g., the time-restriction for a Yogin to get Moksa in Bhs, Gi, VIII; Cf. Bra, Sa, 1V, 2.21), just as he clearly rejects several Srutis if the latter directly oppose such honoured Sruti-texts as the Chindogya Upanisad (e.., the priyasirast- vadi Sruti in Tai, Upa. II. 5), though generally he interprets the Srutis (¢,g., of the so-called Earlier Metrical Upanisads ) in the light of his interpretation of the Chindogya Upanisad. We have already seen above that very important texts like those of the Brhad@ranyaka Upanisnd about the non-departure (absonce of uhrinti) of the Brahmajndnin’s subtle body, and about the Prajipatiloka, have been interpreted by the Sttrakara in the light of the Chandogya Upanisad. I may sum up the merits of Badarayana by repeating what I have said at the end of Chaptar I of Part IL:— Badarayana’s main work was that of constructing a Vedanta Dargana by presenting a system acceptable to the followers of all the Upaniseds, é. ¢., of the Upanisads of all tho Sakhis of ull the Vedus. His views seem to have been like those of a balanced thinker, He did not insist that the entire Veda taught only Dharma ( the Sacrifice) or only Brahman, While Jaiuini seems to have held that Dharma was tho only Precopt of the whole Veda, Badarayana believed that Brahman only was the Usufruction (phalam ) because Brahman is declared to be the cause of Dharma, the Inspirer and the Master of Dharma*. This belief seems to have inspired © Gg aTAM Bgewetert (Bra Sa. WT, 2, 41), Vide my inter- pretation in Part Lxxiii Badarayana to offer a thesis about Brahman as the sole goal of the Upanigads only. He carefully avoided » conflict with Jaimini’s School by insisting that Brahman was to be known only from the Upanigads, and by rejecting the view that the Parvakanda was to be interpreted in the light of the Upanigads. Thus, his view stands high above the two extremes, one of Jaimini himself and the other of a staunch Vedantin who is not less staunch than that staunch Karmakandin, Again, in interpreting the Upanisads he adopted the well established method of Jaimini and improved upon it where necessary, as when he says that even if in one Sakha of cach Veda the sarnyoga, rapa, codani and dkhyé of Brahman are the same, he would conclude that Brahman is the topic of all the Vedantas, This shows that he was not a blind follower of the method of Jaimini, He used his own intelligence in applying that method to the Upanigads, The fact that Badarayana rejects a Pirvapaksa, not accepting the Purusa as an aspect of Brahwan, shows that in accepting the ariipevat conception of Brahman and in so far siding with the Oldest Prose Upanigads he was not blind to the special contribution of the Earlier Metrical Upanisads and the Bhagavadgiti, viz., the superpersonal conception of Brahman, In so far as he rejects the Purvapakya, believing in tho superiority of the Purusa over the Avyakta, and argues that the Upanisads “deny a second reality’, he gives a deuth blow to the dualistic tendency of the Karlier Metrical Upanisads and the Bhagavadgita, and saves the Vedanta Dargana once and for all from becoming another Samkhya (or dualistic ) School with to conscious Principles, one nir@ka@ra and the other sakaru, Moroover he has tried to be logical as fas as possible since an appeal to the word of the Sruti is generally a second argument with him}. Only in the case of an open conflict between rational argument and the revealed Scripture, he has to say that “ For + Z. g. Bra, Si, IIL, 2, 39, IIL 4, 46, ete,xxiv @ believer in the Scripture, the express word of a text is the foundation of his belief and is more important than a rational argument ”.{ But when such circumstances do not arise, he is a free thinker and does not hesitate to reject such Sruti texts as appear inconsistent with his System, and accepts only such as are consistent with the same. Thus, he rejects the priyasirastuadi Sruti, because it implies s difference of degroos in the Bliss within Brahwan itself and the Mandakya Upanisad because the latter believes in the waking and other states as really affecting Brahman, Since he rejects even these Srutis, it would be no wonder if he is found to reject, or to interpret in his own way, a Smyti like the Gita, whenever the latter is in conflict with his System drawn from the Sruti. Thus, he rejects the view of the Bhagavadgita which holds that the knower of Brahman returns to this world if he dies during tho southern course of the Sun ( daksinayana ). He says that this rule applies only to the Yogin and that it is only a Smarta rule, not a Srauta one. It is due to this boldness, on the part of the Sitrakara, of accepting literally a Sruti though it may be inconsistent with pratyaksa and anuména, and of rejecting a Sruti if it be contradictory to his own System of Vedanta, that while reading his work we are spared the intellectual jugglery of words which we often find in the commentaries of the Aciryas who try to effect a compromise even when the three Prasthinas are in open conflict with one another, An example of this is supplied to us by Saikara’s effort to interpret Bha. Gi, VIII 24-25 as referring to the conductor-deities though the verses clearly speak of the time-deities as the Sitrakara distinctly states. On the whole, the Sitrakara’s system is based upon a bold and straightforward interpretation of the Scripture and he seems to have been a great saviour of the Vedanta School, who saved it, on the one hand, from being divided into so many sects and, on the other, from being plunged into a dualistic philosophy. ¢ 2. g. Bra. Sa, IL, 1, 27,xxv While I differ from Snhkardcarya and other Acaryas regard- ing the interpretation of Badarayana’s work and his doctrines, I must admit, as Lhave already done above, that my interpretation, exposition and expression cannot always be free from errors inspite of my efforts to avoid them. Though the conclusions drawn here are faithful to the original text within my vwn capacities, I cannot promise to stick to them under all cir- cumstances, having myself urrived at them after revising them from time to time. Bearing in mind these facts I offer my inter- pretation of Badarayana’s work, as a humble student and student only, and orave the indulgence of sympathetic readers (ahetukasnehas) in the following words of Madhusidana Sarasvati, the great saint and seeker after truth, uttered with reference to his commentary on the Gita :— = aferet wageveaaafic aqereaaafafge: st fragary | ae we ened afge eaarafea san— cqtgearmi aaft gasta aeanz ( agreddifret on Bha. Gi, XVIII. 66 ).A CRITIQUE OF THE BRAHMASUTRA PART I Interpretation of the BrahmasatraCHAPTER I SECTION I Brahman unaffected by the Waking and other States. Two kinds of Srutis describe Brahman in all its ( four ) States. Sittras HI. 2, 11-19 CUR) a earaatslt etrafey ads I C22) Rarafa Fa seterar TAT | C2) aft Bake | (Re) weraas R TeTTTAATE | CRY) seraratdcaualg | (84) we = aeatTy | (9) adafa ara aft edd | (te) wa oa Stem aenfcag | C88) segagmemg a TIAA | Saiikara’s predovossor begins a uew Adhikarana here,TRANSLATION THE two kinds of sentences cannot refer to (the Highest One ) also from the stand-point of the states, because | both the kinds of sentences refer to It } in all | the states J. " If it be argued, “| The two kinds of sentences do | not [refer to the Highest One in all the states | because of the difference [ of the states ],” we reply, “No. | The difference of the states does not affect the Highcst One | because with reference to every [state] there is a statement contrary to that |Z. ¢. the difference of states affecting the Highest One].” 12 Moreover, so say the followers ot a certain Branch. 13 [ Both kinds of sentences refer 1o the Highest One | because It is formless only ( aripavad eva) in so far as that [ artpavat aspect } is the principal | aspect of Brahman |. 14 { Parvapaksa |—{ Brahman is | hke ‘light’ as well, because it should not be meaningless. 15 And the Sruti declares It to be only that | ie. light |. 16 And the Sruti shows it and the Smrti also mentions it. 17 And only on account of this [ we find ] the comparison [ of Brahman | like the one with an aggregate of suns, efc.” 18 [ Siddhanta ]|—“ But Brahman has not the characteristics of things like the above (i. e. the sun, etc. ), because of Its impossibility of being caught (i. e. reflected ) as [ the sun etc. are reflected | in water.” 19NOTES Sutra 1 1. eara—This Pada ( Bra. Si, III. 2) seems to deal with the different states, safta, cama and aya, of the individual soul and of the Supreme Being. The first Stitra (@xd waftecre fi 1) refers to the Sruti “ ay attr eacrearny” ( Br. Upa. IV. 3.9). Therefore, ear in this Siitra means the states of arafta, vaca and gga. The word eura is similarly used in the Mandikya Upanisad ( snafteeart:, eataeara:, ggnemm: Ma. Upa. 3-5 ), and, as will be shown below, it is very likely that this Sitra refers to that Upanisad. ( See vara in Satra IIT. 2, 34 also.) If we interpret the word eee in this sense, we have not to suspect this discussion of the Supreme Self ( Bra, Sa, III. 2. 11-41) to be an interpolation because we can then say that Pada II of Adhyaya III deals with the states of the individual soul and those of the Supreme Soul. 2, wfa—The Sitrakara here implies the denial of the application of the two kinds of sentences to the Supreme Being from some other stand-point than that of the states of Brahman, wfw, therefore, refers to a qaqa which tried to explain the aaafsxs of the Supreme Being, by some way other than that of referring them to the states of Brahman, What this other method of explaining the saafesgs was, can be guessed possibly from the expression syafegy, Some opponents seem to have argued that there were two types of sentences describing Brahman, and therefore these two types referred to two different Brahmans, The weqaq, Brahman was different from the eqaq Brahman, and the waqaq Srutis and the eraq Srutis described these two different Brahmans, There is a 1, Vide Belvelkar, Shree Gopal Basu Mallik Lectures on Vedanta Philosophy, Page 145.4 InTerPReTation similar qaq@t in Bra, Sa, III. 8, 1-4, which seems to hold that the Vedantas teach not one, but two different Brahmans.” See also the qiaq in Bra. Si. II. 2. 81-87 which holds that there is another Brahman beyond the asae wera and which the Satrakara refutes by pointing to the wranfaregfas, i. ¢., the Grutis which deny the existence of a second Brahman (Satra III. 2. 36), So, stfy seems to imply the refutation of a qatar believing that there were to Brahmans, one Sat and another eqaq und that the eqaq called also geq was higher than the seqaa called weam. See also the qaq@ and its refutation in Bra, Sa, III. 2. 26-27. For the arguments of the qaqu believing gaq to be higher than aq, see our notes on Satra III. 2. 81. 3. vaafeya—Sitra 14 makes mention of the aeqaq aspect of Brahman implying atthe same time its wyael aspect. It signifies that aeqaq_ is the principal (rata ) and implies that wag is the subordinate aspect, Also Siitra III, 2, 27 indicates that mea, being designated by to names is like afe and gua. We, therefore, suggest that swafey should mean sentences which describe Brahman as aeqaq and those which describe Brahman as sqaq.* The Sitraka@ra seems to speak of aeqaq, and Saar rather than fargo and aye Brahman, Thus we have to distinguish between Srutis which describe mert as waqaa, ey, like seqenavageandtig, (Br. Upa. IIL 8. 8) and Srutis which describo aga as sag like ahiqat att ae Fra: oft anfaganes Sar) arg: sot era Rarer creat ght ae waqaracrar i (Mu. Upa. IL 1, 4, Cf. the site aarrc ary in Cha. Upa. V. 12-18 ). 2, Perhaps this (49% can be traced to the Mahabharata Aupanisada Schools, See P, M. Modi, Akgara: A forgotten chapter in tho history of Indiau Philosophy, Chapter IIT, 3, Vide “The scheme of Bra, Su, I, 1-8, A Rapprochement,” by P.M, Modi, Bombay University Journal, Vol. IV, Part III, Nov. 1935,Bra. Si. IIL. 2, 11-19 5 According to the Sitrakéra weyenavageandtiy is not in conflict with wanat wie: adaea: aca: (Chi. Upa. IIL 14, 2), because both these types of Srutis refer to both the aspects of Brahman the weuga and the sqaq.* Neither of the two aspects is figfor “ absolutely without attributes.” 4. eataa: qveq saafeRy—This seems to be a reference to a view like the one expressed in Mandakya Upanigad, according to which the a@qaa sentences would be applicable to the @qaeart Brahman and the Eqaqones to the araftaeura, zacremra and qygaeara Brahman (Ma. Upa, 9-11), According to that Upanisad, the individual soul and the Supreme Soul have each of them three states stafta, tata, and gga, and corresponding to these three states the sft@ is called fasa, Ara, and stg, while the Supreme Being is called frag, feewara and (araafeht) foac, Beyond these three is a fourth state which is called gta (but) which transends the above three states. In that state the sta and sma become identified. The swaftsgs of the Srutis are to be explained as referring to Brahman in different states, The rapavat Srutis will refer to Brahman in the waking, dreaming and deep sleep states described in Mandiikya Upa. 3-6 and the aripavat Srutis to Brahman in the fourth state described in Ma. Upa. 7. Tt will be in agreement with this Piirvapaksa that in Bra, Su. 1. 2. 14 the Sittrakara points to the mention of the dreaming and deep sleep, states in the viyayaviikya ax an argument to prove that the Sruti in question deals with the Purusa or the sikara aspect. 5, a-The Sutrakara refutes the above view of explaining the two’ kinds of sentences as referring to Brahman in different states. As distinguished from this Piirvapaksa the Satrakara’s Siddhinta will be that Brahman is hoth sakara and nirakara in all the four states, 4. Bra. Sa. IIL 3, a7—eafaerd fafiraa danas6 INTERPRETATION 6. ada f&—He gives an argument why he rejects the view of eamta: acer saafgy. He says that the saafiay is applicable to Brahman in all the (four ) states. “ aa” will according to the context mean aay eayg. 7. According to Satikara this Siitra discusses the question whether sar is afaa or rare, because there are both the efiiira and fafaata afs, We have suggested above that the Sitrakira seems to distinguish between Srutis referring to eqaq_and aeqaq aspects of Brahman, both of which possess fiytrws or aus. Moroover, the Siitrakara seems here to discuss how both the Srutis can refer to Brahman, He does not seem to favour Saikara’s view that one type of Srutis is less important or less valid than the other. “safe yrrg- serguafegitr me” is not the gy as Sankara says but it is the firgrea. af indicates according to Sahkara the inclusion of “ eqa: a”. We have shown that certain Siitras give a qdawr according to which there is another Brahman higher than the seqer (or wat) wea, e.g. Bra. Si. TIL 2. 31; so, it apperars to us that af refers to that rie in those Sitras, Saikara’ 8 qaver is not supported by any qaqa Sutras, Rather Sarikara’s oa “aah weg eae og BUNA alerts Savareg ea, Fatrena1” is contradicted by the Siitras themselves, e. a IIL. 2. 14, TL 2% 27 ( mrragrafe geeeaq. Soe Safkara’s own Bhagya on it), The Siitrakara’s arguments as to how Brahman itself is to be looked upon as @aqaq and eqaq_are given in Bra, Sa, III. 3, 87-52. “ garrat ” means according to Saikara “ gfusareanfirdt- ma.” This interpretation of the word ema is responsible for the suspicion of several scholars as to the genuineness of the discussion of Brahman in this Pada. We have shown above ‘that “ gurra:” means the atafta, eat and gga ears, and that the Stitra seems to refer to a view like tho one givenBra, 86. IIL 2, 11-19 7 in the Ma. Upa. Dr. Belvelkar also takes <€ura in the sense of states but the quotation given by him (Basi Mallik Lectures, P. 165-166 ) does not seem to substantiate the view. According to Saikara, the refutation of ‘ aratsfi’ leads to the necessity of “ azqazfagaftag ” and to the inference ‘qraaraaciag aftae sha ance Rravrefed Pafaeeanira am ofree4rset . aw afatiag. ” This inference is not even suggested in tho Sutra, because the Sitrakira seems to explain Brahman in such a way that both the types of sentences bo applicable to Brahman at the same time, in the same state, ‘ada fe’ ix an argument not for rejecting the @faire SAL as Saikara understands it, but for proving — that “a eatadtsfa ae saafeya,” as we have shown. “ ada” is explained by Saikara as “ aeRawaTfaMgAgy AeA” but from the context it scoms to mean “ @ag

You might also like

• The Bhamati Catussutri

  

  100% (1)

  The Bhamati Catussutri

  646 pages
• 2015.191073.sixty Upanisads of The Veda Part Ist Text

  

  No ratings yet

  2015.191073.sixty Upanisads of The Veda Part Ist Text

  580 pages
• Sharma Astadhyaiy of Panini 2

  

  No ratings yet

  Sharma Astadhyaiy of Panini 2

  557 pages
• The-Upanisads - Commentary of Madhavacharya PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  The-Upanisads - Commentary of Madhavacharya PDF

  348 pages
• The Sribhashyam and The Kaivalyopanishat Part 1 PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  The Sribhashyam and The Kaivalyopanishat Part 1 PDF

  12 pages
• Gaudapada

  

  No ratings yet

  Gaudapada

  12 pages
• Rati-Rahasya PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Rati-Rahasya PDF

  224 pages
• Hinduism's Four Life Stages

  

  No ratings yet

  Hinduism's Four Life Stages

  6 pages
• Ashtadhyayi The First Book On Computatio

  

  No ratings yet

  Ashtadhyayi The First Book On Computatio

  45 pages
• Sandhyavandanam Shart Pro

  

  No ratings yet

  Sandhyavandanam Shart Pro

  4 pages
• Tarka-Saṅgrahaḥ: An Overview

  

  No ratings yet

  Tarka-Saṅgrahaḥ: An Overview

  26 pages
• Samkhya Karika and Gaudapada Bhasya 1933 Eng

  

  No ratings yet

  Samkhya Karika and Gaudapada Bhasya 1933 Eng

  44 pages
• Siddhanta Deepika Volume 14

  

  100% (1)

  Siddhanta Deepika Volume 14

  241 pages
• Tattva Samasa and Krama-Dipika 1850 English Sanskrit

  

  No ratings yet

  Tattva Samasa and Krama-Dipika 1850 English Sanskrit

  37 pages
• Sri Venkateswara Vedic University, Tirupati: (Sponsored by T.T.D., and Recognized by U.G.C.)

  

  No ratings yet

  Sri Venkateswara Vedic University, Tirupati: (Sponsored by T.T.D., and Recognized by U.G.C.)

  6 pages
• Eka Jiva Vada Vs Aneka Jiva Vada

  

  No ratings yet

  Eka Jiva Vada Vs Aneka Jiva Vada

  14 pages
• Thirunedunthandakam

  

  100% (2)

  Thirunedunthandakam

  67 pages
• Bhartrhari Language Thought and Reality - Mithilesh Chaturvedi - Part1

  

  No ratings yet

  Bhartrhari Language Thought and Reality - Mithilesh Chaturvedi - Part1

  475 pages
• Ramana Periyapuranam

  

  No ratings yet

  Ramana Periyapuranam

  11 pages
• Subhashitakaustubha

  

  100% (4)

  Subhashitakaustubha

  56 pages
• Annagaracharyar Swami Life and Activities

  

  100% (1)

  Annagaracharyar Swami Life and Activities

  10 pages
• VishnuSahasranamam Sixquestions

  

  100% (1)

  VishnuSahasranamam Sixquestions

  20 pages
• Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali With Bhoja Vritti RL Mitra 1881

  

  100% (2)

  Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali With Bhoja Vritti RL Mitra 1881

  530 pages
• Taittiriiya Upanishad: Part 1 - Shiksha-Valli

  

  No ratings yet

  Taittiriiya Upanishad: Part 1 - Shiksha-Valli

  12 pages
• Appayya Dīk Ita and The Lineage of Bha Oji Dīk Ita - Deshpande, Madhav M PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Appayya Dīk Ita and The Lineage of Bha Oji Dīk Ita - Deshpande, Madhav M PDF

  10 pages
• Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Mahaswami-Ashtottara Shatanamavali - Sringeri Shara

  

  No ratings yet

  Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Mahaswami-Ashtottara Shatanamavali - Sringeri Shara

  8 pages
• Minkowski 2010 I'll Wash Out Your Mouth With My Boot

  

  No ratings yet

  Minkowski 2010 I'll Wash Out Your Mouth With My Boot

  14 pages
• Rudra Bhashyam (Abhinava Shankara) PDF

  

  75% (8)

  Rudra Bhashyam (Abhinava Shankara) PDF

  162 pages
• VishnuPuranam PuranaRatnam

  

  100% (3)

  VishnuPuranam PuranaRatnam

  16 pages
• The Age of Sankara

  

  100% (3)

  The Age of Sankara

  309 pages
• Advaita Vedanta Mailing List FAQ

  

  No ratings yet

  Advaita Vedanta Mailing List FAQ

  249 pages
• Jnanamrita

  

  No ratings yet

  Jnanamrita

  55 pages
• Samkhya Saptati Vrtti Solomon 1973

  

  No ratings yet

  Samkhya Saptati Vrtti Solomon 1973

  96 pages
• Pratap A Rud Riya 015162 MBP

  

  100% (1)

  Pratap A Rud Riya 015162 MBP

  381 pages
• Manisha Panchakam: Adi Shankaracharya's Philosophy

  

  No ratings yet

  Manisha Panchakam: Adi Shankaracharya's Philosophy

  11 pages
• A Dialogue From The Brhdaranyaka

  

  No ratings yet

  A Dialogue From The Brhdaranyaka

  2 pages
• Select Works of Sankaracharya

  

  100% (3)

  Select Works of Sankaracharya

  278 pages
• English Translation of Sisupalavadha

  

  No ratings yet

  English Translation of Sisupalavadha

  1 page
• History of Grammar Sanskrit

  

  No ratings yet

  History of Grammar Sanskrit

  51 pages
• Siddhanta Deepika Volume 12

  

  No ratings yet

  Siddhanta Deepika Volume 12

  557 pages
• Samkhya Karika With Gaudapadacarya Bhasya Revised Edition Brahmrishi

  

  100% (1)

  Samkhya Karika With Gaudapadacarya Bhasya Revised Edition Brahmrishi

  140 pages
• Vedic Wisdom and Yoga Devotion

  

  No ratings yet

  Vedic Wisdom and Yoga Devotion

  3 pages
• Yogasutra Vritti 1 Called Yoga Sudhakara

  

  No ratings yet

  Yogasutra Vritti 1 Called Yoga Sudhakara

  154 pages
• BHARTRIHARI Shathakam

  

  No ratings yet

  BHARTRIHARI Shathakam

  37 pages
• Prasna Upanishad Sankara Bhashya With Hindi Translation - Gita Press 1935 PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Prasna Upanishad Sankara Bhashya With Hindi Translation - Gita Press 1935 PDF

  131 pages
• Urmikaularnava VELTHIUS

  

  No ratings yet

  Urmikaularnava VELTHIUS

  53 pages
• Dakshinamurti Stotra With Manasollasa - Swami Harshananda

  

  100% (1)

  Dakshinamurti Stotra With Manasollasa - Swami Harshananda

  178 pages
• Book - The Mandukya Upanishad (Gaudapa Karika and Shankara Bhashya)

  

  0% (2)

  Book - The Mandukya Upanishad (Gaudapa Karika and Shankara Bhashya)

  2 pages
• RD 0202 Online Vers

  

  No ratings yet

  RD 0202 Online Vers

  26 pages
• Prasthanathraya Volume-IV Chandogya Upanishad (The Only Edition With Shankaracharya's Commentary

  

  0% (1)

  Prasthanathraya Volume-IV Chandogya Upanishad (The Only Edition With Shankaracharya's Commentary

  8 pages
• Agama - Sarvajnanottara Agama - (Yoga Pada) PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Agama - Sarvajnanottara Agama - (Yoga Pada) PDF

  99 pages
• Vishnu Purana: A Spiritual Guide

  

  50% (2)

  Vishnu Purana: A Spiritual Guide

  19 pages
• Jayadeva Sunitikumar Chatterji Sahitya Akademi - Text

  

  No ratings yet

  Jayadeva Sunitikumar Chatterji Sahitya Akademi - Text

  74 pages
• Kirana Agama English Translation PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Kirana Agama English Translation PDF

  761 pages
• History of Dharma Śastras

  

  100% (1)

  History of Dharma Śastras

  356 pages
• The SarvaDarshana

  

  No ratings yet

  The SarvaDarshana

  304 pages
• Brahma Sutra

  

  No ratings yet

  Brahma Sutra

  100 pages
• Vedantasara of Sadananda

  

  No ratings yet

  Vedantasara of Sadananda

  228 pages
• History of Dharma S 029210 MBP

  

  No ratings yet

  History of Dharma S 029210 MBP

  767 pages
• Sarva Darshana Sangrah English

  

  No ratings yet

  Sarva Darshana Sangrah English

  223 pages
• SwamiRamaTirthaGranthavali Hindi 27

  

  No ratings yet

  SwamiRamaTirthaGranthavali Hindi 27

  150 pages
• SwamiRamaTirthaGranthavali Hindi 22

  

  No ratings yet

  SwamiRamaTirthaGranthavali Hindi 22

  159 pages
• SwamiRamaTirthaGranthavali Hindi 24

  

  No ratings yet

  SwamiRamaTirthaGranthavali Hindi 24

  159 pages
• Vivekachudamani by Swami Paramarthananda PDF

  

  78% (36)

  Vivekachudamani by Swami Paramarthananda PDF

  2,038 pages
• SwamiRamaTirthaGranthavali Hindi 17 18

  

  No ratings yet

  SwamiRamaTirthaGranthavali Hindi 17 18

  327 pages
• Gita Press Srimad Bhagavad Gita With Shankara Bhasya Sanskrit Hindi

  

  86% (85)

  Gita Press Srimad Bhagavad Gita With Shankara Bhasya Sanskrit Hindi

  527 pages