madhusudana sarasvati advaita siddhi sara sangrah [sanskrit english]

84
1 . Ì X 1 A A R< A \ $_ B compiled by V. Swaminathan under the guidance of Dr. R. Krishnamurthi Sastrigal, M.A., Ph..D., Principal, Sanskrit College, Mylapore, Chennai 600004. "Sankara Nilayam", 2, Sankaranarayana Street, Tambaram Sanatorium East, Chennai, 600047. Published on the eve of 2509th Jayanthi celebrations of ADI SANKARA BHAGAVATPADA on 28th April, 2001 Advaitasiddhisarasamgraha

Upload: anand-hudli

Post on 29-Nov-2015

808 views

Category:

Documents


210 download

DESCRIPTION

Madhusudana Sarasvati Advaita Siddhi Sara Sangrah [Sanskrit English]

TRANSCRIPT

1

.

���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���

Ì �X 1 ��A���A�R< A�\$�_ B�

compiled byV. Swaminathan

under the guidance ofDr. R. Krishnamurthi Sastrigal, M.A., Ph..D.,

Principal, Sanskrit College, Mylapore, Chennai 600004.

"Sankara Nilayam",2, Sankaranarayana Street,

Tambaram Sanatorium East, Chennai, 600047.

Published on the eve of2509th Jayanthi celebrations of

ADI SANKARA BHAGAVATPADAon 28th April, 2001

Advaitasiddhisarasamgraha

2

3

Table of Contents

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................10

Stotras of Madhusudana Saraswati.......................................................................................12

66 ��SS<< ''( ( WW3���3����� �� ............................................................................................................................. 13

Paricheda I ....................................................................................................................... 13��������>�6��>�6�_�_�1�6�1�6���H���H��>>��RR·;�A;���>�'·;�A;���>�'��R<R<R�mR�m1>1>������5��5��Á�6�0�Á�6�0�::�Q�Q....................................................................................................15

1. Proof for discussion the sentence with diversity of opinions.........................................15��������66��DD�1�1��R>�'R>�'( ( W3"���>�'W3"���>�'��R<�R<�

.........................................................................................................................15

2. Discussion of the delimiting adjunct of subject..............................................................15���6���6�_�_6�b�6�b���:�2;:�2;��R1R1>>��������5�Á�6�5�Á�6�00��::��Q��Q��66�_�_2�:�2�:�\\��..............................................................................................................16

3. Proof Of Non-Reality Of World......................................................................................16

(Non-Reality Is Different From Being And Unbeing)..........................................................16������������11�T;�T;����������:�2;:�2;��R1R1>>�=D��=D�00��::�Q�Q

......................................................................................................................16

4. Second Definition of Non-reality.......................................................................................17������11��YY11��T;��T;����::��2;�2;�RR1>�=1>�=DD�0�0��:�Q:�Q.........................................................................................................................17

5. Third Definition Of Non-Reality.......................................................................................17���'����'�11��UU2�2�]�]�����::�2;��2;�RR1>�=1>�=DD�0�0��::��QQ..........................................................................................................................17

6. Fourth Definition Of Non-Reality...................................................................................17���6���6��+'�:+'�:��������:�2;:�2;��R1R1>>�=D��=D�00��::�Q�Q

........................................................................................................................18

7. Fifth Definition Of Non-Reality ......................................................................................18����������::�2;�2;��R1R1>>����:�2;:�2;��R1R1>>��::�Q�Q

.............................................................................................................................18

8. Non-Reality Of The Non-Reality......................................................................................18����?;����?;��1>1>���B�BWW1�1�VV6�6��H��6�6��H��

..............................................................................................................................18

9.Compatibility of Cognisability as cause..............................................................................19����������))�.�. 1>1>���B�BWW1�1�VV6�6��H��6�6��H��

............................................................................................................................19

10.Compatibility of Insentience as cause...............................................................................19�����6�����6��SS<<t'(t'( ¿�1>��B¿�1>��BWW11�V�V6�6��H��6�6��H��

.......................................................................................................................19

11.Compatibility of Limitedness as cause............................................................................19����������Ì\Ì\�?�1�?�1>>�B�BWW1�1�VV6�6��H��6�6��H��

............................................................................................................................20

12. Compatibility Of Being An Effect as cause..................................................................20�����A�����A��RRWW6�6�RR�4�"�1�4�"�1>>��������55��<<RA��RA��

........................................................................................................................20

13. Refutation Of Adventious Condition.............................................................................20���ÌR9���ÌR9��RA�A�RA�A�RR:;:;�����9�m��9�m�

...........................................................................................................................21

14. Refutation Of Similarity With Pseudo Inferences.....................................................21

4

����������66��__1;�D1;�D��88��R4R4��RRWW�R<��R<�..............................................................................................................................21

15. Refutation Of "Contradiction By Perception".............................................................21����������66��__1;�D�1;�D�66��__RR88�º;���9�º;���9��m�m�

..........................................................................................................................22

16. Refutation Of "Superior Validity Of Perception" .....................................................22����������66��__1;�D�A;1;�D�A;���Ì���Ì55�U�U:�:�RR55������88�R4�R4;;�1>�1>��::��QQ................................................................................................................23

17. Sublatability Of Perception By Inference....................................................................23����������66��__1;�D�A;1;�D�A;���Ì���ÌR$R$��::������88��R4>R4>��1>1>��:�:�QQ Q Q..................................................................................................................23

18. Sublatability Of Perception By Sruti............................................................................23����Ì6�'(����Ì6�'( W W3��5;3��5;��R;���R;�����>>��XX@�:;@�:;��������99�m��m�

..............................................................................................................24

19. Disproof Of The Inequality Of Apaccheda Nyaya....................................................24��������>>��SS5B?�5B?�XX1;���1;�����ÌÌ55�U�U�:�:���1�1�����A�A��R:;R:;������99�m��m�...........................................................................................................24

20. Refutation Of The Equality Of The Inference "Fire Is Cold"....................................24����������66��__1;�D�A;1;�D�A;������=mR��=mR}}8�8�RR4;�14;�1>>��W�W��8��8�RR4�"�:4�"�:��QQ...........................................................................................................25

21. Refutation Of " Perception Cannot Be Sublated By Inference"................................25���������9�9��R�>R�>����8����8�R�R44�R�RWW6�66�6���H���H��

..........................................................................................................................25

22. Compatibility Of Future Sublation ..............................................................................25����������A��A��1;�11;�1>>��������ÌÌ5�5�UU::�R�R5�9�m�5�9�m�

......................................................................................................................25

23. Refutation Of Inference Of Absolute Reality Of The Empirical World......................26����������::�2;��2;�RR1>1>�W����W����?��?�WW@���@�����ÌÌ55�U�U:�:�RR55��:�Q:�Q...................................................................................................................26

24. Special Syllogisms On Non-Reality................................................................................27����Ì����Ì22�����Ì�ÌRR$$��:���:���88�R�R44���Í���Í��R<�R<�

...................................................................................................................27

25. Justification Of Sublation By Srutis..............................................................................28���������ÌA��ÌA�11���A���A��R4�"�1R4�"�1>>��::�Q�Q

............................................................................................................................28

26. Non-Real is Capable of Proof...........................................................................................29����ÌA����ÌA��1�1�����A�RA�R44�"�1>�"�1>�����Ì9�Ì9��R>R>�W��W��8�8��R4�"�R4�"�::�Q�Q............................................................................................................29

27. Sublation of "Non-real cannot prove"...........................................................................29��������$�?��$�?;;�A��A�\\88��5454��������99�m��m�

..........................................................................................................................30

28. Refutation Of The Cogniser-Cognised Relation..............................................................30���������Ì�Ì55��UU"V�=1�""V�=1�"]]����������5�Á�6�5�Á�6�00��::�Q�Q

.....................................................................................................................30

29. Proof Of Favourable Logic...............................................................................................30���������6��6�__��11�"�:�"�:�]��]���>;�>�A��>;�>�A22�R�R

...........................................................................................................................30

30. Pratikarma-vyavastha.......................................................................................................31����6�����6�__��11�"�"VV�=1�"�=1�"]]����������5�5�<<R"�<0R"�<0��::��QQ.....................................................................................................................31

31. Refutation Of Counter-Reasoning..................................................................................32

5

����������::�2;��2;�RR1>�1>���FFUU1;�1;�UU6�6��H��6�6��H��

.........................................................................................................................32

32. Compatibility Of The "Non-Reality" Srutis ....................................................................32����������XX1�1�FUFU1�1�WW88��RR]]4�R4�RWW�R<��R<�

...........................................................................................................................33

33. Refutation Of Sublation Of The "Non-Dual" Srutis .....................................................33���������Ï"�:��Ï"�:�WW>�>�WW1;�1;�RR�3��3��F�FUU1;�21;�2�]��]����>�'����>�'�RR<�<�

...............................................................................................................33

34. Discussion Of The Meaning Of The Sruti " One And Only Non-Dual" Etc.............34���������E�E��RR55����5�>5�>��1;�1;�]]1>1>������ÌÌ5;�25;�2��R��ÌR��Ì55��UU6�6��H��6�6��H��..........................................................................................................34

35. Incompatibility Of An Alternative To Knowledge For Sublatability ............................35���������­�­ A�A�YY�­�­ � ���Í��Í66�6��H���6��H��

............................................................................................................................35

36 Compatibility Of "Sight-Creation" ..................................................................................35����Ï"������Ï"������)�T)�T>>��������>>��R3�R3�

...........................................................................................................................36

37.Discussion on One Individual Self...................................................................................36���������ÌE�ÌE��RR55�>�>��R3R3WWEE��RR55��������=D�=D�00����������55�À�Àtt·H��·H��........................................................................................................36

38.Discussion on Ignorance - Definition Of Ignorance........................................................36���������ÌE�ÌE��RR55�>�>��R3R3W�W��1�G�1�G����66�_�_1;�D�61;�D�6�_�_:�R:�R00��RWRW6�6��H��6�6��H��..........................................................................................................37

39.Compatibility of Perception As Evidence Of Ignorance.................................................37���������ÌE�ÌE��RR55�>�>��R3R3W�W�ÌÌ55��UU::��RR55���Í6����Í6�66��H����H��................................................................................................................37

40.Compatibility of Inference On Ignorance........................................................................38����ÌE����ÌE��RR55�>�>��R3R3W��FUW��FU1;�1;�UU6�6��H��6�6��H��

.......................................................................................................................38

41.Compatibility of Srutis On Ignorance..............................................................................38����Ì����ÌEE��RR5�5�>>�R�R3W��3W��Ì2Ì2��RR]]6�H;�6�H;�UU6�6��H��6�6��H��

...................................................................................................................39

42.Compatibility of Presumption On Ignorance..................................................................39���ÌE���ÌE��RR55�>�>��R3R3W�1W�1�16�16�_�_1�1�TT1;�1;�UU6�6��H��6�6��H��

....................................................................................................................39

43.Compatibilty of Knowledge Of Ignorance......................................................................39����Ì����ÌEE��RR5�5�>>�R�R3W��3W��Ì�Ì�>>�}R;�}R;��R���'R���'�5�5:�R:�RGG�RF;�RF;��1>1>������Í6�6��Í6�6���H���H��.............................................................................................39

44.Compatibility - Consciousness Is The Locus Of nescience............................................40����Ì����ÌEE��RR5�5�>>�R�R3W�3W�Ì�>�}RÌ�>�}R;;�R���R��AA�>��>�]]E�RE�RFF1>��Í1>��Í66�6��H���6��H��....................................................................................................40

45.Compatibility- Omniscient Brahman Is The Locus Of nescience..................................40���Ì���ÌEE��RR5�>5�>��RR3W�3W�Ì�>�}R;Ì�>�}R;��R��R��>>�R'�A6�R'�A6����11�A��A�\\::��1���)�T1���)�T>>�RF�RF;;�1>�1>�����Í6��Í6�66��H����H��...................................................................................40

46.Compatibility of Jiva As Locus Of nescience according to Vachaspati........................40����Ì����ÌEE��RR5�5�>>�R�R3W�3W�ÌE�ÌE�RR55��������>>�@�;�@�;��������55�Á�6�0�Á�6�0��:�Q:�Q.........................................................................................................41

47.Proof of Object Of Ignorance...........................................................................................41���������ÌB�ÌB::�2��2�]]����ÌÌ55��RR11::��1>1>�����Í6�6�Í6�6���H���H��................................................................................................................41

48. Compatibility of "I" is non-self. .......................................................................................41

6

���������"�1�"�1]]��Y Y1>���1>����Ì4;�Ì4;��RARAR�R��Í6�6�Í6�6���H���H��..................................................................................................................42

49. Compatibility of Supeimposition ofAgency.....................................................................42��������3W3WBR1BR1::��XX·;�R4;·;�R4;��RA���RA����Í6�6�Í6�6���H���H��

....................................................................................................................42

50. Compatibility of Superimposition Of identity between Body and Self.......................42����Ì����Ì��5�5�>>��R]R]';�1>���=';�1>���=DD�0�0�����Í6�6�Í6�6���H���H��

................................................................................................................43

51.Compatibility of the Definition Of indeterminability ....................................................43��������ÌÌ��55�>�>��RR]]';�1>�';�1>�W�W�6�6�__1;�1;�DD������Ì��Ì5�5�UU::��RR55���6����6�__::��R0R0����55�Á�6�0�Á�6�0��:�Q:�Q...............................................................................................43

52.Proof of Indeterminability by Perception And Inference..............................................43��������ÌÌ��55�>�>��RR]]';�1>�';�1>�W�W�Ì2Ì2��RR]]6��H���6�6��H���6�__::��R0�R0�������5�Á�6�5�Á�6�00��::�Q�Q....................................................................................................44

53. Proof of Indeterminability by Presumption....................................................................44������������5�5�@@��WW4�6�4�6�__��11�;��;�RWRW�$�1�$�1>>��RR5�5�UU6�6�H;�6�6�H;�R��ÌR��Ì��55�>�>�]�]'�5�T;'�5�T;��1>���1>���AA��::�2�2�]�]5�:5�:��QQ.........................................................................................44

54.Justification of indeterminability by the Incompatibility Of Counter-Positive OfNegation....................................................................................................................................44���������F�FUU1;�21;�2��RR]]6��H���Í6�66��H���Í6�6���H���H��

........................................................................................................................44

55. Compatibility of Presumption of Srutis..........................................................................45����ÌA����ÌA��1#;1#;��RR��1�1�99�m��m�

..............................................................................................................................45

56. Refutaton Of Asatkhyati....................................................................................................45��������ÌÌ5;�25;�2��R#R#;;��RR�1��1�99�m��m�

............................................................................................................................46

57 Refutation Of Anyatha-khyati ..........................................................................................46��������ÌÌR�R�>>�}"��<)��}"��<)�11������ÍÍ16�H16�H�����Í6�6�Í6�6���H���H��

............................................................................................................46

58. Compatibility Of Birth Of Silver Due To nescience......................................................46����9����9�_�_:�A;��>:�A;��>�Y�Y�1��;��Í�1��;��Í66�6��H���6��H��

.......................................................................................................................47

59. Compatibility Of Two Mental States(vrittis) In Illusory Knowledge............................47����A�H����A�H��RG�RG�XX�>�4;�>�4;���Í6�6�Í6�6���H���H��

.........................................................................................................................47

60. Compatibility Of Three Existences (Being).....................................................................47

�� �������� 11�� TT;; ��66 ��SS<< ''(( WW3�3�........................................................................................................................ 49

Paricheda 2 ....................................................................................................................... 49���Ì#���Ì#��0.0. R2R2�]�]=D�0�=D�0�::�Q�Q

...............................................................................................................................49

1.Definition Of Impartite Knowledge....................................................................................50����A����A��1;1;RR��3��3>>��RR·;���·;�����ÌÌ#�0#�0. . R2�R2�]]1>1>��RRWW6�6��H��6�6��H��...........................................................................................................50

2.Compatibility of Impartite Knowledge Of Sentence of Satya Etc...................................50������11�1�1>>��::�A;��A;�RR�3��3�>>��RR·;�R·;�R22��]]�Í6�6��H���Í6�6��H��..................................................................................................................51

3.Compatibility of the Meaning Of sentence "Thou Art That" etc.....................................51������88��__¯�0�¯�0�RW�RW���55�$��$�]U] U0�1>��Í0�1>��Í66�6��H���6��H��

......................................................................................................................51

7

4.Compatibility of Attributelessness Of Brahman...............................................................51��������5�5�$$��]U] U0�W�A�60�W�A�6�_�_:�R:�R00��11�R�R

...............................................................................................................................52

5. Proof Of Attributelessness.................................................................................................52������88��__¯�0�¯�0�RW�RW���55�<R"�<R"��R<1R<1>>���Í���Í66�6��H���6��H��

...................................................................................................................53

6.Compartibility of Brahman's Formlessness.....................................................................53������88��__¯�0�¯�0�RW��RW��EE��RR55�1>�1>�R�R�3�Í6�6�3�Í6�6���H���H��

....................................................................................................................53

7.Compatibility of Knowledge Etc Of Brahman..................................................................54������88��__¯�0�¯�0�RWRW�9�¿�9�¿����55����:�H:�H��RRWW6�R6�R33RR55�1>�1>�W�W�Í6�6��H���Í6�6��H��.........................................................................................................54

8.Compatibility of Brahman as Both Material And Efficient Cause...................................54������88��__¯�0�¯�0�RW�RW��>�?>�"�>�?>�"��1�1�Y]Y ]1>��Í6�61>��Í6�6���H���H��

....................................................................................................................55

9.Compatibility of Braman As World Creator .....................................................................55��������88��__¯�0�R¯�0�RWW��99�¿�¿����55����:�H:�H��RRWW6�R6�R33R5R5��1>1>�W��W�6�6�__:�R:�R00��Í6�6��Í6�6���H���H��.................................................................................................55

10.Compatibility of the proof of Brahman as Both Efficient And Material Cause............56����8����8�_�_¯�0���A�6�¯�0���A�6�__"�R?�1"�R?�1>>��=��=DD�0��Í6��0��Í6�66��H����H��

...........................................................................................................56

11.Compatibility of the definition that Brahman Is Self Luminous....................................57����A�6�����A�6�__"�R?"�R?��1>��Í6�1>��Í6�66��H����H��

..........................................................................................................................57

12.Compatibility of the Self Luminosity Of Brahman.........................................................57����?����?��83��83���Ì�Ì>>�R';�R';��1>�1>�����Í6�6Í6�6���H���H��

...................................................................................................................57

13.Compatibility that Brahman Is Not Describable By Words directly...........................57����A�����A�RR::��R5R5;;�1�1��RRW�W�99�W�W3#�0.3#�0. 55��::��QQ........................................................................................................................58

14. Refutation Of Difference In General................................................................................58����������>���>�??��WW@�1@�1��RRW�W�99�W�W3#�03#�0. . 5�:5�:��QQ

.........................................................................................................................58

15. Refutation Of Difference In Particular............................................................................58����������>>�?��?�WW@�@���#�0#�0. . 5�5�::�Q�Q

...............................................................................................................................58

16. Refutation Of The Particularity .......................................................................................58����9�����9�WW36�36�bb�"�"WW��6���6�__1;�D�1;�D�99�m��m�

..........................................................................................................................59

17. Refutation Of Perception In Five Differences...............................................................59����)����)��T>�T>�88��__¯�9�¯�9�WW3R3R55��UU:�:�RR5�5�99�m��m�........................................................................................................................59

18. Refutation Of Difference Between Jiva And Brahman.................................................60����)����)��T>�6T>�6��<A6�<9<A6�<9�W�W3R53R5�U�U:�:�RR5�9�m�5�9�m�

.....................................................................................................................60

19. Refutation Of difference Between Jivas...........................................................................60����)����)��T>�T>�99��WW33WW5�5�UU"V�=1�""V�=1�"]]��9�m���9�m�

........................................................................................................................60

20 Refutation Of Logic On Difference Between Jivas..........................................................60���9����9�WW36�+'�"�36�+'�"�55��UU::��R5R5����99��m�m�

........................................................................................................................61

8

21. Refutation Of Five Differences (Logical).......................................................................61����9����9�W�W3FU13FU1�W�W<5�<5�UU>�R>�R331>1>���Í6�6�Í6�6���H���H��

.....................................................................................................................61

22 Compatibility - Srutis On Differences Are Restatements................................................61����9����9�W�W3FU13FU1�W�W>;�R>;�R]]�BRS<"��9�BRS<"��9�W�W36�<1>36�<1>�����Í6��Í6�66��H����H��

.........................................................................................................62

23. Compatibility - Srutis On Differences Are Based On Empiricality............................62��������??�8�833RR5511��<R<R3W3W��ÌR��ÌR11:�:�99��WW3A�R4�"�13A�R4�"�1>>������ÌA�ÌA�\\9�>��9�>��.....................................................................................................62

24. Other Srutis Cannot Establish Difference....................................................................62����9����9�W�W3FU13FU1�W�W��@���@�tt..QQ >�4 >�4��11��R1R166�;��;�]]�=m�9�=m�9��m�m�..............................................................................................................62

25. Refutation Of The Import of Six Principles In Srutis On Difference.........................63����Ï����ÏWW·;�A>�Á�6��Í6�6·;�A>�Á�6��Í6�6���H���H��

..........................................................................................................................63

26. Essential Nature Of Unity................................................................................................63����)����)��T>T>��88�_�_¯�R9�¯�R9�WW3W�63W�6�_�_:�R:�R00�:�:��QQ

..........................................................................................................................63

27. Authority On Non-Difference Between Jiva And Brahman.........................................63����Ï����ÏWW·;�F·;�FUU1�1�WWÀ6�)À6�)��T>;��T>;��>>��<<RRWW4�R94�R9��R>��R>��..................................................................................................................64

28. Non-Contradiction Of The Evidence Which Is Depended Upon With The Srutis OnUnity ..........................................................................................................................................64��������11�1�1>>��::��A����A��>>��RR·;�·;�RR2�2�]]����5�Á�6�05�Á�6�0��::��QQ.................................................................................................................64

29 Proof of the Meaning Of the sentence - 'Thou Art That..................................................65����ÌB����ÌB\�\�8�8�__¯�R�¯�R�AA:��:��ÒÒ1;�1;�RR�3��3�ÌÌ55�W�W"�"�FFUU1;�2�1;�2�]�]�"�2�"�2�55��::�Q�Q....................................................................................................65

30. Meaning Of Srutis 'I Am Brahman' Etc .........................................................................66����)����)��T>�T>�88��__¯��Ì9�¯��Ì9�WW33RR5�5�UU::��RR55��::�Q�Q.......................................................................................................................66

31. Inference On Non-Difference Between Jiva And Brahman...........................................66��������Ì\Ì\�?�1�?�1>>��WW5��Ï5��ÏWW·;�·;�RWRW6�6��H��6�6��H��

........................................................................................................................67

32.Compatibility of Non-Difference as Composite..............................................................67����������88��::8�68�6�_�_�1�1����88��::88�����5;�5;��R;�R;�WW55����ÏÏWW·;��A·;��A��������............................................................................................................67

33. By Logic Of Original And Reflection Non-Difference is proved..................................67���������)�T�)�T>>�R�R00��UU1>1>����##��0.0. 55��::��QQ..........................................................................................................................68

34.Refutation that Jiva Is Atomic (Minute).........................................................................68

�� ����11 ��YY 11�� TT;; ��66 ��SS<< ''(( WW3�3�......................................................................................................................... 69

PARICHEDA 3 .............................................................................................................. 69��:��:��55��55����55����334;�RA4;�RA��5�;5�;��RRWW��F>�0��F>�0��RRmm1>1>�����Í6�6�Í6�6���H���H��.......................................................................................................70

1. Thinking And Meditating Are Subsidiary To Hearing ....................................................70��������>>�>��>�<<0�0�RWRW·H��·H�����5��5�;;�:�:��RRWW6�6��H��6�6��H��

......................................................................................................................70

2. Ordained Injunction Of Vivarana ....................................................................................70

9

���F>����F>�00��RR33WW�>��>�]]4�4�WW;�1>��Í6�;�1>��Í6�66��H����H��.......................................................................................................................71

3.Compatibility of Hearing Etc As An Injunction ...............................................................71��������>>�'��'�RR<A;��F>�<A;��F>�00����>>����44��::��VV=1>��Í6�6=1>��Í6�6���H���H��............................................................................................................71

4.Compatibility - Hearing Is The Root Cause For Discussion............................................71���>���>��R'�A6�1;R'�A6�1;�U�U·H��A>�R4;�;·H��A>�R4;�;���>�>���4��4����>�'�>�'��RR<�<���ÌÌRDRD�W�W6�"�1>��Í6�66�"�1>��Í6�6���H���H��.......................................................................................72

5.Compatibility of the presumptive discussion by the injunction of Adyayana according toVachaspati's View....................................................................................................................72��������EE��RR5�A;5�A;����6�6�UUÀ@À@��11��5G�5G�11��R�R��9�m��9�m�.....................................................................................................................72

6. Refutation Of Man's Effort For Knowledge.....................................................................72���E���E��RR55����>>����44��9�m���9�m�

.................................................................................................................................73

7. Refutation Of Injunction Of Knowledge............................................................................73���?���?��RR883R63R6��<<RWRWD�1>D�1>��::��QQ

.................................................................................................................................73

8. Immediate Knowledge From Verbal Testimony...............................................................73

''��11 ��UU 22� ]� ] ����66 ��SS<< ''( ( WW3�3�........................................................................................................................... 74

PARICHEDA 4 ............................................................................................................... 74���Ì����Ì�>>�}R�}R���5��5�>>��YY�H���H����5�Á�6�5�Á�6�00��::�Q�Q

......................................................................................................................75

1. Proof Of Eradication Of nescience....................................................................................75������ÌÌ�>�}�>�}RR��55�>�>��1�1�]]"���"�����5�Á�6�05�Á�6�0��::��QQ.....................................................................................................................76

2.Proof of Eradicator Of nescience.......................................................................................76������::��UU·H�·H�WW<R<R55��553Á�6�1>3Á�6�1>�W�W5��5��66��UUÀ@�RÀ@�R22��]]��55�Á�6�0�Á�6�0��:�Q:�Q............................................................................................................76

3.Proof - Moksha Is Bliss And Man's Goal.......................................................................76����'����'�5�5:�R:�RGG�A;��:��A;��:�RWRWD�9D�9��R�R�$$�1�1>>��Í6�6�H��Í6�6�H�W�W��

................................................................................................................77

4.Compatibility - Consciousness Alone gets the release........................................................77���)���)��T>T>��55::��UUt·H��Í6�t·H��Í6�66��H����H��

...........................................................................................................................77

5. Compatibility Of Jivanmukthi ............................................................................................77������::��UU·H�·H�RX�RX�1�1�RR<<11�:;��:;�99�m��m�

.............................................................................................................................77

6.Refutation of presence of Gradation in Mukti...................................................................78

Books.........................................................................................................................................78

1. Sanskrit.................................................................................................................................78

2. English...................................................................................................................................78

Appendix I ...............................................................................................................................79

Appendix II ..............................................................................................................................83

10

Introduction

If an attempt has to be made to evolve a globalised religion, acceptable to Christians, Muslims,Buddhists, Hindus etc., it has to be o n the sheet anchor of the commentaries of Sankara Bhagavatpada(508 BC) on the three basic texts on philosophy-Vedanta (Prasthana Thraya - Upanishads, BrahmaSutras and Gita} in general and the Adhyasa Bhashya (introduction to his Brahmasutra Bhashya ) inparticular. From this flows the different literature on Advaita.

Advaita literature can be broadly classified under two categories. First, those which strengthen thearguments in the Sutra Bhashya. Second , those which are independent works defending the tenets ofAdvaita involving a debative style.

The first category again contains two important branches. One is by Padmapada (sishya ofBhagavadpada) in Panchapadika, which has a commentary by Prakasatman(1200 AD) in Vivaranawhich again has a commentary by Akhandananda (1350 AD) in his Tatvadipana. This is called theVivarana school. The second is by Vachaspatimishra (840 AD) in his Bhamati,which has a commentaryby Amalananda (1260 AD) in his Kalpataru, which again has a commentary by Appayya Dikshita(1600 AD) in his Parimala. This is called the Bhamati school. These two differ in some aspects ofreasoning adopted in explaining the multiplicity while strengthening Advaitic point of view.

The second category contains three important independent works defending Advaitic concepts.These are highly dialectical in nature. 1) Khandana -khanda-Khadya by Sri Harsha (1200 AD)2) Citsukhi by Citsukhacharya (13th century AD) 3) Advaitasiddhi by Madhusudana Saraswati(16th century AD).

Advaitasiddhi, unlike the other independent works is a verbatim rejoinder to the arguments byVyasathirtha (16th century AD) of the Dwaita philiosophy. There are three other important siddhiworks - Brahmsiddhi, Naishkarmyasiddhi and Ishtasiddi, dealing with what, how and why of Brahman.

Madhusudana Saraswati is a Sanyasi, of 16th Century, probably from Bengal and is a great devotee ofSri Krishna as a child. He is said to be contemporary of Gadhadara and Goswami. His important otherworks are:

1. Siddantabindu2. Advaitaratnaraksana3. Vedantakalpalatika4. Samksepasarirakasara samgraha5. Gitagudhartadipika6. Bhaktirasayana

Advaitasiddhi contains four Paricchedas, nearly 108 topics. The first one with 60 topics and has takentwo thirds of the work, dealing mainly with Mithyatva. The second is about Brahman, third Sadana andthefourth Pala.

An attempt has been made in the booklet to give the Siddantas in Madhusudana's own words with theEnglish translation. Page No. in the edition of Parimal Publications has been given at the end ofeach quotation.

For ready reference, a note on each of Logic and Grammar is given in Appendix I and II.

This is the seventh publication in the Vandanam series, previous ones are Sandya vandanam, Devatavandanam, Guru vandanam, Gita vandanam, Upanishad vandanam and Nama vandanam.

11

This publication was possible only after my full-text study under Dr. R. Krishnamurthy Sastrigal, PrincipalSanskrit College, Mylapore, Chennai, who has spent considerable lot of his precious time in teachingespecially as I have not studied separately Grammar and Logic in the traditional detailed way. Mythanks are due to him in no small measure. My thanks are also due to Mr, S.V.S.Sastry and Mr, V.Swaminatha Sastrigal for scrutinising the draft and for suggesting corrections in the translation. I am alsoindebted to Dr. K. Ramasubramanian for hisd suggestions and the get up and Mr. Sateesha for his help inproof reading. The work would not have been easy but for my newphew Mr, Sivasankar and his son Arunwho have made computer literate i n a short time and my thanks are due to them.

12

Stotras of Madhusudana Saraswati

� � �:� R ;� R "�t º6�1 � :� R1 �Y 1 � R :�U #� :� Y@ � R �X 1 � 6�_ 6� b� R F; � �� �A� 1 ;� E� R5 � A�U #� R 1 :� " �� ��FU� 1 � �? � #� RW 1 2� R #� 0. 4 �T $ �RW ' � <� ���� :� 2;� R8 � 5 4� �> � 4�V 5 � 5 �W 5 �6� <:� R 5� 5 3X " �1 �R 5 �R 1 :� " �:�Q � �:� RW D �\ ��6� _ R ª� �Ò> � �A> �; �\ �� > � )� ; �1 �W �� > � @ 0�U � > �] " �º6� RW t )* �1 � � ������ ���

1. Vishnu, who is the substratum for the illusory world of duality such as the characterof cogniser, who is Truth, Consciousness and Bliss, who is to be realised by the impartiteknowledge derived from the Mahavakyas, excels on his own, as if having attained solesupreme blissful emancipation as a result of severing the non-real bondage and itsramifications.

�� �> � \ ?� TS >� 9 �V � @ �1 �" �<R ¿� > �5 � T <3R 9 �R 1�Q �6� T 1 � R :8 � <R 3À 0�� 8� :8� 7�=R 4� <RW ® R 1�Q ����6� V 0� W]5 3NA� U5 3<:� U#� R 3<� >� 5 35 �W G � R1 �Q ��" Y�@ 0� R 1 6� <\�� " �:�� 6�1 �1 > � :� B\ �5 � ��)� R 5 �W ��������

2. I do not know of Truth other than Krishna, whose hand is adorned with the flute,who shines like the fresh clouds, who wears the yellow cloth, whose lips are red as theBimba fruit, whose face is attractive as that of the full moon and whose eyes are likethat of the lotus.

�� �� A� �T 5 �R\ �Ò­ 5 �X @ " �:; �] �8 �_ ¯� $ � R 5� R\ �Ò; � \�� ' � <R1 �Q ���Ì � X1 � � A�� �<4 �U 5 � R �'� 1�U 2� T] �A� :� )� R ;� 1� ��������

3. Advaitasiddhi, the fourth is now born, - of the other Siddhis, Ishta, Naishkarmya and Brahma.

�� �� X1 �\ �8 � 54 � R; � ��:� RW D � R1 �Q �6� _R "Q ���6� _ R ª�W �8 � RW 4 � W�:� 5 � T@ �; � R ����9 � ·H ; � 2�̂�" �t º6� 1�\ �� X1 �\ �Ì � X1 � R 3� 6� �A�U 5 3<:�Q �������

4. Duality is bondage before Moksha and after realisation it is wisdom. The imaginaryduality for the purpose of Bhakti is sweeter than even Non-duality.

Notes:- * The source for this fourth sloka by Madhusudana Sarasvati is not known but is quoted by SriGautamananda, head of Ramakrishna Mutt, Madras.

13

66 �� SS<<'' (( WW 33���� ���� ��

Paricheda I

14

ÌÌ�� XX 11�� �A�A�� ���� AA�� RR <<AA�� \\ $$�� __ BB��Ì > �1 � <0� $�_ 5 2� �

1 � G� �Ì �X X1 � � A� �W � �� X1 � � :� 2; �R 1> � �� A�S �6�V > � ] " �1 > �R 1�Q ��� X 1 � � :� 2;� R 1> � :�W > � �6�_ 2� :� :�Q ��Í6� 6� R 35 � T; � :�Q ��������

Beginning of Grantha

First, the non-reality of duality has to be proved., as the accomplishment of non-dualityis preceded by the accomplishment of the non-reality of duality.

15

���� ��� � ��>> �� 66 �� __ ��11�� 66 �� �� HH� �� � >> �� RR··;; �� AA;; � �� � ��>> �� '' �� RR<<RR mm 11>> � �� � �� ��55�� ÁÁ��66 �� 00�� ::�� QQ

1 � G� ��� :� 2;� R1 > �W �� > � 6�_ � 1 � 6� �H � � �����8 �_ ¯� 6�_ :� R � 1� S <x����Ì 8� R 4 ;�1 > �W ��A� � 1 � ���A� 1 > �W 5 � ��6�_ 1 �T 1; �B\ ]:�Q �� �� ' �� � ¿� :�Q � �6�_ � 1� 6� ¿� RW 6� R 4 �RX ��G � X" �R � =" �� 5 � @�W 4 � ��6� _� 1 �; � RW � $ � ��5 � ��> �R � �6�R <:� R� 2�] " �1 >� R " �R <W 0� ��Íx����� 5 � @ �W 4 � �6�_ � 1� ;� RW � $ � ��5 � ��> � R� ��Ò� 1 � ��������

1. Proof for discussion the sentence with diversity of opinions.

There is diversity of opinions on non-reality.

Whether it is or not?

1.When that cannot be sublated by any knowledge other than that of Brahman., it is capable of appearing as "is"2. it is different from Consciousness,3. it is the counter-positive which is negated for all time (past, present and future) in the locus in which it appears.4. it is the counter-correlative of the said negation in its absolute form.

��� �� ��� 66��DD ��11 ��RR >> ��''(( WW 33"" ������ >> �� ''��RR << ��

�� � ��� � ��� > � :� 1� :�Q ��� :� 2; � R ������ ��" ����? ; �1 > �R 1�Q ���#� ���)� . 1 >� R 1�Q ���$ � ��6� S <t ' ( ¿� 1> �R 1�Q ������ � �? � U� x�Á �6; � >� 1�Q ����� �

2. Discussion of the delimiting adjunct of subject.

1. The subject of dispute is non-real.

2. Because its being is a) Cognisability b) insentience c) limitedness

3. Like the shell-silver.

Notes: To prove the non-reality (Mityatva) of the world, the proposition has been brought out in the form of a syllogism. 1 is called Pratijna consisting of the first word (paksha/subject /minor) and the second word Sadya/probandum /to be proved. 2 is called Hetu/reason/proof./probans 3. is called Drishtanta/example

16

��� �� �66�� __ 66�� bb �� �� ::�� 22;; �� RR11 >> � ��� ���� 55 �� ÁÁ ��66�� 00�� ::�� Q ��Q �� 66�� __ 22�� ::�� \\��

A� 3A� � � =D� 0� 1> � :�Q ��� :� 2; �R 1 >� =D� 0� :�Q �1. � :� 2;� R ?� 8 3RW ���Ì � 5 � > �] ' � 5 �T ; �1 �R ���> � '� 5� � ��Ò� 1 � ��6�b � 6�R � 3" �R ��> �' � 5� R1 �Q ���A� 3A� 35 � � 4 �" �<0� 1> � Á�6� :�Q �Ì � 5 �> � R] ' ;� 1 >� :�Q �������

�� ��A� 1 > � �Ì1 ;� 5 1� �Ì9 � R> � � ��Ì A�1 >� �Ì1 ; �5 1� �Ì 9� R> � � ��Á �6�4 � :�] � ; � ��� >� >� D �R ;� R\ ��3R W @ � �Ì 9�R > �R 1�Q �������

3. Proof Of Non-Reality Of World

(Non-Reality Is Different From Being And Unbeing)

1. The word non-reality means "indeterminability" according to the author ofPanchapadika .What is not the locus of being and unbeing (opposite of being) isindeterminable.

2. The character of absolute absence of being as well as the character of absoluteabsence of unbeing is non-reality. There is no defect in the definition with these twocharacteristics as intended.

Notes: 1. The above definition also indicates that non-reality is not the combination of both Sat and Sat. 2. Padmapada, the author of Panchapadika, was a student of Sankara. 3. Sat = absolute reality Asat = absolute un-reality (opposite of reality) 4 . Definition of Non-reality Author work

First Padmapada Panchapadika Second & Third Prakasatman Vivarana Fourth Chitsukha Tatvapradipika Fifth Anandabhoda Nyayadipavali 5. Being/reality is further classified as follows:

�a)��������6�R<:�R�2�]"������absolute = Brahman������������������������������b)������>;�R>�BRS<"������empirical = other than Brahman c)������6�_R�1�9�R�A�"�������phenomenal = objects of erroneous cognition (rope as serpent. shell as silver) and dream objects. 6. Unreality is like hare's horn, that which does not exist - Thuchha. 7. Compound Sanskrit words have been split with a dash (-) for easier understanding.

��� �� � ���� �� 11 �� TT ;; � �� ������� ::�� 22;; �� RR 11 >> �� ==DD �� 00�� ::�� QQ

1. 6�_ � 1� 6�¿� RW 6� R 4� RX ��G � X" �R � =" ��� 5 �@ �W 4 � �6�_ � 1 �; � RW � $ �1 >� :�Q ���> � R ��� :� 2; � R1 >� :�Q ������ �

�� �Ï> �\ ��' � ��6� _" Y�1 �W � 6� ��� 5 � @�W 4 � 8 �R 4 �"W �5 � ��6� _� 1 �; �RW � $ �5 �� ��6� _6� b � A;� �� 5� @ �W 4 � A; � ��'� ��8 �R 4 �5 � R1 �Q ��5 � ��� 5 � @ �W 4 � A;� ��8 � R4 ; �1 >�W � 6� �6�_ 6� b � A; �1 � Rt 1> � "�1 >� :�Q ������ ���� ����

17

4. Second Definition of Non-reality

1. Non-realty is the character of the counter-positive of the negation for all three times (past, present and future) in an object where it appears.

2. In the present case, the negation of the world (counter-positive) is equally negated, with the negation of the negation, the world does not become real.

Notes: Pratiyogi = Pot is the Pratiyogi of the absence of Pot.

��� �� �11 �� YY 11 �� TT ;; �� ���� ::�� 22;; �� RR 11 >>�� ==DD �� 00�� ::��QQ

���� E� R 5 �� 5� > �1 ;�] 1 >� :�Q ���> � R �� :� 2; �R 1 >� :�Q ������� � ��

�� ��> � R � 1�] " �" Y�� � � ��'� ��Íx�:� Q������� ��1 � 1 > � :� A; �R � 3��> � R ·; �RW 1 2� �A� :;� $ 4� T �)� 5 :� :�R G �1 �� ����Ì � > �}R ��A� B " �R ;�W ]0� ��5 � R A� T 3t A1� ��9 � � >� @ ;� �1 � ������� ���

5. Third Definition Of Non-Reality

1. Non-reality means the character of being sublated by knowledge.2. It has been said by the Vartikakara:. As soon as the valid cognition is generated by the statement, "That thou art", nescience with its effects becomes non-existent in the past , does not exist at present and will not exist in the future.

��� �� �'' �� 11 �� UU22�� ] ��] ���� ::�� 22;; �� RR 11 >> �� ==DD �� 00�� ::�� QQ

��� A> � R F;� � 5� ® ��Ì 1 ; � 51 � �Ì 9� R >� ���6� _ �1� ; �RW � $� 1 >� :�Q ��> � R ��� :� 2; �R 1> � :�Q ������ ���

�� �1 � c� ��A> � R 1; � 51� R 9� R >� R� 4 �" �<0�W ��Ï> � ��6� _ 1 �T ;� :� R5 �1 > � :�Q ����� � ��

6. Fourth Definition Of Non-Reality

1, The non-reality of a thing is its character of being the counter-positive of the absolute negation residing in its own locus.

2, That it appears where it does not exist.

18

Notes" In the second definition, the negation is in the locus where it appears. In the fourth definition , it appears where the negation is.

��� �� �66�� ++'' �� ::� ��� ���� ::�� 22;; �� RR 11 >> �� ==DD �� 00�� ::�� QQ

���� A� � � �> � x�1> � :�Q ��> � R ��� :� 2;� R1 > � :�Q ����� � ��

��� �Ì G � R � 6� �Ì A� �1 �� �� 5� 4 �] :� ] "W ���8 �_ _ ¯� � 0� ��' � � �Ì� 1� > ;� R� ª� ��> �R <0� R ;� �A� 1 >�W 5 � ��6� _1 � T; � :�R 5� 1 >�\ ��� > � ? �W @ � 0�\ ��3W ; � :�Q ���� �����

7. Fifth Definition Of Non-Reality

1. Non-reality is being different from the real.

2. Here also, an adjective has to be added - "it has to appear as existent" in order to avoid the defectof extension of definition to absolutely real and absolutely unreal.

��� �� � ���� ::�� 22;; �� RR 11 >> �� �� ::�� 22;; �� RR 11 >> �� ::��QQ

� � ��5 � 5 �U ���Íx��� :� 2; � R 1 >� A; � ��� :� 2; �R 1 >�W ��6� _ 6� +�Q ' � A; � ��A� 1 ;�1 > � ��Ì R 6� R1 � � ����������� :� 2;� R1 > � ��A�1 ;� 1 >�W �' � � �1 � � 3W > � ��6�_ 6� b����� ��A� 1 ; � 1 >� ��Ì R 6�H �W � � ��Í9 � ; � 2� R� 6� ��Ì �X 1 � > ;� R %� R1 �� �Ò� 1 � �' �W 1 �Q ������ ���

�� 5 � � �Ì1 �� ��A� :� A� H� R " �1 >� R1 �Q ���� :� 2; � R 1> �8 � R4 �"W �5 � ��6�_ 6� b � A;� R � 6� ��8 � R4 �R 1�Q ��5 � �Ì �X 1 �D �� 1� � ����������

8. Non-Reality Of The Non-Reality

1. Objection: When the said non-reality itself is non-real, then the world may become real.--------when the non-reality is real, then also, the world can be real; in both cases, the non-dualism will get affected..

2. Reply: No; They have the same grade of being (existence) and hence along with the sublation of the non-reality , the world also is sublated; so non-dualism does not get affected.

Notes: the logic for the negation of the world and the non-reality is one and the same ie, different from Brahman.

��� �� � ��?? ;; �� 11 >> �� ��BBWW 11 ��VV 66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

19

� � ��� :� 2; �R 1> �W ��A� R 4 ; �W ��B W 1 �V �" Y�1 �\ ��; � �Y? ; � 1> �\ ��1 � 36; �U 6� 6� R 35 �T ;� :�Q ����� ������ ��? � U�\��� B ��8 � _̄ � ��5 � ���? ; � :�Q ����� ������� ��> � A1 �U 1 � A1 �U �����? � 8 3�Ì )� 5 ;� �> �Y � H �� > �@ � ;� 1> � :�W > � ���? ; �1 >� :�Q ������ ����� �; � �� R ��A� 6� _" �R <" �����> �Y � H �� > �@ � ;� 1> � :�W > � ���? ; �1 >� :�Q ����� �����

9.Compatibility of Cognisability as cause

1, What is cognisability , the reason for non-reality, has to be explained.

2. Pure Brahman is not cognisable.3. In fact, the character of being the object of mental states (vrittis) other than those produced by word is cognisability.4, Or, the character of being the qualified object of a mental state is cognisability.

�� ��� �� � ��))�� .. 11 >> �� ��BB WW11 �� VV66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

����� 1� T;� �1� Y1� T;� �6 � D� ;� RW ��3RW@� �Ì9� R>� R1� Q �� Ì E�R 5 �1 >�\ ��Ì 5 � R 1 :�1 >�\ ��> � R ��)� . 1 >� :�Q ������ ������� �Ï> �\ �Ì A> � 6�_ " �R ?� 1 >� :�Q ��> � R �)� . 1 > � :�Q ������� ��

10.Compatibility of Insentience as cause

1. Insentience is different from Consciousness and Self.

2. Or it has not the character of self-luminosity.

� �� � � ��� ��66�� SS <<tt '' (( ¿¿ �� 11 >> �� ��BBWW 11 ��VV 66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �1 � c� ��3W ? �1 �� ��" �R =1� � ��> � A1�U 1 � ? '�W � 1 � ��� G� � >� 4� :�Q ������ �1 � G � ��3W ? � 1 �� ��6� S <t' ( ¿� 1> �\ ��Ì 1 ; � 5 1� �Ì9 �R >� ���6� _� 1 �; �RW � $ �1 >� :�Q ����� �" �R =1 �� ��6� S <t' ( ¿� 1> �\ ���4 > � \A� ���6� _ S 1� ; �RW � $ � 1 >� :�Q ������ ��> � A1 � U 1�� ��6� S <t ' ( ¿� 1 >�\ ��Ì 5 ; � RW 5 ; � �Ì 9� R >� �6�_ � 1 �; �RW � $� 1 >� :�Q ������� ��

11.Compatibility of Limitedness as cause

1. It is of three kinds, by place, time and thing.2. Limitedness by place is the character of, being the counter-positive of absolute absence of existence .

20

3 Limitedness by time is the character of being the counter-positive of destruction.4. Limitedness by thing is the character of being the counter-positive of mutual absence..

�� ��� �� � ��ÌÌ \\ �� ?? �� 11 >> �� BBWW 11 �� VV66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

��� � ' �1 A�U #� R ' �R ; �X ]A1 �U ��� ����� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��Ø �� � �Ì ; �\ ��6� , � �� �Ï1 � H� 51 �U � 5 � ­ ��Ì 1 ; � 51 � �Ì9� R >� �6�_ S 1 �; � RW $ � T����� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ����� �6� , �1 > � R 1�Q���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ����� �6� , R 51 � <>� 1�Q ��Ø �Ò1 ; �U x�:� Q���� ��� ��� ��� ��� ����

12. Compatibility Of Being An Effect as cause

1. It is said by Chitsukhacharya:

1. This cloth is the counter-positive of the absolute negation resting in this thread. 2. Because it has the character of being a cloth. 3. Like any other cloth.

Notes: This is called Maha Vidya Anumanam and is flawless.

�� ��� �� � ��AA�� RR WW 66�� R �R � 44 �� "" ��11 >> � �� ����� 55 �� <<RR AA�� ��

� � 5 �� ���? ; �1 > �R � 3��BW 1 � > �� ��5 � ��A� RW 6� R� 4 �" �R� ������8 � _̄ � E� R 5� :�R G� 8� R 4; �W ��3W B R 1 :�X ·; �W �� :� 1 ;� R9 �V 1 �W �A� R 4 ; � �Ì >; �R 6� "��1 > � R1�Q ����� ��5 � R � 6� ��6�_ R �1 �9 � R� A� " �1 >�\ ���Í6� R � 4 �� ����1 � � ���8 �_ ¯� E� R 5�W 1 � <8 �R 4 ;� 1> �\ � �1 � A; � �' � ��3WB R1 :�X ·; � W�� :� 2; � R 9�V 1 �W �Ì � 6� ��Ì A�1 > �W 5 � ��A� R 4 ;� �Ì > ;�R ª�W � ������

13. Refutation Of Adventitious Condition

1. Reasons for non-reality do not have the fallacy of adventitious conditions.

2. In the nonreality of the identification of soul-body which is sublated only by the knowledge of Brahman, the upadhi is not concomitant with the probandum. (sadhya).

Notes: Adventious condition (Upadhi) is one of the five fallacies of reason (Hetu Aabhasa) in a syllogism. It means that the Upadhi while concomitant with the Probandum (sadhya) but is not concomitant with the probans (hetu).

21

�� ���� ÌÌ RR 99 �� RR AA�� AA�� RR ::;; � �� ���99 �� mm��

� � �5 � 5�U ��� ��� > � :� 1�\ � �6�_ R � 1 �9 �R � A� "�:�Q � ��? ; � 1> � R1 �Q � �? �U t ·H � Á �6;� >� 1�Q � ����8 �_ ¯� �� :� 2;� R � �> ;� >� B R <� > �@ � ;� 1> �R 1�Q � �? �U � ·H � Á �6; � >� 1�Q �Ò� 1 �' �W 1 �Q Q ���� 5 � � ����? ; �1 > �R 3T 5� R\ ��5 � ��Ì R 9 �R A� A� R :; � :�Q ������)� $ � 1 � � �>; � R> �B R S <"�A� 1> � ��8 �R 4�W ��> ; � > �B R <�Ì 5�U 6� 6� � H� � �����8 �_ ¯� 0� � ��� :� 2;� R1 > �W���� ��? � V5 ; � > �R 3R 6� � H� � ���������� ��� ��� ���� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ����� � ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ����

14. Refutation Of Similarity With Pseudo Inferences

1. Objection: (1) The subject is phenomenal, (2) Because it is cognisable (3) Like shell-silver, (1) Brahman is non-real (2) Because it is subject of empiricality. (3) Like shell-silver.

2..Reply: No. Cognisability etc are not similar to pseudo inferences.

3.. Because when the empirical reality of the world is sublated, activity is not possible. If Brahman is the character of non-reality, nihilism will result.

�� ��� �� � ��66�� __ 11 ;; �� DD �� 88 ��RR 44 �� RRWW ��RR <<��

� � �5 � 5�U ��Ø�A� 5 � Q�% � , � �Ø�Ò1 ; � R }4 ; �D �8 �R � 4 �1� � >� @� ; �R ��? ; �1 >� R 3;� � �Ò� 1� �'�W 1 �Q �

�� �5 � ���' � D�U <R }4 ;� D� ; �RW $ ; � �� :� 2; �R 1 >� � >� <RW � 4 � ��A� H >� ��Ì � 5�À ·1�W � ��������

�� ��A> � 6� _" �R ?� ��Ì � � 1� T; � ��'�X 1 �5 ; �Á �6� 1> � :�W> � ��8�_ ¾:� 0� � ��A� H >� :�Q ��� ��1 � 3W> � �' �W 1 �Q �)� . A; � R � 6� �)� $ �1 � � ��1� 3R ��<)� 1 �1 >� � >� <R W� 4� ���? � U� x�A� H� ;� R���� ��< )� 1 � A; �W > � �)� . 1 > � �> � <RW � 4 � ��A> � 6�_ " �R? � A�H � ;� R ��)� $ �1 �� �A> � Á �6� 1� RW ��� :� 2; � R1 > � �Í6� 6� H�W � ������ ��

15. Refutation Of "Contradiction By Perception"

1. Objection:- Cognisability etc. is the subject of the sublated perception like "the pot is"etc.

2 Reply: No. The existence which is contradictory to non-reality and which is capable ofperception by eyes etc, has not been explained.

22

3., The character of existence (being) of Brahman is its self-luminosity, non-duality and Consciousness. If the same is so of the insentient world, it is compatible that theworld is non-real in its form by its self-luminosity which is contradictory to insentience,just like the silver by the exitence of shell which is contradictory to silver.

.

�� ��� �� � ��66�� __ 11 ;; �� DD �� 66��__ RR 88 �� ºº;; � �� ���99 �� mm��

� � �5 � 5�U ���Í·H � �5 ; � R; �X � ��6� _1 ; � D� A; � �� � �� �� � � �� � � � Í6� )� T >; �1 > �W 5 � �6�_ R 8 � º;� :�Q � �� � � �� � 1� � �À ��$ �_ B 0�W �1 � W5 � �8 �R 4� ?' � �� � � Ò�1� �' �W 1 �Q ������

� ��5� �� �Í6 � )� T>;� �Ì�>� <RW4� R1� Q �� ��1 � 2� R� B ����; �1 A> � Á �6�\ �Í6� )� T > ;� 1�W ��1 � 1 �Q ��5 � ��8 � R 4 ;� 1�W �� �8 �R 4 ;� 1�W ��' � ��1 �R t 1 >�" �1 >� R" �R <������ �A� ��' � �5 � �Í6� )� T > ;� 1�W � ��" �R <0�1 > �W ��1 � A; � ��Ì 6�_ > �W ? �R 1�Q ������� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ������� �6� <T D � R ���B ��6� _> �Y � H � A�\ > � R 3�� >� A�\ > � R 3�Ì9 �R > �� �3RW @ � �Ì9 �R >� ��Ì R � 3��Á �6�R � ��1 �; � R ��'� ��A> � A� :�R 5 � 3W ? � " �R =T 5� � >� @� ; � �Ì 8 �R4; �1 >�\���� �6� _R :� R 0; � A;� ��> ; � >� A2R � 6; �1 �W � ��4 � V:�W 5 � ��A> � A� :�R 5� 3W ? �" �R =T5 � ��> �� 5\ B S <> � �������� ����� � ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ���� 1 � 2�R �'� ��> ; � >� B R <3? � R :� RG � �Ì 8� R 4; �1 > �\ ��3W B R 1 :�X ·; � ��A� R 4 � R <0�\ ��6� <T � D �1 � 6�_ :� R 0�W ��> ; � >� t A2�1 � :�Q ��Ò� 1 � ��" �2� :�Q �Ì 1 ;� 5 1� ����� �Ì 8 � R 4; �1 > � �Ì 9� R >� $�_ R B" ��Ì R$ � :� �Ì 5�U :� R 5 � ;� RW � �6� _> �Y � H � � ��5 � ��A; � R1 �Q �!���� �� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� �� ��� ��� ��� ������ � �1 � A:� R1�Q ��� > � ? >� R A� �6�_ :� R 0� �1� 3R 9 �R A� �> ;� > � A2�R ��)� T > �W ? � 9�W 3R � 3"\ ���' � ��> ; � R > �B RS <" �:�Q ��Ò� 1 � ��Í6� 6� ¿� :�W > � ��A� > �̂��)� $ � 1 �Q����� :� 2; � W� 1 � ���������� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ����� � ��� ��� ��� ��� ���

16. Refutation Of "Superior Validity Of Perception"

1. Objection: Perception which is depended upon is stronger, When it is contradictory itis sublated by perception.

2. Reply: No; it is not contradictory to that which is being depended upon, The formwhich is depended upon is not sublated, Only its ultimate validity is sublated. That isnot depended upon, as it does not enter into the cause.

3. The examination is in the form of (a) of fruitfulness whenacted (b) absence offruitlessness (c) absence of defects.. By that the validity is established of the non-sublation of an object of same place and time - like the fire of same place and time bythe smoke.4. Like wise, only in the empirical state, the non-sublation is established of the ordinary body-Atman identity after examining the means of knowledge. How then can it be notpossible for Sruti and inference not to function since they negate the absolute reality ofthe world.

23

not be of the ground for Sruti and inference which negates the absolute reality of theworld.

5. Therefore, the establishment of the validity and its semblance, as also the duality of Jiva and God are of empirical nature. So it is compatible that the entire world is non-real.

�� ��� �� � ��66�� __ 11 ;; �� DD �� AA;; � ��� ��ÌÌ 55 �� UU ::�� RR 55 � �� ���88 �� RR 44 ;; �� 11 >>�� ::��QQ

�� �� " \��' � ��� > � 6�D �8 �R 4 �" ���A� � '� >�\ ��Ì 5 � U:� R5 � :� � 6� ��6�_ 1 ; �D �8 � R4 �" �:�Q ��������� �Ì 6� <T � D� 1� �6�_ 1 ; �D �\ �� B �6� <T � D� 1� �Ì5 �U :� R 5 � �Ì6�W D � ;� R ��3N 8�] =:� Q�������� �Ø 5 �T =�5 � 9� �Ø��Ò� 1 � �6�_ 1 ;� D �� :�> � ��5 � 9� RW �5 � T Á�6�1 > � �Ì5 �U :� R 5� R 6�W D � ;� R ��������

17. Sublatability Of Perception By Inference

1 .Moreover, Inference also sublates cognition when it is supported by the disproval ofthe counter-example.

2. The cognition that has not been examined is weaker, compared to the examined inference.3. Just like the cognition, "sky is blue" is weaker, compared to the inference "sky is colourless.

�� ��� �� � ��66�� __ 11 ;; �� DD �� AA;; � ��� ��ÌÌ RR $$ �� ::� �� ���88 �� RR 44 ;; �� 11 >> �� ::��QQ

���� �"\ ��'� ��6 � <T�D� 1� �6 �_ :� R0� 9� R>� �?� 838� R4;� :� �6 � � � 6 �_ 1;� D� :� Q ����������� �� ��� ��� 1� R16 � ;�] �>� @� ;� T9� V1� R2� ]� �8� RW4� "�1>� :� Q ���B�:� U#;� R2� ]1>� :� Q ��� �5� � ?� ·;� R2�] :� RG� 8� RW 4� "�1>� :� Q ���Ì5;� R2� ]1� R16 � ;� ]"� 1>� R1� Q������ '��Ì:� U#;� R2� ]1>� :� Q ��5� � =RD� �0� "�1>� ��:� RG� 1>� :� Q Q ������ � � � �

18. Sublatability Of Perception By Sruti

1. Moreover, perception is sublatable also by Sruti, which has been validated by examination.2. Giving the import (Tatparya) is called the primary meaning. and not merely the denotation (Sakyartha - direct meaning ) .Secondary meaning is that which has otherimport. and not merely the indicative denotation.

24

�� ��� �� �ÌÌ 66�� '' (( WW3��3��55 ;; �� RR ;; � �� �� �� �>> �� XX @@ �� ::;; � �� �����99 �� mm��

���� �"\ ��'� ��Ì6 � '( W 3�5;� R;�W 5� R�6 � � � ÌR$� :� A;� � � 6�_ R8� º;� :�Q ����� �� �� ��Ì1� � � Ï>� � � A� $�U 0� A� 6 � _6 � b� FU1;� RW�� ��5� $U� ]0� �5� @6 � _ 6 � b� FU �1� 9;� R:� Q �Ì6 � '( W 3�5;� R;�W 5� � � 8� R4� � Ò�1� � � A� U@,U �Í·H� :� Q ��� ������ ��1 � 3N·H � :�Q ��Ì R 5 � 5 38� RW 4 � R '� R; �X ]� ������ ��� ��� ���1 � 1 6� <1 >� R1 �Q ��6� <1 > � R c� ��� 5 � 3RW] @ �1 > �R c� ��> �X � 3" �:�Q ����� 6� V> � ]A; � ��8 � R4 �" �:�Q ��5 � R ; �\ ��A� 6� ]��Ò1 ; � R � 3��> � R ·;� >� 1�Q ���������

19. Disproof Of The Inequality Of Apaccheda Nyaya

1. Moreover, even by the Apaccheda Nyaya, Sruti is stronger.2. Therefore alone, the Srutis describing Brahman with qualities and with the world aresublated by the Srutis describing Brahman without qualities and without world3. It is said by Anandacharya. Since it refers to the purport, comes after and Vedic text is free from defect it sublates the former; like the sentence "this is not a snake".

Notes: Apaccheda Nyaya of Poorva Mimamsa Sastra means that what follows is more powerful than what went before.

����� �� �>> �� tt 55 BB ?? ��XX 11 ;; � �� �����ÌÌ 55 �� UU �� ::�� �� 11 � �� ���AA�� RR ::;; �� ����99 �� mm��

� � ��5 � 5 �U ����; � � 3��6� _1 ; � D� 8� R� 4 �1 � :�Q ��Ì � 6� ��Ì 5 �U :� R 5�\ ��A� R 4 � ; �W 1 �Q � �1 � 3R ��> �t 5 B �Ì 5�RX @ 0; � :�Q ��Ì � 6� ��A� R 4 � ;�W 1 �Q ���������� :� X> �\ ����� > � À �R 2�] $ �_ R SB 1 >�W 5 � ��� > � ?�W @ �R 1�Q � �6�_ 1 ; � D� � A� ��Ì; � )� :� R5 �1 > � �ÌRX @ 0; � R� 3> �1 �Q �? � 8 3� =m$ �_ R Å�; � )� :�R 5� 1 >� �Ì 5 �RX @ 0; � R}� 6�����> ; R � > � BR S <" �� :� �1 � ��A� :�1 >� R1 �Q ��6� _ 1 ;� D�W 0� ��8 � R4 ; �1 �W �� �6� _" Y�1 �W ��1 � U��A� 1 > �\ ��> ; � R > � BR S <"\ ����6� _1 ; � D� � A� �\ ���1 � � � À �\ ��' � �5 � �� :� 2;� R1 > � :�Q ������1 � A; � ����6� R <:� R � 2�] " ��A� 1 >� ��� > � <RW 4 � R 1�Q ������� ��

20. Refutation Of The Equality Of The Inference "Fire Is Cold"

1. Objection: If inference can establish a thing which is sublated by perception, then itcan establish" "Fire is cold".2. Reply: Not so; there is difference as the meaning is contradictory. The personhaving t he character of non-Yajamana and the presence of heat in fire which areperceptions (Pratyaksha) and the person having the character of Yajamana and theabsence of heat in fire (sound and probans) -both are empirical (vyavaharika) - so theyare sublated. But in the present case, they are empirical reality and non-reality which arenot contradictory. It is contradictory to absolute reality.

25

���� � �� � ��66�� __ 11 ;; �� DD �� AA;; � ��� ���� ==mmRR }} 88 �� RR 44 ;; �� 11 >> �� W��W��88 �� RR 44 �� "" ��::�� QQ

� � �� "\ ��' � ��6� <T � D� 1� 1 >�W 5 � X> � ��6�_ R 8� º; �\ � �5 � �Í6� )� T> ; �1 >�W 5 � ����������� �1 � 2�R � B ���ØÒ3\��< )� 1 �\ �Ø ���Ò� 1 � ��6� _1 ; � D � A; � ��Ì 5�U :� R5 � �ÌR ª� �>�' � 5� R9 ; �R\ � ��5 � 9 � RW 5 �X º; � ��6�_ 1 ; � D� A; � �5� T Á�6� 1> � $�_ R B " ��Ì 5 �U:�R 5�W 5 � ����� Ø $ �RX <R WWB \�Ø �Ò1 ; � A; � ��Ø Ì B :�Q �ÒB X > � Rt A:� ��A� 35 �W �)� R 5 � R 5� �Ø �Ò1 ; � A; � ��'� 5 Ç 6�_ R 3W� ? � " �1 >� �6�_ 1 ; �D � A;� ��' � ��Ì 5 �U :� R 5� ��Ì R $� :� R 9;� R\ � �Ø�6� T 1 � � �?� l� �Ø���Ø �� 1 � ·H� RW ��$ � U. �Ø ��Ò1 ; � R 3W ? ' � ��Ì 5 �U :� R 5 ��ÌR ª� >� '� 5� R 9; �R\ ��8 � R 4� RW ���? ; � 1 �W ������� ��� ��� ��� ����� ��Ï" �G � �6�_ R :� R 0; � ��� 5� ?' �; �W ��8 � =R 8 � =� '� 5 1� R; �R ��Ï> � ��Ì 5 � >� " �R ?� R1 �Q ����� ���� �

21. Refutation Of " Perception Cannot Be Sublated By Inference"

1. Moreover, greater validity is because of being examined and not because of the character of being depended upon.2. Thus - the perceptions, "this is silver", "sky is blue", "I am fair", "I am in this house", "the moon disc is the size of six inches", "the conch is yellow", "Jaggery is bitter", etc are sublated by inference, friend's word, verbal testimony etc. This is seen.3. Where the validity is to be established in the same place, there is no question of the thought of its strength or weakness.

����� ��� ��99 �� R �R � >> � �� �� �� �88 �� RR 44 �� RRWW 66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �Ï> �\ ��' � ��Ø �9 � R �> �8 �R 4 �� 5 �? '� ;� R1 �Q �' � �Ø��Ò� 1 � ��; � 3Nx\���1 � 3� 6� ����Í6� 6� ¿� :�W > � ��� �6� _" �R <R 51 � <W 0� �Ì 8 � R� 4� 1� A; � �'� 5 Ç 6�_ R 3W� ? � " �1 >� ��6� _ 1; �D � A;� ��; � 2�R ��Ì R $� :�W 5 � �8 �R 4 �� �� �1 � 2� R �6�_ " �R <R 51 � <W 0� �Ì 8 �R � 4� 1� A; ����� Ø �A� 5 �Q ��% � , � �Ø ��Ò1 ; R �� 3��6� _ 1; �D � A;� ��� :� 2;� R1 > �8 �RW 4 �" ��Ì R$ � :�W 5 � ��8 �R 4� ��Ò� 1 � ��� 5 � 0�] ; � R 1�Q ���������

22. Compatibility Of Future Sublation

1. Therefore, what was said "because of future subation" is also compatible.2. "the six inch-size of the moon" which is not sublated by other means is sublated by scripture. Similarly. the perception "Pot is etc" which is not sublated by other means is sublated by scripture which teaches non-reality. This has been established.

����� �� ��� ��AA�� 11 ;; �� 11 >> � �� �����ÌÌ 55 �� UU ::�� RR 55 �� 99 �� mm��

�:� 2;� R1>� � � Ì5� U:� R5� A;� � Ì5� U:� R5� � 8� R4� RW �R<��� � �1 � 3N x\ ��A� \ D�W 6� ? � R <T <"X �� ����Ì R F;� 1 >� � >� @� ; �1 >� �9� R �$ � 5� T ��5 �� > �] 9 � R$ �� '� � 1� <W > � �"W �> � =R ����6�V > �] � A� �1 � :� A� RW �� B �6� t ? '�:� RW �5 � R F;� RW �9 � > �� 1�5 � R � 6� �$ �RW ' � <� ���������� �Ì � > � }R 4 ;� R A� A;� �Ì 4 ;� R A� R 51 � <�Ì5 � 6�W D �1 > �R 1�Q ��A> � 6� <A� R 4 � R <0� �A�> �] � 5 � >� R] " �1 >� RW 6� 6� H �W � �������

26

�� �1 � 3W > �\ �� 5 � <R "Y �1 � R� �6� <:� R 2�] A� 1 > �W ��A� R 4 ; �W �@ � . :� T �BW 1 � >� � �����

�� �Ì 2� ��A� R ��� >� :�1 �\ � �5 � �A� � � =D� 0� :�Q � BW ��Ì A� � � =D� 0� 1> �R 1�Q � ���Ì R 1 :� >� 1�Q ��Ò� 1 � �Ì 5�U :� R 5� R5 1� <\�9 � � >� @ ;� �1 � �Ò� 1� ���:� 1� :�Q �� ������

�� �1 � ¿�� �6�_ R � 1 �9 �R � A�"W ��? �U t ·H � Á �6; � R 3RX�> ; �� 9 �' �R <R1 �Q

23. Refutation Of Inference Of Absolute Reality Of The Empirical World

1, It is said in Samkshepasariraka: The indivisible consciousness alone is the locus andobject of nescience. What came after nescience cannot be its locus or object.

2. The superimposition due to nescience is not in need of any further superimposition. Itis compatible that it is capable of managing itself and all other superimpositions.

3. Like this, the six reasons for the absolute reality of the world have been rejected.

4.. Objection: (Sadya) Subject is not different from reality (Hetu) Because it is differentfrom unreal. (Drishtanta) Like the Atman

5. Reply: It is not; In the phenomenal and shell-silver, it strays away. (it is in hetu but notin sadhya)

����� �� ��� ::�� 22;; �� RR 11 >> �� W��W���� >> �� ?? �� WW @@ � �� �����ÌÌ 55 �� UU ::�� RR 55 �� ::�� QQ

� � �A� R ��� >� :�1 �\ �� :� 2; � R� �BW ��8 �_ ¯� R 5 ;�1 > �R 1�Q ��3Y ��? � U t·H � Á�6; �> �1 �Q ���� ���� �Ï> �\ ��Ì 5 ; �W � 6� �6� _; � RW $ � R � ��;� 2� RW � '� 1�\ ��Ì R <' �5 � T; �R �� > � 6� t ?'� S �� �Ò� 1 � ��� 3"Q �������� ���� �B W1 � >� RW 9 � T ­ � A� 4 ;� 2�̂���A� :; � b � RW �8 � B >� ?' � �5� � ����Ì º6�R � �6� <A; � �3N @ , � ? '�W 1 ; �G � �����A6� @ , :� U3T S <1� :�Q �������Ì 9 � T ­ � A� �R > �5 �U " V�=1 � "�] 8 � =R 8� =\��' � R G� �6� <T D; � �;� ±�R 1�Q ������ �6� _> � D ;� 1� �W3R W@ � $� 0� � �6� <W @ � R\ �5 � �#W � 35� T ;� :�Q ��1 � U�:� 5 � RW 4 �U 5 �X > � ��������

27

24. Special Syllogisms On Non-Reality1. (Sadhya) Subject is non-real (Hetu) Because it is different from Brahman (Drish) likethe shell-silver.2. Like this, many other reasoning may be put forward by the learned

3.. We have clearly shown that there are many and excellent reasons for establishing our position and the opponent has fewer and defective. Later, will be said thestrength and weaknesses after examination for establishing our thesis and the defectsof opponents; at present one should not worry.

Notes: there are twenty-seven syllogisms listed by the author..

����� �� �ÌÌ 22� �� � ��ÌÌ RR $$ �� ::� �� ���88 �� RR 44 �� ����ÍÍ��RR <<��

� � �5 � 5�U �����Ì A1 � U��? � 8 38� R 4� � ���1� 2�R � B ������ ��� ��� ��� �" ���Ø �� > � ?> �\ ��A� 1 ; �\ ��Ø ����K �� Ì � ��������#� ��; � � c� "W �1 � �A� 1; �� :� H� ¿� �:� RW % � \���K �� Ì � ��� �� ����$ � �;� R 2� R 1� 2;� 1� RW 2� R ]5 > ; � 34 � R' ( R ? > �1 � T9 ;� � �Ò�]� Í� ������ Ò1 ; � R � 3�FU � 1 �� 9� ����� ��� ��� ��� ��% � ��Ì A� 1 ; � :� 6�_ � 1 �­ \��1 � W�)� $ � 3R BN �<5 � T ? >� <:�Q ��9 � � $ � T� ��Ò1 ; R� � 3�A:�Y � 1 � �9 ��

���� ��� ��� ��� ��& ��5 � R 9� R >� �Í6� =8 4�W � � �> � X 4� :;� R] ' '� ��5 � �A> � 6�P R � 3> �1 �Q ��8 �_ � A�V � ������� ���� �Ò1 ; � R � 3�A�V G � X ?'�

���� ��� ��� ��� ��� > � ? > � A;� �A� 1 ;� 1> � �6�_ � 1 � 6� R 35� R1 �Q ��� 1 � ��' �W 1 �Q

�� �5 � � �FU 1 �W A1 � 1 6� <1 >� �Ì9 � R> �R 1�Q ����" ��� � � �� > �? > �\ � �A� > �̂�A1 � RW G �\ � �A� 1 ;�\ �� ��; � 2� R 2�] :�Q ���� � � � 1� 2�R �' � �A1�U � 1 � 6� <1 � ;� R �5 � �� >� ? >� A� 1; �1 > �W1 � R1 6�; �] :� Q���� ��� ��� ��� ��� �����

#� ��; � � c�"W �1� �)� R 5 �R �1 �� �1 �1 �Q �A� 1 ; �� :� 1�Q �A� 1 ; � :�W > � ���5 � �:�RW % �\ �5 � �> ; � 2�] :�Q ������ �

$ � ��Ø ; � R 2� R1 � 2; �1 �RW 2� R] 5 > ; � 34� R 1�Q �Ø Ò1 ; � � 6� �> �R ·; �\ �5 � �6�_ 6� b� A�1 ; �1 >�W �6� _:� R 0� :�Q � �1 � A; � �6�V > �] A�Y ­ 6� _ "�R <W 0� �A� )� ]5 � :� 2�] � � �5 � �1�U �)� $ � 1 A� 1; �1 > �\)� $ � 1 A� )�] 5 � $� 1� A�1 ; �1 >�\ �> � R �����

% � �� �� � � A�� � �> � ·H� 1> � >� R� 35 �RW �:� :� �)� $ �� 1� �Ì A� �X =D � 0; � �ÌmT " �R <W 0� ��1 �1 6�_ � 36� R 3" �A:�Y � 1� � >� <RW 4 � �Ì 9� R >� R1 �Q �������

& ��� � � A�V G � R 2�] A1 �U � �5 �R 9 �R >� � ���E� R 5 � R�1 �S <·H � A;� ��Ì 2�] A; � �5 � �Ì A� 1 >� :�Q � �� "\ �1 �U �> ; � B R <3?� R8 �R 4 ;� �Ì 2�] � "_ �; � R " �R S <1 > � Á�6�\ �A� 1 > � :�W > � ��Í6� =8 4 �W � �E� R 5� R �1 � <W " W�0� �6�_ :� R 0�X À 6� =8 4 �W � ���A> � 6�P > � X4 � :;� RW ]t ·H � � �8� R 4; �1 > �R }U 6� R � 4� 6�_ 3? �] 5 � R; � ���1�W 5 � �8� R4 � R1 �Q ��A� R W6� R � 4� " �1 >� R c� �6�V > � R] 5 � U:� R 5�\3N­ � :�1 ; � 2�] � �������

28

25. Justification Of Sublation By Srutis

1. Objection: Let there be sublation by Srutis:

1 The universe is real. by the Srutis. - that which is regarded as real is not useless. Foreternity, hr created things in reality.

2.. They (ill-guided) declare the world to be un-real, unstable and without God..

3. The perception of the world cannot be regarded as dream as there is dissimilarity

By these the reality of the Universe has been established.

1. Reply: The Sruti has not this import. ....(a)...Viswam = all praise , Satyam = exact...since it relates to praise, it has no import on the reality of the world.

(b). What Indra understands to be done now is real and is not a waste..

(c).The sentence is no evidence of the reality of the world. Its meaning is creationaccording to previous creation and not in the reality of the world or in its creation.

(d). For me who advocates difference from reality and have accepted difference fromunreality in the world, there is no contradiction in this Smriti.

(e) . Meaning of Sutra. Na Abhavah = "Things (pot etc) have no existence other thanknowledge" - This is not valid because in the empirical state, they have their existencefor its fruitfulness and action. . Upalabdeh = because they are cognised different fromknowledge. The sentence on the difference in nature like dream etc, is to show theadjunct which is sublatable. Therefore the previous logic is defective because ofsublatability and also with the adjunct.

����� ��� ��ÌÌ AA�� 11 �� � �� � AA�� RR 44 �� "" ��11 >> �� ::��QQ

� � ��5 � 5 �U ���A� H > � A� R 4� " �R 5 �R\ �� :� 2; � R1 >� A� R 4� " ��Ì5 �U :� R 5�W 9 ; � � ��6_R �_ 8 � º; � :�Q �� � � � � � � �� � �� � Ò� 1� �'�W 1 �Q ����� ���

29

�� ��5 � �� � :� 2;� R1 > � A� R 4� " �6�_ � 1� E� R }U 6� 5 �T 1� 6�D � R 3T 5� R\ �� :� 2; � R1 >� 8� RW W4 � 5 �W � 6� �> ; � RB 1 ;� 9� R> � R1 �Q �6� _� 1 � E� R�1 �� 9� A1 �W @ � R\ �� G � " �R =R8 � R4 ; �1 >� Á �6� ��A�1 > � �Ì 6�_ � 1 � 6�R 35 �R 1�Q ���� �����

�� ��> � A1 �U 1 � A1 �U ��E� R 1 � R E� R 1� A� R4 �R <0�\ ��> ; � R >� BR S <"\ ��A� H > � :�W > � ��A� R 4 � "�1 >�W ��1 � 5 G � :�Q ����1 � c� �8 �_ ¯� E� R 5�W 1 � <�Ì 8�R 4; �1 > � :�W > � �� �1 � c� �5� �� :� 2;� R1 > �% � � , 1 � :�Q ���� �

26. Non-Real is Capable of Proof

1; Objection: that which prove the reality is stronger than the inferences that prove their

non-reality.

2.Reply: No; the subjects for the establishment of the non-reality teach the non-reality;yet there is no contradiction, because they do not relate to the reality which cannot besublated for all periods of time.

3. In fact, empirical reality , cognised or non-cognised is the criteria for proving. It is

not sublatable by any knowledge other than that of Brahman; nor does it necessarily

involve non-reality.

����� �� �ÌÌ AA�� 11 �� � �� �AA�� RR 44 �� "" ��11 >> � �� ���ÌÌ 99 �� RR >> �� W�W���88 �� RR 44 �� "" ��::�� QQ

� � ��6� _� 1 �� 8� :8�W ��� 8 � :8 � A�R 4� " �1 > �\ �1 � R >� 3t A1� ���1 � A;� ��8 � :8 � R1 :�5 � R �A�1 >�W � 6� ��6�_ � 1 ��8 � :8 � R" �R <W 0� R A� 1 >� R1 �Q �6� <:� R 2�] A� 1 > �\ ��5 � �A� R 4 � "�1> �W6� _; � RW )� " :�Q ���Ï> � \�A> � 6� P R2�] A; � R A� 1� RW � 6� �9 � R� > �? �U 9 � R? �U 9 � A�V ' � " �1 >� :�Q ����� ���� �5 � �' � �����Ø" �2� :�Q ��Ì A� 1 � � ��A� d�R ; �W 1 � �Ø ��Ò� 1 � ��FU 1 ; �R � ��Ø�5 � R A�1 �RW �­ 1 >� R1 �Q �Ø �Ò� 1 � �A�V G � W0� ��? � ?� � >� @ �R 0�R � 39; � � ��A� 3U 1 6� � H� �Ì 3?�] 5 � R 1�Q

���� �Ò1 ; � R � 3��9 �R @ ;�W 0� �' � ������� > � <RW 4 � � �����1 �W @ �R\ �1 �U ' ( W��)� 5 � " �1 >� � 5� @ �W 4 � 6� <1 > �R 1 �Q�������� �

�� �Ì A:� R � 9� ?' � ��1�U ' ( W�)� 5 � " �1 > � A;� �Ì5 �U x�1 > � R1 �Q ������ �� �

27. Sublation of "Non-real cannot prove"

1. In the reflection. the character of establishing the original is there, Although it isexistent as the original, it is not there in the form of the reflection; absolute reality is notthe criteria for its establishment. Similarly, though things in the dream are not existent,they indicate the oncoming auspiciousness and inauspiciousness.(which are true)

2. There is no contradiction; in the Sruti - How can real come from unreal:- in theSutra"Not from unreal, because it is seen" -in the Bhashya "From hare's horn etc.,creation of reality is not seen". Because their purport is to deny creation from absoluteunreality (un-existent)

30

3, We have not said that absolute unreality can have the character of creation.

��� �� ��� ��$$ ��?? ;; �� AA�� \\ 88 �� 55 44 � �� �����99 �� mm��

� � ��" Q��? ; � �A�\ 8 � 54 � R5 �U 6� 6� H�W � �������

�� �1 � A:� R1 �Q ��A� 1 ; � 1> �W ��A� \ 8 � 54 �R 5 �U 6� 6� H�W � ��Ì R 4 ;� R� A� " ���Ï>� ��$ �? ; � ;� RW � ��A� \8 � 5 4 � ��Ò�1 � �������

28. Refutation Of The Cogniser-Cognised Relation

1. The relation between the cogniser-cognised (seer and seen) is incompatible.

2, Therefore, since in the absolute reality relation is incompatible, the character ofsuperimposition is the relation.

-

����� ��� ��ÌÌ 55 �� UU "" VV��==11 �� "" ]] ���������� 55 �� ÁÁ ��66�� 00�� ::�� QQ

� � � �1 �R t1 > �" �A�\ 8 � 5 4� A; � �> ; �R 6�" �R 5�U 6� =8 4 ; �R �8� R 4� R1 �Q ����1 � 2� R �B ���1 � Rt 1> � "�A�\ 8� 5 4� A; � �> ;� R 6�" �RW �3W? � " �R =� > � 6�_ " �@� R] 9 � R >� � ���A� �' �Ì 1 �T 1� R� 3� >� @ �; �" �E� R5 � R 3T 5� R\ �5 � R t A1� �Ï> � �Ò�1 � ��" �2�\ �1 �R t 1> �" �A1 �W @ � R\ �A� \8 � 5 4� � �������

���� ��1 � A:� R 1 �Q ��A� 1 ; � 1> �W ���$ �? ; � �A� \ 8� 54 �R 5 �U 6� 6� � H� � ���/ X> � ��������

29. Proof Of Favourable Logic1 There is sublation because of non-cognition of the pervasive reality relation. Hence -the pervasiveness of the reality relation is the absence of difference in time and place.That is not present like knowledge etc., which are of the past things; so, how then canthey have reality relation.2... Therefore, if it is absolutely real, the incompatibility of the relation betweencogniser and cognised is strong.

����� ��� ��66�� __ �� 11 �� "" ��::��] �] �� �� �>> ;; �� >> �� AA22�� RR

� � ��1 � 2�R �B ��Ì 5 1� � " �<0�\ ��' � D �U > �] 1 �Q ��1 �W )� R W> � ; � �> � ����1 � c� ��Ò� 5 3_ ; � � R <W 0� �1 � 1 A�\ ; � U·H �\ �� > � @� ; �\ �> ; � R 6;� ��1 � 3R " �R <\ ���9 � > � � 1� ����; � 2�R �5 � }R }U 3" \�6� _0� R ÊR ��5 � � A�Y 1 ;� �"W �3R <R }R " �R <\ �9 � > � �1� �� �A� X> � �> �Y � H �S <1 ;�U ' ;� 1�W ����1 � G � �)� T > �' �X 1 � 5; �\ ��Ì � > � }RW 6� R �4 � "\ ���A� 1 �Q �A� > � ]$ � 1�\ ��Ì 5 1 � � " �<0�RW 6� R � 4 �"\ �A� 1 �Q ��6� S <� ( ¿� � :�� 1� ��:� 1 � ��; �\ ����1 � G � �Ì R }W �� > � @� ;� 6�_ " �R ? �"\ ���)� T > � �' �X 1 � 5; � :�Q ���� � 1 �T ;�W �8 �_ ¯� ' �X 1 � 5; � :�Q ������� ������

31

�� � � 1 � 3; � :� G � � �5 � @" �@�] � � �� ; � }� 6� � � � > �W @ � ;� 6�_ " �R ?� " �\ � � � > � @ � ;� R� 4 � ­ R 5 � 9�V 1 �\ � � 6� _:� WWW; � �' � X1 � 5; �\ � � �� � � Ì 5 1 �" �<0� R� > � ' ( ¿�' �X 1 � 5 ;�\ � 1 � U� 1 � A; � � 6�_ :� R1 �Y��� � Ì 5 1� " �<0� >�Y � H � �Ì >� t' ( ¿� �' �X 1 � 5 ;�\ � 1 � U� 6� _:� R 0�\ � ��� � � 1 � 2� R � 6� � � � ; � 3T; �R 5 1� �" �<0� > �Y H ; �R � � > �@ � ;� 6�; �] 5 1 �\ � ' � D�U <R � 3� R <R � � 5 � AA�Y 1 � ;� R; � 1 6�_ " �R? �"\ �� � ' �X 1 � 5 ;�\ � � ; � 1 6�_ :� R1 �Y � ' �X 1 �5 ; �R 9�W 3W5 � � � Ì � 9� > ;� ); �1 �W � � 1 � :�W > � � � A� � Ï> � � � )� R 5 � R� 1� � 5 R R5 ; �\ � 5 � R 5; � RW � > � R � �� � Ì 1� � Ï> �Ï" �> �Y H ; �U 6� R Á �/ =D � 0� �Ï" ��=RW =T 9 � R >� R 6� ¿�\ � � 6� _:� R 1 �Y �6�_ :� R 0� �6�_ :� W; � �'�X 1� 5 ;�\ � 9 � > �� 1� � �� � 1 �1 � � � � 1� 3>� ' ( W 3W5 � � Ì E� R5 � �� 5�> �Y H ; � R � �5 � >�Y H ;� R9 � R A� :� R5 �\ �6� _:� W; � '�X 1 �5 ; �\ �Ì 6� <RW D � \��7�=\ �Ò1 ; �U ' ;� 1�W ���� ����� ����� ��G � ; � R 0� R\ �Ï" �=R W=T 9 �R > �W ��Ì 6� <R W D� 1> �\ ��� ; � RW � �Ï" ��=RW =T 9 � R >�W �1 � U��6� <R WD � 1 >� � :� �1 � �5� ��A� k <� �������

30. Pratikarma-vyavastha

1. Just like the eye, the mind also is the effect of fire. . It through the sense organspervades and become the object to which it is connected ,. just like the water in the riverthough canals flows out and takes the form of the field; this is called the modification(vritti) of the mind. There are two schools. The Self- Consciousness, nescience as itsadjunct, is all pervasive; with mind as its adjunct, it is limited. There the first is the JivaChaitanya which illumines objects; in the second it is the Brahman Chaitanya.

2. Here, the clarification is as follows:- Although the consciousness which has its locusin the object and makes the object cognised (1), the mind-adjunct-consciousness is itscogniser (2) and the mind-modification-limited consciousness is the cognition.(3), stillone becomes to know that object only, not any other and not anybody else; who by hismodification of the mind reaches the object which becomes known by thatconsciousness and becomes non-different from the cogniser-consciousness. Therefore,the cogniser-cognition-cognised consciousness become one in the form of themodification of the mind. Therefore by the removal of ignorance conditioned by it , thecogniser-consciousness glows and it is called immediate knowledge. In the first case, itis Jiva who illumines the object; in the second, it is Brahman

3. When the three (cogniser-cognised-cognition) becomes one, it is calledimmediate.(direct) when two becomes one it is called mediate.(indirect) Therefore , thereis no convergence.

���� � �� �66�� __ �� 11 �� ""VV ��==11 �� "" ]] ���������� 55 �� <<RR "" ��<< 00�� ::�� QQ

� � � � > �? > �\ � � ; � � 3� " �t º6� 1�\ � � A; � R 1�Q � � A� 1 ;� R� 4 � ­ R 5 �\ � A; � R 1 �Q � � 5 � � '�X > �\ � � A� R :� R5 ; �1 �RW � E� R 1 � 1> �W � � A� � 1 � � Ì E� R1 �� > �? �W @ � >� 1 >� A; � � � Ì � 4� ­ R 5 � 1> � �6� _; � RW )� " �A; � �� 5� �> �] ? �W @ �W ��� 5 � AA� R :�R 5 ;�W �' � ��8 �_ ¯� � 0� ��Ì A�\ 9 � >� R1 �Q �Ò� 1 � �' �W 1 �Q � ���5 � � ���������

�� �A> � Á �6�W 0� �E� R 1 �1 > �W �A� � 1 � ��� >� ?�W @ � W0� �Ì E� R1 �1 >� A; � ��Ì �4 � ­ R 5 � 1 >� �6�_ ; � RW )� " �1 >�W 5 � ��Ì E� R 1� � >� ?�W @ � >� 1> � �A;� ��Ì 6�_ ; � RW )� " �1 > �R 1�Q ����� ���

�� �5 � �Ì 4 ;� A1 �1 >�W ���Í1 6� H ; � R}5 �U 6� 6� �H � � �� ��Ì 5� 4 ;� A1� A; � �© �R � 6� ��Í1 6� H ;� R }? �] 5 �W 5 � �Ì 4; � A1 �1 > � A;�X > � ��1 � 3N 6� 6�R 3" �1 > �R 1�Q � A� 1" �R; �] > � R 3��Ì A� 1 "�R ;�] > � R 3�� 5� @�W 4 �W 5 � ��Ì � 5 �> �] ' � 5� T ;� " �R ; �] > � R 3:� RG �W ��" �R ; �] " �R <0� 9 �R > � ��6� ;�] > � A� R 5� R1 �Q ���1 � 3W> �\ ��" Y �1 £A; � ��6�_ 6� b� A; � �Ì �; �W �8 �_ ¯� � 0� �" �º6�5 � R�Í6� 6� H �W � �5 � ��6�_ � 1� "V �=1 � "] �6� <R B �1� � ��������

32

31. Refutation Of Counter-Reasoning

1. Objection: If the world is imaginary, then Brahman (sat) must be the substratum; thisis not so ; that which is known in general, and has unknown special qualities is thecharacter of substratum; and this is not possible in Brahman, as it has neither special norgeneral qualities.

2. Reply: this is not true. When it is generally known but particularly unknown is thecriteria for the nature of the substratum,, and not having the unknown special qualities..

3. There is no incompatibility of creation etc., when there is the character ofsuperimposition. Nowhere the creation is seen when there is no superimposition, itscharacter alone is the cause. By the negation of "real-effect" and "unreal-effecttheories" the theory of "indeterminability-effect" only remains true. Thus , the super-imposition of the entire world on the non-dual Brahman is compatible and there is nodisproof by the opposite logic.

Notes: Real effect means that pot exists in the mud even before its production. Unreal effect means thatpot does not exist before production.

����� �� ��� ::�� 22;; �� RR 11 >> �� ��FF UU11 ;; �� UU66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �5 � 5�U ���FU1 ; � R� � � �� � � 6�_ 1 ;� D �R � 3� A� �1� 1 A�H > �RW 6� )� T > � 5�W 5 � �' � �8�_ ¯� W1 � <A� " �=� :� 2;� R1 > �R � A�S ��� �������

�� 5 � � �� �� � � �� � �� � � �� � � � 6�_ 1 ; � D� R 3W A1 �U � � � �� � � �� Ì1 �RW �; � 1�Q �8 � R 4 ;� 1�W �1 �R t 1> �" �1 >�\ �1 � ¿� RW 6� )� T >; �\ � �; � c� RW 6� )� T > ;�\ �Ì 2� ]� "_ ; � R A� R :� 2; �] =D � 0�> ; � R> �B R S <"�6�_ R :� R 0;�\ �1 � c� �5� �8 �R 4 ;� 1�W ��Ò� 1 � �� "\ ��" W�5 � �A�\ m1 � :�Q �������

� � �1 � A:� R 1�Q ��Ï" �:� W> � �Ì � �1 �T ; � :�Q ��� Ò1 ; � R � 3�FU � 1 �� ��� > � ?> �� :� 2;� R1 > �W �6� _:� R 0� � :� � 1� �� A� ��:�Q ������ ��

32. Compatibility Of The "Non-Reality" Srutis

1. Objection: By depending upon the reality of perception, the non-reality of all otherthan Brahman is not established.

2.Reply : No,......... perception etc. ...therefore, the reality which is sublated is notdepended upon. That which is depended upon and which is the validity for empiricalitywhich has the capacity for purposeful action is not sublated. So, what and by whichthere is connection. (your question is irrelevant)

1. Therefore, the srutis "one only which is non-dual" etc., are valid on the non-reality ofthe world.

33

����� �� �ÌÌ �� XX 11 �� FFUU 11 ��WW 88 �� RR]] 44 �� RRWW ��RR <<��

� � � � X 1� 6�_ 1 ;� D � A;� � '� 5 Ç � 6�_ R 3W �? �" �1 > � �6�_ 1 ;� D� > �1 �Q � A� \9 � R �> �1 � �Ì 6�_ R :� R 0; �1 �; �R � Ì �X 1 � FU � 1 � �> � <RW � 4 �1 > � �Ì 9�R >� R1 �Q � � �� � � ; � 2� R � � ' � � FU 1 ; �R � 6�_ 1 ;� D�\8 � R4 ; �1 �W � � � 1 � 2�R � 6�_ 6� � b �1 � :�Q � � � Ì 4 � A1 � R 1�Q � �� � " \�� ' � � � 6� _ 1; �D �\ � � 5 � ; �1� � >� @ �; �\ � � FU� 1 �� � A� > �] � > � @� ;� R � � � 1� 2�R � ' � � ;� G� � 6�_ 1 ;� D�W 0� � 9 �W 3R W� 5 � � $ �Y B T 1� � � � 1� G�X > �Ì 9 �W 3FU1 �W <> � " �R ?� � ����� ��

�� � > ; � R >� BR S <" ��9 �W 3:� R G � A; � � � 8 �R 4 �" �1 >� �Ì6�_ ; � RW )� " �1 >� R 1�Q � �� ; � 1 �Q � � B � 6� <T � D� 1� � � 6� _:� R 0�9 �R > �1 >�W 5 � � 8� => � 1�Q � � 1 �1 �Q � 8 � R 4� " �:�Q � � ; �H �U � A� \ t 5 3$4 �6� _:� R 0�9 �R > �1 >�W 5 � � 3N 8 �] =\� 1 � 1�Q � 8 � R4 ; �� :�� 1� � � > ; � >� A2� R; � R\ � � � X 1� E�R 5 � A;� � 3N 8 �] =1 > �W 5 � � � Ì 8� R 4� " �1 > � A;� � Ì �X 1 � E� R5 � A;� � � ' � � 8� => � 1>�W 5 � � � 8 �R 4� " �1 > � A;�? � 8 36�_ 1 ; � D� �8� =R8 � =�> �' � R <W ��3� ? �] 1 �1 >� R 1�Q ������ ��

33. Refutation Of Sublation Of The "Non-Dual" Srutis

1. By the invalidity of the empirical dual-world, like the "empirical-6 inches moon”,there is no contradiction in the non-dual srutis. We have already discussed how theempiricality is sublated by the srutis. Moreover, empiricality relates to particular object;sruti to all objects. Therefore, where difference is not seen, there itself is room forSrutis, which speak of non-difference.

2. The mere sublation of the empirical difference is not the criteria. That which is strongafter examining its validity, that is the cause of sublation. That is sublated, which is weakby the doubtful nature of validation. In this state, the dual knowledge is weak andcannot sublate. Non-dual knowledge is strong and can sublate; in the discussion on thestrength and weakness of verbal testimony and empiricality, this has been shown.

����� ��� ��ÏÏ "" ��::�� WW >> ��WW 11 ;; �� R �R � 3��3��FF UU 11 ;; �� 22��] �] ������� >> �� '' �� RR <<��

� � �Ì �X 1 �> �R ·; � A;� �' � �@�.Q � > � 4� 1� R1 6� ;�] � =m> � H � ;� R �8� => �1 >�W 5 � �ÌR � >� }" ��X 1 � 6�_ � 1 �6�R 3" �1 > �\ �A� Y­ ×R � 3>� R ·; � R5 �R\ �Ò� 1 � �F>� 0� A> � Á�6� �5 � Á�6� 0�W> �W 3R 51 � "�º6� =�1 �" �R ;� R\ ��Ì � 9 � �B 1� :�Q �Ì A:� R � 9� � �������

� �� � �� � Ì 1 � � � Ï"�� >� E� R 5�W 5 � � A� > �] � > � E� R5 � � 6�_ � 1 � E� ; �R � Í6� "_ �:� R 1�Q � � � ÏW 1� 3R1 :;�\ � � Ò3\ � A� > �̂� 1 � 1 �Q � � A� 1 ; �\ � � � A� � � Ì R 1 :� R � 1�1 > � :� � A� � Ò� 1� � Í6� A�\ B R <R c� �Ì �X 1 � A;�X > � �:� B R 6_ R �_ " �<S 0� " �1 � ;� R� �1 � 35�U A� R <W0� �1 � � R ·; � A2� 6� 3R 5� R\ ��> ; � R #; �W ; � 1> � �Ì >� 4� R <0� R1 �Q � � � 5 � R 5� R 2�] 6� 3R 5� R\ � � � Ì 2� R ]5 1 � <�Í6� A2�R 6�" �1 >� �A� \9 � >�W � 6� �6�_ " Y�1 � >� R ·; � R 2�] �Ì 5 � 5 >� � ;� 1� ;� R �1� 1 6� S <1; �R $ �W 5 � ��6� _ "Y �1� > �R ·; �R 2�] ��Ì 5 �U " V�=6� 3R 2� RW ]6� t A2� �1 � 6� <1 >�\ �Ï> � �Ì >� A2�W ; � :�Q ����� ��

�� ��Ì 1 � RW ��5 � �� > � }1�W ��� � 1 � T ;�\ �; � G�W � 1 � ��8 �BN > � _T � B <W > � ��Ì R 3<0� T ;� � �������

���1 � 3W> �\ �A� 3QÁ �6�W �8 � _̄ � � 0� �6� 3G � ;�W 0� �9 � W3G � ;� � 5� @�W 4 �R 1�Q �1 � �� ¿� �� :� 2; � R1 >�W �6� ; � ]> � � A�1 �\ ��Ø Ï" �:�W > � R� � 1� T ;� :�Q �Ø�Ò� 1 � �> � R ·;� :�Q ������ ��

34

34. Discussion Of The Meaning Of The Sruti " One And Only Non-Dual"Etc

1. By the six rules of import, the sentence on non-dualism is stronger ; the sentences oncreation etc have their import on dualism due to nescience, This has been said by us inKalpalathika.

2.. Here also is laid down by the commentators on the true meaning of six kinds ofsignals. Therefore, in the beginning , by the promise of all-knowledge by theknowledge of one, in the end, "All this has got That as the Self: That is the truth. Thatis the Self. Thou art That", Svetaketu. by the overall context, it is of non-dualityFrom the understanding the meaning of the words in that sentence, in accordance withnon-duality, - although it is possible to interpret differently the different words - it has tobe fitted into the current context and interpreted accordingly leaving out the differentmeanings.

3. Therefore, "where there is no second" - the Bahuvrihi compound alone - has to betaken.

4.. Like this, in the Brahman - the Existence - the three differences are negated by thethree words and the sentence "one without second" points to the non-reality which isdifferent from Brahman..

Notes: Three words are, Yeka, Yeva, Advithiyam. Three differences are: same kind, different kind andinternal. The six rules of import are - beginning, end, repetition, novelty, euology,compatibility.

����� �� ��� EE�� RR 55 �� �� 55 �� >> �� 11 ;; ��]] 11 >> � �� ���ÌÌ 55 ;; �� 22�� R �R ���ÌÌ 55 �� UU 66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

��� � Ø� 1 � <� 1� ?RW R " :� R 1 :� � >�1 �Q � Ø � � � Ø� 1 � 2� R � � >� � R5 �Q � � 5 � R :� Á �6� R �� :�U ·H � � � Ø � � Ø � 9 � }1 �W �  3; � $�_ t 5 2�� � � ( }5 1�W � A� > � ]A� \? � ;� R � � �� D� T ;� 51 �W � ' � R A; � � " �:� R] � 0�1 � t A:� 5 �Q � �­ W� 6� <R > � <W� Ø� � Ò1 ; R � � 3� FU � 1 � A:�Y � 1� �8� RW � 4 �1 � �E�R 5 �� 5 �> �1 ; �] 1 > � �Ì5 ;� 2�R �Ì 5�U 6� 6� � H� <� 6� � 8� 5 4� � :� 2; �R 1> �W � 6� _:� R 0� :�Q � � � � A� 1 ; �1 > �W � 8 �_ ¯� >� 1�QÌ � 5� > �1 ;�] 1 >� ��Ì R 6�H �W � ��������

�� � 1 � 2�R � ' � � Íx\�� � > � R �1 �] " �"Y �� �� � � �� Ø� 1 � 1> � :� A; � R� 3�> �R ·;� RW 1 2� �A� :;� $ 4� T �)� 5 :� :�R G� 1� � � �� � Ì � >� }R � A� B � "�R ;�W ]0� � 5 � � � Ì R A�T 1�Q � Ì t A1 �9 � � >� @; � �1 � � ��� Ò�1 � � � 6�_ 1 ; � $ ;� R 2� R1 :; � �4 �T <W > � � 6�_ 1 ; � $� E� R5 � � �BR � 5� "Y �1 �Q � �� A� R � ' � R 1 :� RW 1 6� �H �1 � RW � 5 � R 5; � 3Q 4 > � R 51 �4 > � A1 � R> � 6�W D �1 �W � Ø � � Ò� 1 � � '� � � ������

�� �1 � A:� R1 �Q �Ì � 4 �® R 5 � E�R 5� 1 >�W 5 � �E� R 5 �� 5 �> �1 ; �] 1 > �\ �� :� 2; �R 1> �W �6� _:� R 0� � :� �1 � ��\��� A� �:� Q�������� �� �

35

35. Sublation by knowledge being otherwise incompatible

1. "He who knows Brahman, he transcends sorrow", "Thus, the wise is liberated from"name and form"", "when that Self which is both high and low is realised , the knot ofthe heart is untied, all doubts become cleared and one's action dissipated", - By theseSrutis and Smritis, the incompatibility of an alternative to knowledge for sublatabilityis valid for the bondage due to non-reality. If it is absolutely real as Brahman, non-sublatability will result.

2. Thus, it was said by the Vartikakara (Sureswaracharya):

���� ��By the emergence of the correct knowledge arisen from sentences like "Thou artThat" etc , the nescience with its effect was not there, is not there, will not be there.The real knowledge of the individual Self alone destroys the individual Self's ignorance..In addition to its birth in itself, it is not in need of anything else to destroy the ignorance.

3. Therefore, by the knowledge of the substratum, the sublatibility by knowledge is proofof the non-reality,

������ ���� ­­ AA�� YY �� ­­ � ����� ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �Ì 2� �"W �; �\ ��� ­ A� Y� ­ � !� � � � � Ò�1 � �'�W 1 �Q �5 � � �3RW @ � 6�_ ; �U ·H � 1 >� � 5� 8� 5 4� 5 � A;� �E� R1 �X " �A� 1 >� A; � �Ì E� R 1� �A�1 > �R 9� R >� A; � �>� R �� � �� � �> � >� �D �1 �1 > �R 1�Q������ ��� ­ A�Y ­ R X�' � ��Ø�Ï> � :�W > � R A:� R 3R 1 :� 5 �� �A� > �W ]�6� _R 0� R � �A� >�W ]�=R W" �R � �A� >�W ]�> �W 3R � �A� >� R] � 0� 9 �V 1 � R� 5� �A� > �] �Ï1 � �Ì R1 :�R 5 �RW �> ; �U c� <t 5 1 � �Ø �Ò� 1 � �FU� 1 ��A� Uª� RW t 1 2�1 � )�T > �R 1�Q �6�_ R 0� R� 3A�Y � ­ �6� _� 1 � 6� R 3;� 51 � T �6�_ :� R 0� :�Q ���� ���� � > � R � A�@ - > � R� 1�] " �R :�Y 1 � R 3R> �R " �<W � � ' � � A6� ­ :�W > � � � Í·H � :� Q� � � �� � ; � 2� R � � Ø � Ì � >� }R ;� RW 5 � ;� RW � � 9 � R > � R� � � A� > �] W:� T W� � 8 � U�N3R � Ò> � � � �� � D � 0� :� U �O ; �$ � ' ( t 5 1 � � � E� R5 �X " �)� =4 � RX � � =; � :�Q � Ø� � �� Ò1 ; � R � 3� � �� � 1 � A:� R1 �Q � � 8 � _̄ � R �1 �S <x\�� " Y�1 £\� � � X 1 � )�R 1�\ � � E� R 5 � E�W ; � Á �6� :�Q � � � Ì R � > � }" �:�W > � W� 1 �6� _ R1� T �1 �" �A�1 > �\ \� A� > � ]A; �W � 1� � � � A� �:�Q � � �� � <d� U A� 6� R] � 3> � � �? > �\ � 5 � R E� R1 �\ � � A� � 3� 1� � � t A2� 1 � :�Q � � �� � 6� _8 �U �� ��� ­ A� Y� ­ 1 > � R1 �Q � � A� U @ �U ª� R X� � ' � � � =; � FU 1 �W � � ������

36 Compatibility Of "Creation by mere sight"

1. What is this sight-creation.........if this is so; No. It is intended that it is existence (dueto a defect) which exists only when known or does not exist when not known.2. The Sruti " from this Atman, all Pranas, all worlds, all Vedas, all elements areborn".which maintain the creation of Pranas etc, from the Jiva after waking from sleepare proof.

36

3.. It is said clearly in the "Vasishta Vartika" etc and in Bhashya also : - All these whichare from the nescience are like bubbles. After appearing for a second , go away andmerge in the ocean of knowledge. Therefore , the entire aggregate of dualities other thanthe Brahman are cognition-cognised form. The empirical reality is due to nescience.Like the rope-snake, the world is not there when it is not unknown and is empiricalbecause of "sight-creation while awake and in deep sleep, they disappear.

����� �� �ÏÏ "" ����� �� � ))�� TT >> � �� �����>> �� RR 33��

� � �Ì � >� }R >� ?� R1 �Q ��8 � _̄ � ��Ï> � ��Ï"\ ��A� \A� <� 1 � �����A� ��Ï> � �)� T > �� �����1 � A; �X > � ��6� _ �1� ? � <T <\�Ì B\ �Ò1 ; � R� 3�8 �U � �� ����������

�� �1 � A:� R1 �Q ��Ì � > � }RW 6� R �4 � "�RW ��)� T > � ��Ï" ��Ï> � �Ò� 1 � ��� A� �:�Q ������� ��

37.Discussion on One Individual Self

1. Due to nescience , Brahman only gets birth and rebirth. He only is the individual self,Of him only. there is the knowledge of "I" etc.

2. Therefore, it is established that individual self is one only with nescience as hisadjunct.

����� ��� ��ÌÌ EE�� RR 55 �� >> �� RR 33WW EE�� RR 55 � �� �� �� �==DD �� 00� �� ������� 55 �� ÀÀ tt ··HH �� ��

� � �Ì 2� �"W �; � :�� >� }R !�5 � ��1� R >� 35 �R � 39� R> � Á�6� 1> �W ��A� � 1 � ��E� R 5 �� 5� > �1 ;� R] �A� W � 1� � �� � �Ì G� ��8 �V :� � ��Á �6; �RW 6� R 3R 5 �R E� R5 � :� � 6�Ì 5 �R � 3'�X 1 � 5 ;� R� F1� 1 >� R1 �Q �Ì 5 � R }W > � � �� � � �� ����

�� �; � � R ��9 �_ :� RW 6� R 3R 5 �1 >�\ ��Ì E� R 5 � =D � 0� :�Q ����� ����

�� �E� R 5 �1 > �W 5 � ��Á �6�W 0� ��A� R D � R )E� R5 � �5 � >� 1; �] 1 > �\ ��> � R ��1 � e D� 0� � :� �1 � �' � �6_ R R $�U ·H � :�W > � ������� ��

38.Discussion on Ignorance - Definition Of Ignorance

1.Objection: What is this ignorance? It caanot be said that it is sublatable by knowledgeas well as beginningless positve..

37

.Reply: We say - , . The ignorance of the material cause of silver is also beginninglessbecause it has its locus in the beginningless Consciousness.

2. Or, ignorance is the material cause of an illusion..

3. Ignorance is negatable directly by the character of knowledge. This definition hasbeen dealt previously Notes: The follwoing six have been accepted to be beginningless: Jiva, Iswara, Pure Consciousness,difference between Jiva a nd Iswara, Avidya and its relation with Consciousness. The discussion onIgnorance continues upto 47th title.

����� ��� ��ÌÌ EE�� RR 55 �� >> �� RR 33W ��W ��11 �� GG � �� �66�� __ 11 ;; �� DD �� 66�� __::�� RR 00�� RR WW66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �1 � G� �'� �Ì E� R5 �W ���" ���Ø �Ì B\ �Ì E� � �:�R :�Q ��Ì 5 ; �\ �' � �5 � �)�R 5 �R � :� �Ø�Ò� 1 � �6�_ 1 ; � D�\ � �#� ��Ø 1 >� 3N ·H � :� 2�̂�5 � � )� R 5 � R� :� �Ø � Ò� 1 � � � > � ?�W @ � 1� � � 6�_ 1 ; � D�\ �$ � ��Ø Ï1 �R >� 5 1�\ ��" �R =\ ���A� U �#� \��Ì B :�Q �Ì A> � R 6A�\ � �5 � �� "\ �� '� 1�Q �Ì > � W� 3@ �\ �Ø �Ò� 1 � �6� <R :� ?�] � A� �\ ��A� R X @ �U ª� 6�_ 1 ; � D�\ �' � ��6� _:� R 0� :�Q ��������

�� �� > � @� ; � �Ì E� R5 �\ �Ì 5 �U 9 �V ; � ��' � ���6�U À @� � �1� � ¿� >�Y 1 ;� 2�̂�� > � '� R <W ��6� _ > � 1�] 1 � �Ò� 1 � �A� >�] �Ì 5 �U 9 � > � �� A� �:�Q ��������

39.Compatibility of Perception As Evidence Of Ignorance

1. As regards ignorance, - ´ I am ignorant, I don't know me and anything ", (generalperception) and I don't know what you said (particular perception), "So far I had been indeep sleep. I did not know anything (inferential deep sleep perception) - these areevidences.

2. One knowing the ignorance of an object starts discussion to remove it. This iscommon experience.

����� ��� ��ÌÌ EE�� RR 55 �� >> �� RR 33W �W �ÌÌ 55 �� UU ::�� RR 55 � �� ���ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �A� R 4 ;�\ ����� > � > � R 36� 3\ ��6� _:� R 0� E�R 5 �\ � ��A> � 6�_ R $ �9 �R > �> ; �� 1� S <·H� �A> � �> � @� ;� R >� <0� �A> �� 5 �> �1 ; �] �A> � 3W ? �$ �1 � �> � A1 >� 51 � <6�V > �] " �:�Q���� �B W1 �U ������Ì 6� _" �R � ?� 1� R 2�] �6�_ " �R ? �" �1> �R 1�Q ����� ���­ R 51 �\ ����Ì 5 4 � " �R <W �6� _2� :� RW 1 6� ¿� �6�_ 3T 6� 6�_ 9 �R > �1 �Q �� ������

38

40.Compatibility of Inference On Ignorance

1. (Sadya) - The knowledge defined by mental state under dispute (a) is along withanother substance (b) belongs to its own place (c) will be negated by it (d) veils itsobject and (e) is different from its own antecedent negation.

(Hetu) Because it illuminates a meaning hitherto not illuminated.

(Drishtantha) - Like the light that appears first amidst darkness.

Notes: This anumana is by Vivaranakara.

���� � �� �ÌÌ EE�� RR 55 �� >> �� RR 33W ��W ��FF UU 11 ;; ��UU 66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � � � 1 � G� � � ( R 5 3RW $ ; �W � Ì ­ :� R 4 ;� R ;�W � ����� �� Ø � 1 � }2�R � 6� � �B <0; �\ � � � 5 � � 4� � 5� �B 1� :� D�W G � E� R � � Í6� ; �] U6� S <� � A� \' � <5 1� RW � � 5 � � � > � 5 3W ; �U � � Ï> � :�Q � � � Ï> �Ò:� R � � A� > �R] � � � 6� _ )� R � Ì B <B] $ �' ( 5 1 ;� � Ï1 �\ � � 8 �_ ¯� =RW " \�� 5 � � � > �5 3t 51 � � Ì5 �Y 1 �W 5 � � � B � 6�_ 1 ; �V / R � Ø � � Ò� 1 � � FU � 1� � � 8�_ ¯� E�R 5 � 6�_ � 1� 8� 5 4� " �1 >�W 5 � � � Ì 5�Y 1 �\8 �_ U> � R 0� R ��1� R �"Q �Q���Ì E� R 5 �W ��6� _:� R 0� :�Q � ��������� �1 � A:� R1 �Q ������ ��� ���� ��Ì 5 � Y1 �W 5 � �6�_ 1 ; �V / R � �( R � ������� ����5 � T B R <W 0� �6� _R > �Y 1 � R � �K �� >�W � �Ì � ����� ��� ���1 � :� �Ì R A� T1 �QK �� >�W � Ì � ����� ������ ����:� R ; � R\ ��1 � U��6� _ "Y �� 1�\ ��� > � }R 1�Q �? > �W � Í� ��� ������Ì )� R :�W " �R\ ��=R W � B1 �? �U � ��" Y�@ 0� R\ �? > �W � Í� ��������Ì � > � }R ; �R :�Q �Ì 5 1 � <W �> � 1 �] :� R 5� R � �" �� Í� �������9 �V ; �? '� R 51 �W �� > � ? >� :�R ;� R �5 � >�Y � H � � �? >�W � Í� � �� �����Ò1 ; � R }R� �FU 1� ; � RW> � � 0�] 1 �R �Ì E� R 5�W �6� _:� R 0� � :� � 1� ��t A2� 1� :�Q ������ ��

41.Compatibility of Srutis On Ignorance

1. In the Chandyogya Upanishad (8-3-2), it is said - "As persons who are ignorant abouttreasures do not get it even though walking over it again and again. So also, all thesecreatures do not realise Brahman although they reach daily (during sleep) this world ofBrahman because they are carried away by untruth.

2. In the Chandyogya Upanishad (8-3-2), it is said they are carried by untruth..

3. They are covered by Nihara (Snow) (Rig.Veda.Adyaya 8-3-17)

4. In the beginning there was darkness. (Rig.Veda Adyaya 8-7-17)

5. Maya is to be understood as Prakriti (Svetssvetara Up, 4-10)

6. There is one unborn being red,white and black (Sve.U.4-5)

39

7. Those who dwell in nescience (Kato Up. 2-5)

8. There is further cessation at the end of the non-reality of the world.(Sve.Up..1-10)

These are evidences on ignorance in the Srutis.

����� �� �ÌÌ EE�� RR 55 �� >> �� RR 33W ��W ��ÌÌ 22�� RR ]] 66�� HH ;; �� UU66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �)� T > � A;� �Ì5 � >� t' ( ¿� �8�_ ¯� R 5 � 5 3��Ì 6�_ " �R ? � �Ì5 ;� 2�R ��Ì 5�U 6� 6�� H �? '� ��1 � G� �:� R5 � :�Q ������� ��

42.Compatibility of Presumption On Ignorance

1. The otherwise incompatibility of non-illumination of unsurpassed Brahman bliss ofJiva is also evidence for ignorance.

������ ÌÌ EE�� RR 55 �� >> �� RR 33W �W �11 �� 11 66�� __11 �� TT 11 ;; ��UU 66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �A� R �' � �Ì� >� }R �A� R� D� > �W }R � �5 � �1 �U ��? � U�� ' �1 6�_ " �R ? ;� R ����A� R D� T �'� �Ì �> � }R �> �Y � H � �6�_ � 1� �8 �S :8� 1� �' �X 1 �5 ; � :�Q ����� ����� �Ì 1 � �Ï>� �Í' ; �1 �W �<R B N> � 1�Q �A> � R > �Y 1 � '�X 1 �5 ;� 6�_ " �R ? ;� R � >� }W � 1 � ��������� �5 � �' �X > �\ �" �3R �' � 3� > �}R ;� R �Ì 6�_ 1 �T 1; � R 6� � H� �� �Ò­ R 6� H �W � � �A� :� R4 � RX �1 � 2�R 9 ;�U 6� $ � :�R 1�Q ��������

43.Compatibilty of Knowledge Of Ignorance

1. That nescience is known through Sakshin and not illuminated by pureConsciousness. Sakshi is Consciousness reflected in nescience.2. . Therefore it is said that nescience like Rahu is illuminated by the Consciousnesswhich it conceals.

3.By this it should not be said that nescience is not known sometime; this is acceptable,since in concentration, this has been accepted.

Notes: The Rahu conceals the sun/moon during an eclipse and it is illiuninated by the sun/moon.

����� �� �ÌÌ EE�� RR 55 �� >> �� RR 33W ��W ��ÌÌ �� >> �� }} RR ;; �� RR � �� ��� '' �� 55 ::�� RR GG �� RR FF ;; ��11 >> � �� �����ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �Ì � >� }R ;� R� �Ì R F; � A1�U �? � U�\ �8 �_ _̄ � X> � �����1 � 3N ·H �\ ���Ø �Ì R F; �1 > �� >� @ �; �1 > �9 �R � $� 5 �T �� 5� � >�] 9 �R $ �� '� �1 � <W > � �" W�> � =R ���6�V > �] � A� ��1� :� A�RW �� B6� t ?' � :� RW �5 � R F; �RW �9 � > � �1 � �5� R � 6� �$ �RW ' � <� ��������

�� �1 � A:� R1 �Q �Ì � > � }R "Y �1 � ��> �' ( W3W5 � �8 �_ ¯� 0; �W > � ��� 5 � 1; � :�U ·H �1 > � �A�\ A� R S <1 > � ��A� > �]E� 1> � ��� "\ �� '� )E� 1 >� R� 3��> ; � >� A2� RW 6� 6� � H� � �������

40

44.Compatibility - Consciousness Is The Locus Of nescience

1. Pure consciousness is the locus of nescience.

2. It has been said (Sarvajnatman) :Pure Consciousness is the locus and object ofnescience. All that come into being after nescience can neither be locus nor object ofnescience which exists before them.

3. Therefore, because of the distinction due to nescience , only in Consciousness, thestate of being liberation and worldliness and omniscience and limited knowledge can becompatible.

����� �� �ÌÌ EE�� RR 55 �� >> �� RR 33W �W �ÌÌ �� >> �� }} RR ;; �� RR � �� �AA�� >> �� ]]EE�� RR FF ;; �� 11 >> � �� �����ÍÍ 66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � � A� > �] �" Q�� 6� 3W5 � � � A� > �W ]@ � R\ � � �$ 9 � V 1�\ � ' �X 1 � 5; �� :�1 ;�U ' ;� 1�W � � 5 � � 1�U � A� > � ]E� \� 1 �U <T ; � :�Q � � � 1 � A:�R 1�Q � � > � � ?� ­ � Ï> � � A� R >�] E; � :�Q � �� 1 � c� � Ì � >� }R\ � � > � 5� R � 5 �A� \9 � >� � 1� ��Ò� 1 � �Ì� > �}R ��� A�� �� ��������

45.Compatibility- Omniscient Brahman Is The Locus Of nescience.

1. What is meant by cogniser of everything is the consciousness that which cogniseseverything and not the omniscience of the fourth;(Brahman) therefore, the omniscienceis in the qualified Consciousness and that is not possible without nescience.

.

��� �� �ÌÌ EE�� RR 55 �� >> �� RR 33W �W �ÌÌ �� >> �� }} RR ;; �� RR � �� �>> �� RR '' �� AA66�� �� 11�� AA�� \\::�� 11 � �� ���))�� TT >> �� RR FF ;; �� 11 >> � �� ���ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �> � R' � A6�� 1� � :� FX A1 �U �)� T > � R� F1�X > � �Ì � > �}R �� 5� $ �}1�W ������� ��

�� �1 � 3N ·H �\ ����� A> � W5 � X> � �" �t º6� 1�W ��3W ? �W �> ; � RW � :�P �; � � 1 �Q �% � , R � 3" �:�Q �����1 � 2� R �)� T > �R F;� R� > � }R\ �:� 5 ; � 5 1 �W�E� R 5� " �RW � > � 3R � ���������

�� �1 � A:� R1 �Q �)� T > � R F; �1 > �W �Ì � 6� ��Ì 3RW @ � � ��������

46.Compatibility of Jiva As Locus Of nescience according to Vachaspati

1. Vachaspatimishra considers nescience as located in Jiva.

2. Learned men think that Jiva is the locus of nescience just as the pot exists in the spacelimited by itself.

41

3. Therefore there is no harm in jiva being the locus of nescience.

����� �� �ÌÌ EE�� RR 55 �� >> �� RR 33W �W �ÌÌ EE�� RR 55 � �� ����� >> �� @@ �� ;; �� ������ 55 �� ÁÁ ��66�� 00�� ::�� QQ

� � � Ì � >� }R; � R � �> � @� ;� RW � 6� � A� U> � '� � � �� � 1 � 2� R �B � �� � '� 5 :�R G� :�W > � � Ì � >� }R ��> �@ � ;� � � � 1 � A;� �Ì "�t º6�1 �1 >�W 5 � �Ì 5;� RW 5 ; � �Ì R F;� R S 3� 3RW @ � �Ì 6�_ A� ·H � W � � �� A> � 6�_ " �R ? �1 >�W 5 � � 6�_ A� ·H � 6�_ " �R ?�W � 1 � t A:� 5 �Q � � Ì R > � <0�"Y �1 ;� A�\ 9 � > �R c� � � 5 � � Ì 5 ;� 1�Q � � � 1 � A;� � Ì E� R5 � "�t º6�1 �1 >� R 1�Q �Ì 6�_ A� ·H � 6�_ " �R ? �1 >�W 5 � �ÌR > � <0�"Y �1 ;� �Ì9 �R > �R c� ��������

47.Proof of Object Of Ignorance

1. It is only the Pure Consciousness which is the object of nescience.. Since it is notimposed, there is no mutual dependency. Since it is self-luminous, it is possible fornescience to veil its light: Nothing else is; because everything else is product ofnescience and has no light, there is no scope to veil.

.

����� ��� ��ÌÌ BB ::�� 22�� ]] ����ÌÌ 55 �� RR 11 ::�� 11 >> � �� ���ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � � Ì B\ " �R <A1 �R > �1 �Q � Ò' ( R � 3� � >� �? � ­ � Ï> � � $ �Y Å1 � � Ò� 1� � Ì R> � ;� RW � � A� :� :�Q � �� A� U @ �U ª� R X� ' � � 5� � Ò' ( R 3; � � Ò� 1� � " �2�\ � 1 � 3R � ÌB :� 2�R] 5 �U 9 �> � � !� � � � �1 � 2� R' � ��Ì E�R 5 �R F;� 1 >�W 5 � �A� U@ �U ª� RX �Ì 5 �U 9 �V ; � :� R 5� R1 �Q ��Ì R 1 :� 5� RW B \" �R <RW �� 9 � ¿� � �������

�� �Ø �Ì 2� R1 �RW B \ " �R <R 3W ? � �Ø ���Ø �Ì 2� R 1� �Ì R1 :�R 3W ? �� �Ø�Ò� 1 � �FU � 1� <� 6� �6�Y 2� $ �U 6� 3W ? �W 5 � �6� R 2�] ·; �W �6� _:� R 0� :�Q �������

48. Compatibility of "I" is non-self.

1. Ahamkara is known to be with desire etc. This is acceptable to both of us. In deepsleep there is no desire etc. and there is no experience of "I". So, Ahamkara is differentfrom the Self, who is experienced as locus of nescience.

2. The Sruti -"Then, therefore, instruction on Ahamkara, then therefore, instruction onAtma - instructs separately. This is evidence for separateness.

.

42

����� ��� ��"" ��11 ]] �� YY11 >> � �� �����ÌÌ 44 ;; �� RR AAR �R ���ÍÍ 66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �Ì B\ " �R <A1 �U �� ' � 3�' �1 �Q �$ �_ t 5 2� Á �6� 1� ; �R ��\ ? �� ����1 � G� �Ì �' � 3\ ? �W �8 � U�R X�" �1 �] Y1 > � �A�1 > �W � 6� �1 �� � �? � ­ R ; � R �8�U �W � �� '� 1; �X ·; � �Ì 4 ;� R A�\ ��� > � 5 �RØÌ B\ �" �1� R] �Ø �Ò� 1 � �6�_ 1 � T1 �W � �Ì ; � RW $ �W 5 � �Ì 4 ; �R A� A;� �Ì R >� ?; � "�1 >� R1 �Q �������

�� �1 � A:� R1 �Q ��� A� �\�:� 5 � A� � �" �1 �Y ]1 > �\ �Ì R 1 :� �5 � ��Ì R <RW 6; � 1� ��Ò� 1 � ������� ��

49. Compatibility of Superimposition ofAgency

1. Ahamkara is in the form of a knot with two parts - one of the sentient and the other in-sentient.

2. Although in the insentient part - the intellect - there is the agency and with thisqualification, the intellect, without superimposition on the sentient part, the cognition "Iam the agent " is not possible. Therefore, super-imposition is necessary.

3. Therefore , agency is superimposed on the Self.

����� �� �33WW BB RR 11 ::�� XX··;; �� RR 44 ;; �� RR AA� �� �����ÍÍ 66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �Ì B\ ��Ò1 ; � A; � �� \ ?�1 > �W 5 � �� '� 3\ ? �W �" �1 �Y ] 1> �R � 3��� >� �? � ­��Ì 51 �� " �<0� �ÏW ·; � ��Ì 4; � R A� > �1 �Q �8 �_ R ¯� 0� 1> � "�R 0�1 > �R � 3� > �� ?� ­ ��3WB Wt 5 Ç ;� R }X ·; � ���Ì 4 ;� R A�W 5 � �Ì R1 :�X ·; � �� >� @ �; �1 > � �A�\ 9 �> � R1 �Q ���1 � 2�R �' � �ÌR 1 :� � 5 � �3W BW t 5 Ç; �R }X ·; � �Ì 4 ;� R A�RW �; �U ); � 1 �W �Ï> � ����� ��

�� �1 � A:� R1 �Q �Ì R 9 �T <A� R 4� <0� R1 �Q ��Ø �Ì B\ �$ � RX <�Ø �Ò1 ; � R� 3��6� _ 1; �; �R 1�Q �Ì R 1 :� � 5� �Ì 51 �� " �<0� �ÏW ·; � �Ì 4; �R A� R1 �Q ��3W B 1� �:� R] 4 ; � R A� RW � 6� ��Ò� 1 �� A� �:�Q ������ ��

50. Compatibility of Superimposition Of identity between Body and Self

1. Ahamkara has two parts. As in the case of the superimposition of the mind along withagency etc, on the Consciousness part, the body and organs along with Brahminhood,deafness etc is superimposed on the Self. This is possible. Therefore, in Self, thesuperimposition of body and organs etc. is compatible.

2. Therefore, from the cognition of the common cow-boy onwards of "I am white" etc -the mind is superimposed on the Self. Similarly, the superimposition of the body and itsproperties is proved.

43

���� � �� �ÌÌ �� 55 �� >> �� RR ]] '' ;; �� 11 >>� �� ���==DD �� 00� �� ��� ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �A� � � =D� 0� 1> �W �A� � 1 � �Ì A�� � =D� 0�1 > �W �A� � 1 � �A� 3A�� � =D �0�1 > � :�Q ��

�� �A� H > � R A�H > �R 9 ;� R\ �� > � '� R <R A� B1 > �W �A� � 1 � �A� 3A�1 >�W 5 � �� >� '� R <R A� B1 > � :�Q ��> � R ��

�� �6� _� 1 � 6� ¿�RW 6� R4 � RX �8 � R4 ; �1 >�\ �> � R ��Ò1 ; �R � 3�=D� 0�W �� 5 � <> � }1 > � �A�\ 9 � > �R 1�Q ����� �� �

�� �Ï> �\ �' � �1� R �"] �" �:� 1�W �A� \; � RW $ � �1 � 39 �R > � ;� RW S <> � � �9� y :� 1�W ��9 �W 3R 9�W 3; �RW S <> � �A�1 > �R A� 1> � R9 �R > �; �RW <� 6� �Ì �> � <RW 4 � �Ï> � �������

�� �1 � A:� R1 �Q �5 � �? �U t ·H � Á �6;� �6�_ 6� b � �A� R 4� R <0� �Ì� 5� > �R] ' ; � 1> � �=D� 0� �Ì5 �U 6� 6� � H� � �����

51.Compatibility of the Definition Of indeterminability

1. Different from (a) existence, (b) absolute nothing and (c) existence and absolutenothing,

2. When it is incapable of being described as existence and absolute nothing, it is alsoincapable of being described as existence cum absolute nothing.

3. It is sublatable at a given locus. . These definitions are possible without doubt.

4. Like in the opinion of Logicians - conjunction and its absence - of Bhatta (PurvaMimamsa - difference and absence of difference, the existence cum absolute nothing andits absence, are not contradictory.

5. Therefore, the common shell-silver indeterminability definition is not incompatible.

����� �� �ÌÌ �� 55 �� >> �� RR ]]'' ;; �� 11 >> ��W �W �66�� __ 11 ;; �� DD � �� �����ÌÌ 55 �� UU ::�� RR 55 � �� ���66�� __ ::�� RR 00�� �� 55 �� ÁÁ ��66�� 00�� ::�� QQ

� � �6�_ 1 ;� D �\ �1 � R> �1 �Q ��Ø � :� 2;�X > � �<)� 1� :�Q �Ì 9 � R1 �Q �Ø �Ò1 ; � R� 3���������� �A� R 4 ; �\ ����� > � :�1 �\ � �A� H > � <�B 1� 1 >�W �A� � 1 � �Ì A� H> � <�B 1> �W �A� � 1 � ��A� H >� R A� H> � <�B 1� :�Q ������B W 1 �U ����8 � R 4 ;� 1 >� R1 �Q � �3R W@ � 6�_ ; �U ·H � 9 �R 5 �1 >� R 1�Q ��> � R � Í6� ����� �­ R 5 1� ��> ;� � 1� <W "W �0� ��; � 2� R ��8�_ ¯� ����������

52.Proof of Indeterminability by Perception And Inference

44

1, In perception, "the silver shone as non-real (false)."

2. (Sadhya) The thing under dispute is different from existence, from absolute nothingand existence cum absolute nothing, (Reason) Because it is subject to sublation or itseems to be the result of defect. (example) Like Brahman. (by negative example)

����� �� �ÌÌ �� 55 �� >> �� RR ]]'' ;; �� 11 >> ��W �W �ÌÌ 22�� RR ]] 66�� �� HH � �� ���66�� __ ::�� RR 00�� ������ 55 �� ÁÁ ��66�� 00�� ::�� QQ

��� 1 � 2�R �B ���� > � :�1 �\ �Á �6; � R� 3� ��A� 1�Q �' �W 1 �Q �5 � �8 � R 4; �W 1 � � �Ì A� 1�Q �' �W 1 �Q �5 � �6� _1 � T; �W 1 � ��� ��8 � R 4; �1 �W �6� _1 � T; �1 �W � 6� ����1 � A:� R 1�Q ��A� 3A� � � =D � 0�1 > �R 1�QÌ � 5� > �] ' � 5� T ;� :�Q �������

53. Proof of Indeterminability by Presumption

1. The thing under dispute, shell-silver etc, if it were existence, it would not have beensublated, if it were absolute absence of existence, it would not be cognised. But it issublated and also is cognised. (by perception) Therefore , it is different from existenceand absolute absence of existence and hence it is indeterminable..

��� �� �� �� ��� 55 �� @@ �� WW 44 �� 66�� __�� 11 �� ;; �� RRWW �� $$ �� 11 >> �� RR 55 ��UU 66�� 66�� HH ;; �� R ��R ��ÌÌ �� 55 �� >> �� ]] '' �� 55 �� TT ;; ��11 >> �� ����AA�� ::�� 22�� ]] 55 �� ::��QQ

� � �1 � A:�R 1�Q ��� 5 � @�W 4 � 6�_ � 1� ;� RW � $ � 1> � ��Ì 5; � 2� R �Ì5 �U 6� 6� H ;� R� 6� �Ì �5 � >� R] ' ; �1 >� �� A� � �� ������� �

54.Justification of indeterminability by the Incompatibility Of Counter-Positive Of Negation

1, Therefore, the incompatibility of being the counter-correlate of negation also isevidence for the existence of indeterminability

����� ��� ��FF UU 11 ;; �� 22�� RR]] 66�� �� HH � �� ���ÍÍ 66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �Ø�5 � R A� 3R A�T ¿� RW �A� 3R A� T 1�Q �Ø��K �� > �W � :� � � ��� ���� ����Ò1 ; � R � 3�FU 1 � ; �� �Ì� 6� �Ì �5 � >� R] ' ; �1 >�W �6� _:� R 0� :�Q ���� ����

45

55. Compatibility of Presumption of Srutis

1. The Rigveda Sruti "then there was neither absolute nothing nor existence " etc, areproof of indeterminability.

����� �� �ÌÌ AA�� 11 ##;; �� R �R � 11 �� 99 �� mm��

��� 1 � A:� R1 �Q ��Ì � 5 � >� R] ' ; � #;� R� 1� <W> � ��6�_ :� R 0� �A�\ 9 � > �R1 �Q � ��5 � ��1 �U �Ì A� 35 ;� 2�R #; � R �1� �� ��6� _:� R 0�� > � <BR 1�Q ��

�� �5 � �' � �Ì A�� R 5�W �Ì A� 3W> � �<)� 1 � :�Q �Ì 9 � R1�Q ��Ò� 1 � �6�_ 1 ;� D�\ �:� R 5� :�Q � ���Ì 5 � 51 � <RW ·H � �8 �R 4� "W �5 � �A� �X =D � 0; � �> � @� ;� " �1 > �R 1�Q ���

�� �5 � �' � �?� ?� ÓY �m:� Q�Ì A� 1 �Q �Ò1 ; � R � 3��>� R ·;�X � �Ì A�1 ; �� 6� �6� <RW D � 6�_ 1 � T1 �W � �1 >� ; �R ��Ì mT " �R <W 0� ��1 � > �R 6; � A� 1 #;� R1 ; �R 6�� H �� �� �1 �G � ��B �5 � �6�_ 1 � T� 1� �� �� "\ �1 �U ��� �� > � " �º6� :� R G�\ �Ò1 ; � U·H � 1 >� R1 �Q ���1 � A:� R1 �Q �5 � �Ì A� 1 #;� R �1 �� ���������

56. Refutaton Of Asatkhyati

1. Therefore, indeterminable erroneous perception is only correct., as there is proof..The absolute absence of existence or the difference from existence are not correct asthere is no proof.

2. It cannot be proof of perception "that silver shone was absolute absence of existence;because of the later sublation; the perception indicates only the difference from existencein the silver.

3. There is no cognition of non-existence through sentences like "rabbit horn - absoluteabsence of existence." But it is vikalpa..(imagination/fancy) Therefore, there is noasatkhyati.

Notes: 1. Atmakhyati - Superimposition of the attribute of silver in the mind on the external shell.Advocated by Yogachara Buddhists (Kshanikavijnam) 2, Asatkhyati - Absolute absence like hare's horn.Advocated by Madyamika Buddhists, 3. Akyati - absence of illusion. Advocated by PrabhakaraMimamsakas. 4. Anyathakyati - Superimposition of the attributes of silver in shop in shell etc. Advocatedby Logicians. 5. Anirvachaniyakhyati - Indeterminability - Advocated by Advaitists.

46

����� �� �ÌÌ 55 ;; �� 22�� RR ##;; �� R �R � 11 �� 99 �� mm��

� � � 5 � R� 6� � Ì 5; � G� � t A2�1 � A;� � Á �6; � A;� � 9 � R5� R 1�Q � � Ì 5 ; 2� � #;� R �1 �� � � � Ì 1; � 51 � �Ì A�1� � � Ò> � � � Ì 5; � G� � A� 1� � � Ì� 6� � Ì 6� <RW D � �6�_ 1 �T �1 � �6�_ ; �RW )� " �� �A� \� 5 � "�@ �] �Ì 5 �U 6� 6� H�W � �1 �U º; � 1> �R 1�Q �� ����

57 Refutation Of Anyatha-khyati

1."What is in another place shines here" - this explanation of Anyathakhyati is not proper.Like the absolute absence of existence, it is incompatible for a thing which exists inanother place, as conjunction which is essential for immediate perception is not possible.

����� �� �ÌÌ R �R � >> �� }} "" ����<<))�� 11 � �� ��� ÍÍ11 66�� HH � �� ��� ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � ��1 � c� �Ì �5 � >�] ' � 5 �T ;� :�Q � �Ì E� R 5 �RW 6� R 35 � "�:�Q ��1 � H > � E�R 5 �W 5 � �5 �R ? ;� :�Q ��' � ���������� �5 � 5 �U ��Ï> � \�ØÁ �6; �\ �Í1 6� ¿�\ �5 � ­ \�' � �Ø�Ò� 1 � �4 �T 6�_ A� m� � �G �X " �R � =" �� 5 �@ �W 4 � 6�_ 1 � T� 1� ? '� �5 � �A;� R1 �Q �Ò� 1 � �' �W 1 �Q �� ������ �5 � � �� � �� ; � 2� R �Ì 6� <RW D � 6�_ 1 � T1 ; �R � 3�Ì 5; � 2� R 5�U 6� 6� H ; �R �� A� �RW 1 6� R 3R � 3" �A; � �G �X " �R� =" ��5 � @�W 4 � 6�_ � 1 � ;� RW � $ �1 > �\ �� > � @� ; �T �� "_ �; � 1�W �������� �; � � R �=RX � " �" �6� <:� R 2�] <)� 1 � A; �X > � �1 � G� �G �X " �R � =" ��� 5� @ �W 4 � � ��������� �� " \��' � �?�U � ·H � �E� R 5�\ �Ì E� R 5�\ �5 � R ? �; �1 �Q �Á �6; � :� � 6� �5 �R ? �; �� 1� ���1 � c� ��1� 3N 6� R 3R5 �1 > �\ �� > � 5� R �5� �% � , 1 �W �� ��� 5 � � :� H� �5 � R? � A; � �" �R; �] 5 � R ?�\ �6� _� 1 �Ì 6�_ ; � RW )� " �1 > �R 1�Q �� Í6� R 3W; �W �Í6� R 3R 5� �Ì 5�U > � W4 � ��5 � ;� :� �Ì9 �R >� R1 �Q ����� ���

58. Compatibility Of Birth Of Silver Due To nescience

1. That indeterminable is of the material cause of ignorance. It is destroyed by theknowledge of absolute reality,2. Objection:Then, "Shell silver is born and is lost" this mental state should arise andalso the negation for all the three times will not be there.3.Reply: No; The character of the counter-positive of the negation for all the three timesof the known birth etc is perceived by the incompatibility of other than immediateperception.4. Or, it is negation for all the three times of the empirical silver.

5. Moreover, the known shell while destroying ignorance also destroys silver. That isnot possible if ignorance is not the material cause. Towards the destruction of effect, thedestruction of the agency is not relevant. There is no rule that the object should beperceived in the form of its material cause.

47

����� �� �99 �� __ ::�� AA;; � �� �>> �� YY �� 11 �� �� ;; �� ��ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �1 � A:�R 1�Q �Ì � 4� ­ R 5 �R\ ? � W�Ì 5 1� � " �<0� >�Y � H � �� �Ì 4 ;� A1� R\ ? �W �' � �Ì �> � }R > �Y � H �� �����1 � A; � R\ �' � �1� R 3R1 :;� A; � �9� R 5� R1 �Q �5 � �Ì #; � R� 1� :�1 � �6� _> �W ? � � �����

�� �1 � 2�R �' � ��6� <:�R 2�] �A� 1 �Q ��' �X 1 � 5 ;� :�Q �Ì � 4 � ­ R 5 � :�Q �Ì 4 ; � A1� �E� R5 � A;� ����1 � c� �� � �> � 4�\ ��> ; � R > �B R S <"��A� 1�Q � �6� _R S 1 �9 �R � A�" ��A� c�W � 1 � �������

�� �1 � 3U ·H �\ ���Ø �6� _R "Q ���> ; � R >� BR S <" ���A� H> �� > �@ � ;� 1> � R1�Q ��6� _1 ; � D�\ ��5 � �Ì R $ � :�8 �R 4� " �:�Q �Ø������

�� 6R <:� R 2�] �A� 1 >�\ ��Ì R 3R ;� ��� G �� > �4 �\ ��A� 1 > � :�Q ���� ��

59. Compatibility Of Two Mental States(vrittis) In Illusory Knowledge

1. Therefore, in respect of the locus, it is the mental state of Anthakarana and in respectof superimposition, it is of the nescience In it , as we accept the indiscriminatesuperimposition between the two,the Akyati theory does not apply.

2. Hence, the Consciousness which is absolute reality is the substrtum for thesuperimposed knowledge. That superimposed knowledge is of two kinds, empirical andphenomenal.

3. It is said " Perception cannot sublate Scripture, since it is of empirical reality.

4. If you take the absolute reality into account, there are three realities - absolute,empirical and phenomenal.

����� �� �AA�� HH �� RR GG �� XX�� >> �� 44 ;; �� ��ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �1 � 2� R �B ���6�_ R �1 � 9� R� A� " �1 >�\ �� B �6�_ � 1 � 9� R A� :� RG � A�1 >� :�Q � �1 � c� ��A> � 6�P �)� R $ � <; �RW � �A� :� R 5 � :�Q ���� ����

60. Compatibility Of Three Existences (Being)

1. Hene, the character of phenominality is that it appears to be existent. That is commonto both waking and dreaming states.

48

49

���� ���� ��� �� � ���� ���� ��� �� � ���� ���� ���� ��� �� � ���� ���� ��� �� � ���� ���� ��� �� � ���� ���� ����� � �� � � ���� ��� �� � ���� ���� ���� ��� �� � ���� ���� ���� 11�� TT;; �� 66 �� SS<<'' (( WW 33��

��Paricheda 2

�� � �� �ÌÌ ##�� 00.. RR 22�� ]] ==DD �� 00�� ::�� QQ

50

� � �1 � c� �Ì #� 0. R 2�̂�� � � > � 4� :�Q ����Ï" \ ��6� 3R 2�] � 5 �® :� Q�� �Ì 6� <\�> � R ·; �R 2�] � 5 � ® :� Q���Ï" X�" \��' � �6�U 5 � � �> �X � 3" ��=RX � " �" ��9 �W3W 5 � �� � � >� 4 � :�Q ���6� 3R 2�] � 5 � @ - � \ � > � X �3" �:� � 6� � � � �� > �4 � :�Q � �� 1 � 1 6� 3R 2�] � 5 �® \� � � 1 > �\ �6� 3R 2�] � 5 � ® \� ' � � �� 1 � G� � � ' � � � Ø� A� 1 ; �\ � � E� R 5 � :�Q � Ì 5 � 5 1� :�Q � Ø� Ò1 ; � R � 3

1 �1 6� 3R 2�] � 5 � ® :�Q ���Ø; � RW ; � \�� > � E� R 5� :�; � � � 6�_ R 0�W @ � U� �  }5 1 � );� RW ] � 1� � � 6�U À @ �� � Ø� � Ò1 ; � R � 3� 1> �\ 6� 3R 2�] � 5 � ® :� Q� � �� Ø � 6� _" Y�­ � � 6� _ " �R? � �Ø � � Ò1 ; �R � 3� 1�U=R X� " �"\ ��6� 3R 2�] � 5 � ® :� Q����> � R ·; � R 2�] � 5 � ® :� � 6� �> �X � 3"\ ���� Ø �1 �1 > � :� A; �R � 3�Ø �> � R ·; �\ ����Ø �A� R W; � \�3W> � 3H � �Ø �Ò� 1 � �1 �U �=R X � " �" �:�Q �������

�� �� " �:�Q �Ì #� 0. �R 2�] 1 >� :�Q ����Ì 6� ; � R] ; � ? �8 3R5 � R\ �6� 3> �Y � H � A:� RS <1� �Ì �1 �S <·H � �Ì $�RW ' � <���6�_ :� R )� 5 �" �1> � :�Q ��������

1.Definition Of Impartite Knowledge

`1. Impartite knowledge is of two kinds, one of word and the other of sentence. Each oneof them is again of two kinds, one is of scripture and the other worldly. . Scripturalword also is of two kinds, one relating to the the word "it" and the other "thou"."Brahman is existence, knowledge and infinitude" is related to the word "it". "He whodwells in the heart. surrounded by Prana, illuminating others, reflected in the intellect "relates to the word "Thou". "(Moon is) profound light " relates to the word worldly..Scriptural sentence is "Thou art that". "This is that Devadatta" is of worldly sentence.

2. Impartite cognition is the character of generating valid cognition produced by wordswhich are not synonymous and are not indicative of anything other than the onesuggested by the vritti of the word.

��� �� � ��AA�� 11 ;; RR �� �� 33>> �� RR ··;; � �� �����ÌÌ ##�� 00.. RR 22�� ]]11 >> �� RR WW66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

�� � A� R �� A� 1 ;� R � 3> � R ·; � :�Q � Ì #� 0. R 2� ]� 5 � ­ \� � � 8 � _̄ � 6�_ R � 36� � 3" �R 2�] � 5� ­ \� � > � R � � � BW �� =D � 0� >� R ·;� 1> �R 1�Q � � 1 �5 :� RG � 6�_ ? 5� RW H � <1 > �R 1�Q � > � R � � 3Y�6� _ "Y �­ �6� _" �R ?� � �'� 5Ç � �Ò1 ;� R � 3�>� R ·;� > � 1�Q �����Ò� 1 � �6� 3R 2�] � > � @� ; � �Ì #� 0. R 2�] 1 > � �Ì 5�U :� R 5� :�Q ��������

2.Compatibility of Impartite Knowledge Of Sentence of Satya Etc

1.. (Sadhya) The sentence " Satya" etc is of impartite sense, or the sense only in the stem"Brahman". - (Hetu) Because it is a sentence of definition, or it is an answer to aquestion on the meaning of the stem, Brahman - (Example) Like the sentence "Moonhas profound light." This is the syllogism for impartite knowledge of a word.

51

��� �� �11 �� 11 >> �� ::�� AA;; �� R �R � 3�3�>> �� RR ··;; �� RR 22�� ]] ��ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �Ï> �\ ��1 � H > � :� A; � R� 3�:�B R >� R ·;� 6�D � "��Ì 5�U :� R 5 � :� � 6� ��� 5� 3RW ]@ � :�Q ����� ��� � � A� R �� 1� 1 >� :� A;� R � 3� >� R ·;� :�Q � � Ì #� 0. R 2�] � 5 � ® :� Q� � Ì R 1 :� A> � Á�6� :�R G� � 5� ® \ \� > � R � � B W�� Ì " �R ;�] " �R <0� Ç >; � :�R G� � 5� ® 1 > �W � A� � 1 �A� :� R 5� R� 4 �" �<0� 1> � R1 �Q � � 1 �5 :� RG � 6�_ ? 5 �RW H � <1 > �R 1�Q � > � R � � ��� AR R W ; �\ � Ò1 ; � R � 3� > �R ·; � >�1 �Q � � �� Ò� 1 � � > � R ·;� R 2�] � > �@ � ;� � Ì #� 0. R 2�] 1 > � � Ì 5�U :� R 5 � :�Q � �����

3.Compatibility of the Meaning Of sentence "Thou Art That" etc.

1. Similarly, the syllogism having the subject on "Thou art that" is also without defect.1.(Sadya)- The sentence "Thou art That" is of impartite sense or is the essential naturealone of Brahman. (Hetu) - Because it is co-existent when it is in a substance which is notof cause-effect, or it is only an answer to a question. (Example) Like "This is thatDevadatta". This is the syllogism for sentence - impartite sense.

��� �� �88 �� __ ¯̄�� 00�� RR W�W��� 55 �� $$ �� ]] UU00�� 11 >> �� ��ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �" X�> � º;� �FU 1 ; � R �1 �R > �1 �Q �Ì R 1 :�R �� 5� $ �] U0� � ������ ��

�� Ò�] ? > � <� �A� 3R ��Ì > � R ª� A� :� A1 �" �º;� R 0�$ �U 0� � ��Ò1 ; � G� �" �R =\ �> ; � R 6; � �Ì R ª�$ �U 0� 1 >� A; � �Ì A:�R � 9� � �Ì� 6� �Ì mT" �R <R1 �Q ���5 � �� B �� 5� 4 �] :�] " �1� R ;� R\A� 1 ;� R\ �" �R =A� \ 8� 54 � RW t A1 � ����� ��

�� �1 � 3N ·H �\ �Ì 5 1 � <�4 � "�<0�W �" �º6� 1�À "Y �� � � ���� 5 �� > �] ? �W @ �\ �6� <\ �8 � _̄ � �A� R D� R1 �Q �" �1 �U ] :�Q �Ì 5 � T ?> � <R � ����; �W �:� 5 3R A1�W �Ì 5 �U " �:6; � 51 �WA� � > �? �W @ � � 5� Á �6� 0�X � ����> � ? �T "Y �1 �W �:� 5 � A; �W @ � R\ �A� $ � U0� 8 �_ ¯� ?� T =5� R 1�Q ����1 � 3W> � R � >� 9�] > �W 1 �Q �A� R D � R1 �Q �Ì 6� W 1�RW 6� R� 4 �" �º6� 5� :�Q ���������

�� �� " \��' � �A� $�U 0� > �R ·;� R 5� R\ �Ì R X6� R � 4� " �$�U 0� � > �@ � ;� 1> �W 5 � �A> � R 9� R� > �" ���5 � 4�] :� ]" �1 > � �FU 1 �W � �5 � �� >� <RW 4 � � ������� �

�� 5 � 5 �U �FU 1; �RW � > �] <RW 4 �W �5 � X" �A; � R �Ì1 �R t1 > �" ���> � @� ;� 1 >�\ � �? � R �� > � <RW 4 �W �A� \ " �RW ' � �> �" �º6� R� 35� R �Í9 �; � 6�_ R :� R 0;� A; � �6�V > �] 1 � 5 G�W �> ; � R " �<0�W �' �� 5 � 0�T] 1 � 1 >� R1 �Q ��� � � � � �� � � � Ò� 1� �' �W 1 �Q � ������� �5 � � �1� G � �?� R� ; �RW � �6�_ R :� R 0; �W �A� :� R 5� " �D; �1 �; � R �Ï" �1� <A; � �ÌR 1; � t 51� " �8 �R 4 � �Ì ;�RW $ � R 1�Q �A� \ k RW ' �W 5 � �� > �" �º6�W 5 � �> � R �6� R � D�" �6�_ R :� R 0;�\ Ì R � F1 � :�Q � �ÒB �1 � U�Ï" �1 � <A;� �1 �1 6� <1 � ;� R �6�_ 8 � =1> �R 1�Q �� �Ò1 � <A; � �'� �Ì 1� 1 6� <1 >�W 5 � �3N 8 �] =1 �; � R �>�X @ � :; � R1 �Q �������

4.Compatibility of Attributelessness Of Brahman

52

1. Brahman is attributeless by the Kavalya Sruti.

2. In the sentence "Iswara has always all auspicious qualities ", the character of thetime bound fulfilled qualities is acceptable to us also. In the stage of attributelessness,there is no relation with time.

3. It is said by the author of Kalpatharu in the Antara Adhikarana. " those who cannotrealise attributeless Brahman, are graced by the proof of Brahman with attributes.When the mind is controlled by the Brahman with attributes, It will reveal itself withoutthe imagined adjuncts.4. Since the sentences of Brahman with attributes are the subject of adjunct, there is nocontradiction with the Srutis of natural attributeless Brahman.

5. Objection: When there is contradiction between Srutis, one cannot have a lesservalidity. When there is contradiction in the Sastra, and when both are valid in the form oflesser application or alternatively, they are reconciled in the Purvamimasa andVyakarana -

6. Reply: No. Where, between the two valid Sastras which have equal status and whenone is not possible to be sublated, there either by lesser application or alternatively,partial validity has been determined. But here, one is stronger with a real purport and theother with lesser purport is weaker; that is the difference.

��� �� ��� 55 �� $$ �� ]] UU00�� W �W �AA�� 66�� __ ::�� RR 00�� 11 �� RR

� � �Ì R }W �A7V �1 ; �] 2� �̂�A> � 6�_ " �R ? �1 �; � R �6�_ :� R 0�> �X ; � 2; �] :�Q ���������

�� �� � 1 �T ; �W �Ì E� R 5� �� 5 �> �Y 1 ; � 2�̂ ���Í6� � 5 � @� 3�Ï> � �6�_ :� R 0�1 >� R1 �Q ����Ì 1 � �Ï> � �6�_ 1 ; � D�\ �Ì 5 � U:� R 5�\ �> � R ��Ò1 ; � R � 3��> � "�º6� A;� �5 � �Ì >� " �R ? �������� �5 � 5 �U �������)� R � 1 � $�U 0� � "_ �; �R � 3Á�6� �5 � � :� H� R 9� R >�W 5 � ����������������Í6� � 5� @ �1 �Q ��:� R 5 �\ �5 � �� 5 � �> �] ? �W @ � W��Ò� 1 � �'�W 1 �Q �� �5 � �

�� �:� U#; � $ �RX 0; � A�\ 9 � > �W � 6� �=D � 0�R ;� R � �A�\ 9 � > �R 1�Q ����� ��

5. Proof Of Attributelessness

1. In the first ( for the purpose of revealing itself) , as it is self luminous, there is nonecessity for proof.

53

2. In the second (for the purpose of removing ignorance), Srutis themselves are proof.The question therefore does not arise when the proof is perception and inference.

3. Objection. Since there is no word-meaning connection in the form of class, attributeand action, the Upanishad is not valid in attributelessness:..

4.Reply. No. Though there is no possibility of primary/secondary implication, indicationis possible.

��� �� �88 �� __ ¯̄�� 00�� RR W�W��� 55 �� <<RR "" ��RR <<11 >> � �� ��� ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �5 � 5�U ���Ø �Ì R � 31 ;� > � 0�] \� � � �Ø � �Ø� � � � � � À·:�> � 0�̂Ù� �Ø� � � � � �� � � �� "Y @ 0� � 6� m=\ ��Ø� Ø�� > � ? >� 1� ? '� D�U � �Ø � ��ØA� B �? �T @ �R] � �Ø � �Ò1; � R� 3FU� 1 �� 9� � � �� � �� > �$ �_ B � A� � �S <� 1� �' �W 1 �Q � �5 � � ������� �Ì R � 31; � >� 0�] � :� 1; � A;� ��Ì � > �}R �> � =D� 0� �A> � 6�_ " �R? � A>� Á �6� 6�_ � 1 � 6�R 35 � 6� <1� ; � R ��Í6�R A; � 6� <1 �; � R �' � �Í6� 6�H �W � ��������� �� > � ? >� 1� ?' �D �U S <1 ; �R � 3��FU � 1� A:�Y 1 � T 5� R\ �A� > � R] 1 :� " �1 �; � R �A� >� R] 5 1 �; �R] � :�1 � ;� R �' � ��� 5 �; � :; � )� T> �? � <T <' � D�U � 6� R � 0�� ?� <� �6�_ 9 � Y1 ;� 5 �U > � R� 31 >� RW 6� 6� H �W ���� �

6.Compartibility of Brahman's Formlessness

1. Objection: By the Srutis, "Sunlike Lustre", "Golden colour", ":Reddish colour","Universal eye", "Thousand heads", form is established: .2.Reply: No. The Sruti "Sunlike lustre etc " deals with the essential nature of self-luminosity.. which is different from nescience.. It is compatible since it also deals withmeditation. 3.The Srutis and Smritis -"Universal eye etc," - are of omniscience and also all-controlling; they are therefore compatible in using their bodies, eyes, hands etc of thecontrolled.

��� �� �88 �� __ ¯̄�� 00�� RR W�W� ��EE�� RR 55 �� 11 >> �� R �R � 3�3�ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �5 � 5�U ���� 5 � � >�] ? �W @ �\ �' �W 1 �Q �8 �_ ¯� � �1 � �B] ��8 � _̄ � X> �X " \��� E� R 5 � R1 :�" �:�Q �� �Ì R 5 �5 3R 1 :� " �:�Q � �Ì � � 1� T ;�\ � �� 5� 1 ;�\ � �A� R S D � �' �W � 1 � �5� RW 6� 6� }1�W �����Ò� 1 �' �W 1 �Q �� �5 � � ������� �Ì 2�] 6�_ " �R? �1 > � :�W > � ��E� R 5 �1 > � :�Q ������� �Ì R 5 � 5 31> � A; � �� 5 �À 6�R � 4� "W �­ 1 > � Á �6� 1 > �R1 �Q ������ �� ��� �

�� �6� _R 9 � R" �<<T 1; �R �� � 1� T ;� R9 �R > � A;� ��Ì � 4� " �<0�R 5 �� 1� S <·H �1 >�W 5 � ��6�_ R :� R � 0� " �1 > �W � 6� ��1 �W 5 � �A� � � 1� T; �1 > � ��Ì9 �R > �R 1�Q ��Ì � � 1� T ;�1 > �\ ���������

54

�� �' � 1�U 2�] 6� D � A; � �Í9� ;� R >� � 4� <R �B 1; �\ ��D � RW 3A� B 1 >� R 1�Q �� 5 � 1 ;� 1> �\ �������

�� �? �U �8 �_ ¯� R �1 �S <·H � A;� �8 �U 4 ; �U 6� R � 4� " �)�T > �R �1 �S <·H � A;� ��AR R � D� 0� RW mT " Y�1 �1 > �W 5 � ��1 �1 6� D� �Í·H � �3RW@ � �Ì 9� R > �R 1�Q ���1 � 2�R �' � �Ì � >� }R >�Y � H �6� _ �1� 7�� =1�\ �' �X 1 � 5 ;�\ �A� R S D � ��������

�� �1 � A:� R1 �Q ��E� R 5 � R 5� 5 3X " �Á �6�\ ��Ì � � 1 � T; �\ �� 5 � 1; �\ �A� R D � T ��'� �8 �_ ¯�W � 1� �� A� �:�Q ��������

7.Compatibility of Knowledge Etc Of Brahman1. Objection: If Brahman is formless, then the statements "Brahman is one, knowledge,Bliss, non-dual, eternal, Sakshi " will not be compatible. .2.Reply: No. Consciousness is the character of illuminating objects.

3.. Blissfulness is without any adjunct.

4. According to Prabhakaras, the absence of a second has no different locus. Still there isabsence of a second . ..

5. The fourth (pre and post negations) is acceptable (for eternality)

6. Sakshi is different from Pure Brahman and Jiva having intellect as its adjunct. This hasbeen accepted a nd there is no defect. Sakshi is Consciousness reflected in the vrittis ofnescience.

6.Therefore,it is established that Brahman is Knowledge, Bliss, non-dual, eternal andSakshin.

��� �� �88 �� __ ¯̄�� 00�� RR WW�� 99 �� ¿¿ �� �� 55 �� �� ::�� HH �� RRWW 66�� RR 33RR 55 �� 11 >> �� ��ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � 5 � 5�U ���� 5 � � > �] ? �W @ � \�' �W 1 �Q �8 �_ ¯� � �" �2�\ �1 � 3W > � �� 5 � � :� H� :�U 6� R 3R 5� � :� � 1� �Ì �9 �¿� �5 � � :� H� RW 6� R 3R 5� " �1 > �\ �)� $ � 1� � !�� >� " �R <>� 1" �R <0� A;� �Ï> ��Í6� R 3R 5� 1 >� R1 �Q ��Ò� 1 � �'�W 1 �Q �� �5 � ��� �6� S <0� R � :� 1� ;� R �Í6� R 3R 5 �1 > � �Ì 9� R >�W � 6� �� > � >� 1� R] � 4 � ­ R 5� 1� ; �R �Í6� R 3R5 �1 > � �A�\ 9 � >� R1 �Q ����� > � > � 1� R] � 4 � ­ R 5 � 1> �\ �' � �� > �> �1 �] " �R <0� �Ì E� R 5� � >� @� ; �1 >� :�W > � �������

�� Ï" �A; �X > � �Ì �> � }R �Í6� �B 1� 1 >�W 5 � �Í6� R 3R5 �1 > � A;� �Ì� > �}R 6�S <0� R :�W ' ( R "Y �1 ; �R }R F; �1 > �W 5 � ��� 5 �� :� H� H >� A; �R � 6� ��A� \9 � > � R1�Q ����� ���

8.Compatibility of Brahman as Both Material And Efficient Cause1. Objection: If Brahman is formless, how can it be both material and efficent cause ?Cause with transformation only can be the material cause. Reply" No

55

2.. Although by transformation (evolution), Brahman is not the material cause, but bybeing the locus of transfiguration (illusory imagination), Brahman's material cause ispossible. The character of locus of transfiguration is the object of ignorance which is thecause of of transfiguration.

3. The same indicated by ignorance is the material cause. By the locus of the desire.action etc, which is the transformation of nescience, it is the efficient cause.

��� �� �88 �� __ ¯̄�� 00�� RR W�W��� >> �� ?? >> �� "" ��11 �� YY]] 11 >> �� ��ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �5 � 5�U ����Ï> � \�" U=R =R � 3> � 3N 6� R 3R5 � $� RW ' � <6�_ ; � ±�R � 3:�1 >�\ �" �1�Y ] 1> � :�U x\ ��A; � R 1�Q � �1 � c� �" �R ;�] A; � �" �t º6�1 �1 > �W �5 � �% � , �1 � W����Ò� 1 � �'�W 1 �Q �� �5 � ������� �" U�=R =" �R ;�] % � , R 3R > � 6; �" �t º6�1 �1 >� A; � ��Ì A� :6�_ � 1� 6� H�W � ����Á �6; � R 3W <6; � " �1 �Y ]" �1 > �R � A� �W ? '� � �1� G �R � 6� �A� R �D � 0� �Ï>� �" �1�Y ]1 > � R1 �Q � �5 � �� BÌ 3? �] 5 � :�R G �W 0� �" �G �] 6� =R 6�� � �1 >� 5 :� 1�W � 6� ��A� > �] E� " �1 �] U� �Ì � A� 4 }R 6� H�W � ��������

9.Compatibility of Braman As World Creator

1. Objection: Thus, the creatorship is deemed to have been said like the potter with theeffort through the materiality. That is not possible with the effect being imposed. .

2.Reply: No. In the potter's effect of the pot, there is no proof of absence of imposition .Absence of creatorship of shell-silver etc is not established; there also Sakshi is thecreator. We cannot do away with creatorship on the simple ground that the same is notseen. In that case, in your view also, the omniscient will lose his creatorship.

�� ��� �� �88 �� __ ¯̄�� 00�� RR WW�� 99 �� ¿¿ �� �� 55 �� �� ::�� HH �� RRWW 66�� RR 33RR 55 �� 11 >> ��W �W �66�� __ ::�� RR 00�� ��ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �Ø�; � 1 �RW �> � R �Ò:� R � 5� �9 �V 1 � R� 5 � �)�R ; �5 1�W �Ø�Ò� 1 � �1 �X � Í� ����Ø �)� � 5 � �" �1 �U ]� �6� _" Y�� 1� � �Ø �Ò� 1 � 6� R � A�V � � �������A� VG � W�6� _ "Y �1 ;� 1 2�] � > � �B 1� �6� �b� :� TFU1 ; �R � ��Ø��Ø �; � 1�Q �6� _; � 51 ;� � 9� A�\ � > � ?� t 51 � �1�X � Í� ���Ø ��Ò� 1 � �t A2� �1 � �=;� R 4� R <1 > � �� =mR c�� �Í6� R 3R5 �1 > � �� A� � �� �������

�� �Ø �1 � 3X D � 1� �Ø�( R � Í� ������� �Ø�> ; � R" �<> �R � 0� �Ð �Ò� 1 � �Ò�] D � 0�R � 3�ÌR 4 �R <1 �; � R �" �1�] Y 1 >� �� A�� �� �' � ��������

�� �Ø �Ì R 1 :� 5� � �Ì R" �R? � � �A�\ 9 �V 1 � � �Ø �1 � X� Í� ���Ò1 ; � R 3R> �� 6� �6�_ " Y�� 1� �6� b� :�T ������ �

�� �Ï> � :�W > � ���Ø 1 � 3X D � 1� �8� BN A; R R\ �Ø��Ò1 ; � R }G � �:� R 5�\ �8 � RW 4 ; � :�Q ���� ����

�� �Ì A� � R �Ò3:� $ �_ �Ì R A� T1 �Q ����1 � 1 � RW �> �X �A� 3)� R ;� 1� ���1 � 3R1 :�R 5�\ �A> � ; � :� "U �À 1� ���1 �X � �Í� ���Ò1 ; � R � 3�Ì � 6� �Í·H � R 2�W ] �6� _:� R 0� :�Q ����� ���

56

�� �Ø �1 ��O 1 �; � RW � 5 � :�Q �Ø �Ò� 1 � �; �RW � 5 � �FU 1 ;� R �'� �Í6� R 3R5 �1 > � :�Q ���� ����

�� �Ï" �� > � E� R 5�W 5 � �A� >�] � > � E� R 5� ��FU � 1� <� 6� �Í6�R 3R 5� 1 >�W �:� R 5 � :�Q �������

�A� R �� Ï>�\ �' � �)� $� 1�Q �Ì � 9� ¿�� 5 �� :�H � RW 6� R 3R5 � "�:�Q ���B W ��6� _WD � R 6�V > �] " ��)� � 5 �1 � �"�R ;�] 1 >� R1 �Q ����A� U #� 3N#� R � 3>� 1�QÒ� 1 � �Ì� 9 �¿� �5 �� :� H� RW 6� R 3R 5�\ �8 � _̄ � �� A� 4 ; ��1 � �������� �A� > �] " �R; �] � 5 � � :� H �" �R =%� , A� \; � RW $ � A; � ��Í9 � ;� > �R � 3A�\ 6� _ �1� 6� ¿� A; � ��­ R 5 1� A; � ��=R 9� R c� �������

10.Compatibility of the proof of Brahman as Both Efficient And MaterialCause

1. "From which these elements are born" By the fifth case ending (the prime cause of theagent of the verb jan meaning to be born is called apadana (ablative/fifth case). "Towhich they return " - by indicating that it is the support for existence and end - bythese the material causality is established.

2." It saw ", "Let me spread" - Brahman is the support of "seeing" etc. By this theefficient causality is established.

3. From Atman, Akasa was born etc. In these also there is the fifth case of materiality.

4. Similarly, "It thought, let me become many" - should be understood as evidence forthis..

5. There was nothing before. From it, Sat was born, It created itself. This also is evidencefor the said meaning.

6. "It is the birth place of elements. This indicates material causality..

7. When one is known, all are known - this is also evidence for material cause.

8. (Sadhya) World is of a cause which is both material and efficient - (Hetu) Because itis the effect born preceded by thinking . (Exam) Like pleasure and pain.9. Moreover, there is the advantage of the example which is acceptable to both parties ofthe conjuntion of time and pot which is the cause for all effects.

Thus it is stablished that Brahman is both (undifferentiated) efficient and material cause.

� �� � � �� �88 �� __ ¯̄�� 00�� � �� �AA>> �� 66�� __ "" ��RR ?? �� 11 >> �� ��==DD �� 00�� ��ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �Ì > �W }1 > �W �A� � 1� �Ì 6� <RW D � > ;� > �B R <;� RW $ ; �1 > �R 1; � 51 �R 9� R >� R 5� � 4� " �<0�1 >� :�Q ������ ��

57

11.Compatibility of the definition that Brahman Is Self Luminous

1. When it does not have the character of cognisability, it has the character of thecapacity for immediate emphirical use. It must not be the locus of the absolutenegation .

�� ��� �� � AA>> �� 66�� __ "" ��RR ?? �� 11 >> �� ��ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �A� R ��Ì R1 :�R �A> � 6�_ " �R ?� � ��BW 1 �U ��A> � A� H� R ;� R\ �6� _" �R ? �> ; �� 1� <W " ��� >� 4�U <1 > �R 1�Q � ������ 6� _3T 6� > �1 �Q ���� �� �

12.Compatibility of the Self Luminosity Of Brahman

1. (Sadya) Brahman is self luminous (Hetu) Because it does not depend on otherluminous object for its existence, (Example) Like the lamp.

�� ��� �� �?? �� 88 3�3�� �� �ÌÌ >> �� RR '' ;; �� 11 >> �� ����ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �� 5 �4 �] :� ]" �1 �; �R �Ì > �W }1 �; �R �' � �ÌR 5 �5 3R � 36� 3�=D ;� :�Q � �5 � �> �R ' ;� :�Q �� �6� _> �Y � H � � 5� � :� H � �Ì 9�R >� R1 �Q �Ò� 1 � �������

�� �1 � 3N ·H � :�Q ���Ø ��@ ,R ��$ �U 0� � "_ �; �R )� R� 1 � �A�\ 8 �5 4 �R � �?� 8 3BW 1 �> � � ���5� R 1 :� 5 ;� 1� :�RW �ÅW @ � R\ �1 � W5 � R1 :�R �5 � R� 9� 4 �T ;� 1�W ��������

13.Compatibility that Brahman Is Not Describable By Words directly.

1. Since Brahman has no attributes and is not cognisable, it is only implied (Lakshyam)by words like Anand etc and cannot be expressed directly, since there is absence ofconnection between word and meaning as cause for action.

2. It is said: "It is seen that words are correlated to quality, action, kind and relation.These are not in Brahman and therefore, Brahman cannot be expressed with a sense. "

58

�� ��� �� � AA�� RR ::�� RR 55 ;; �� 11 �� RRW �W �99 �� WW33##�� 00.. 55 �� ::�� QQ

� � �5 � �� B �>� ;�\ �9 �W 36� _1 � T1 �W � �A> � Á �6�\ � �" �R <0�\ �> � R �Ì 6� =6�R :� � ���� "\ ��1 �U �8 � R �4 �1 � �> � @ �;� 1 >�\ �8 � _V:� � ��������

14. Refutation Of Difference In General

1. We do not deny the case or the nature of perception of difference; but we say that it isthe object of sublation.

�� ��� �� � ���� >> �� ?? �� WW@@ �� 11 �� RRW �W �99 �� WW33##�� 00.. 55 �� ::��QQ

��� � "\ ��' � �9�W 3W�A> � W 1� <9�W 3A; � �> � x�>; �1 � ;� R �A> �> �Y � H � �> � <RW 4 � RW 5 � > � A2�R �> � R ���� �� � � �� � �� "\ ��' � �9 �W 3W�9 � W31 > � :�U 6� R� 4 �Á �6�\ �)� R � 1 �Á �6�\ �> � R �> �R ' ;�\ �1 � G� �6�U 5 � 9 �] W3R W�> � R '; � �� � � �� � � �� � �� � � � 1� 2� R �'� �Ì 5; � RW 5 ; � >�Y H ; � R �A> � >�Y H ; � R 6� H �W � ��������

15. Refutation Of Difference In Particular

1. In difference, the difference from other than its own has to be stated; this will resultin the contradiction of its own location. or there will be an infinite regress. Indifference, the character of difference, the character of an adjunct or the character of classhave to be stated. There again, difference has to be stated......................then, beause ofmutual dependence , its own location will result..

�� ��� �� ��� >> �� ?? �� WW @@ �� ��##�� 00.. 55 �� ::��QQ

�� �A> � Á �6� R� 1� S <x�A; � �� >� ?�W @ � A; � R mT" �R <W ��1 � A; �X > � �9�W 31 >�W 5 � �9�W 3A; � �4 � :�] 9 �W 3R W²; � ;� RW $ � R 1�Q ����� ���

16. Refutation Of The Particularity

1, If the particularity is accepted as separate from its own nature, it itself is the characterof difference. Then it is not possible for the difference to have the attributes ofdifference.

59

�� ��� �� �99 �� WW 3366�� bb �� "" WW����66�� __ 11 ;; �� DD �� 99 �� mm��

� � �Í·H � R 5�U 9 �> � A;� ��Ì 5 1� � " �<0�R }>� t '( ¿� '�X 1 � 5 ;� A; � ��1� 35 � >� �' ( ¿�' �X 1 � 5 ;� �6�_ � 1� ; �RW � $� " ��9 �W3R >� $� R �B 1� ;� R �? �U �' �X 1 � 5 ; � 4 � �:�] " ��� 5 �3] N � #� R� 3�6� _ �1� ; �RW � $� " �9�W 3�Ì 5 � >� $ �R �B 1 >� R1 �Q ����� ��

�� ��FU � 1� <� 6� �Ì >� t' ( ¿� �9�W 3R 5 �U > � R � 35� T ����� ��

�� ��1 � A:� R 1�Q �9 � W36� b �"W ���5 � �6� _1 ; � D�\ �6� _ :� R 0� :�Q ����� ��

17. Refutation Of Perception In Five Differences

1. The said experiences are of only Consciousness limited bythe mind. They thereforegovern difference having the consciousness not qualified by the mind as its counter-correlate and not difference having pure consciousness as the qualified and painlessnessetc as the counter-positive.

2. Srutis also restate difference qualified by the consciousness of mind.

3, Therefore, perception is not valid in the five differences.

Notes: The five differences are: 1) between Jiva and Iswara 2) between Insentient and Iswara 3)between Jiva a nd Insentient 4) between Jivas and 5) between insentients.

�� ��� �� � ))�� TT >> �� 88 ��__ ¯̄�� 99 �� WW33RR 55 �� UU::�� RR 55 �� 99 �� mm��

� � �A� R ��)� T >�W ? > � <RX �� 9 � ¿�RX ��B W1 �U ��� > � À �4� :�R] � 4� " �<0�1 > �R 1�Q �����3B 5 � 1�U � B 5� >� 1�Q ���Ò1 ; � G� �3N� #� R 3W <5 1 � � "�<0� R � 34� :�] 1 >�W 5 �A> � Á �6�R � A� �W � � � � � �� 9�W 3:� RG �W �� A� �A� R 4 � 5� R1 �Q � �1 �R t H >� " �9 �W 3W��A� R 4 ; � > �X " �º; �R 1�Q ���� ��� � ��� ��" �t º6� 1� �A� R >�] E; � �Ì A� R >�] E; � �Ì R � 3��> ;� >� A2� R ;� R �>� 0�W ]�à A> � 3T % �] 1 > �R � 3�> ;� > � A2� R >� 1�Q �" �t º6�1 �9 �W 3W5 �X > � �Í6� 6� H ;� R �A> � R9 �R � >� " �9 �W 3\�6� _� 1 �Ì 6�_ ; � RW )� " �1 > �R 1�Q ��' � ����� ��

60

18. Refutation Of Difference Between Jiva And Brahman1. Objection: (Sadhya) Jiva and Iswara are different (Hetu) because they have the locus which hascontrary nature (Example) Like the fire and Snow.2. Reply: Here, pain etc is of the nature of mind(not related to Self) and therefore, the hetu is notestablished......If it is mere difference, it is the establishment of what is already established;(acceptable toadvaitins) if it is real difference, there is negation of probandum.

2. The omniscient and non-omniscient states are imposed like the shortness and lengthon a letter, It is compatible only by the imposition and it is of no criteria for naturaldifference.

�� ��� �� � ))�� TT >> �� 66�� <<AA66�� <<99 �� WW 33RR 55 �� UU::�� RR 55 �� 99 �� mm��

� � AR R 4; �\ ��' �X G �RW �:� X G� 6�_ � 1� ; �RW � $ � " �4� � :�] E� R 5� R8 �R 4 ;� 9 �W 3> � R5 �Q ��B W 1 �U ��:� X G� R5 �U A� \� B 1� 3N � #� R5 � 5�U A� 5 4 � R1 �Y 1 > �R 1�Q ������% � , > � 1 �Q ����Ò1 ; � G �4 � � :�] 6� 3� >� " �º6�W 5 � �� � �� � � � �� A� �A� R 4� 5 �R 1�Q ����� ��

19. Refutation Of difference Between Jivas

1 Objection: (Sadhya) Chaitra has difference which will not be sublated by theknowledge of the one having the nature as its counter-positive. (Hetu) because he is notable to recognise the pains suffered by Maitra. (Example) Like the pot.Reply: Because of the word "one having the nature" , it is the fallacy of establishing theestablished.

����� �� �))�� TT >> �� 99 �� WW 33WW55 �� UU"" VV ��==11 �� "" ]]����99 �� mm��

� � �5 � 5�U ���; � � 3�Ì R1 :�X ·; �\ �A; � R 1 �Q � ' �X G �W 0� �A� > � ]3N� #� R }5�U A� 5 4 � R 5�\ �A; � R 1 �Q �Ò� 1 � �' �W 1 �Q ����5 � �� �Ì R X6� R �4 � "�9 �W 3W5 � �Ì 5 �5 �U A� 5 4 �R 5 � �Í6� 6� H�W � ���� ���� �A� > �] � > �" �º6�R A� B1 >�W 5 � �� :� 2; �R 9�V 1 � A;�X > � �Í6� R 4 �W � ��� :� 2; �R 9�W 36�_ ; � RW )� " 1> � A;� �6�_ R $ �W > � �Í6� 6�R 35 �R 1�Q ���� ��� ��

20 Refutation Of Logic On Difference Between Jivas

1.Objection. If there is unity of atman, Chitra will remember pain of every one. - Reply: No; because of the difference in adjunct., it is compatible that he will not.

61

2. Since the adjunct is non-real, the criteria for non-real difference has already beenexplained.

���� �� 99 �� WW 3366�� ++'' �� "" ��55 �� UU ::�� RR 55 � �� �99 �� mm��

� � �A� R 4 ;�\ ��8 � _̄ � �)� T > �RW �> � R �� Ì 5� R 1 :� 6�_ � 1 �; �RW � $� " �4� � :�] E� R 5� R8 � R4 ; �9 �W 3> � R 5�Q ���B W 1 �U ��6� 3R 2�] 1 > � R1 �Q �����% � , > �1 �Q �������Ò1 ; � R � 3@ �U6� V> � RW ]·1 � 3RW @ � R 5� �1 � >�Y H � W � �6� S <t' ( ¿� 1> � A;� �)� . 1 > � A; � �)� 5; �1 > � A;� �'� �Í6� R � 4� 1> �R 1�Q ������ ��

�� A� R 4 ;�\ ��8 �_ ¯� � �9 �W 3B T 5�\ �5 � R >� �1 �@ � - 1 �W ��B W1 �U ��6� 3R 2�] 1 > �R 1�Q ����% � , > �1 �Q ����Ò� 1 � � �:�U ·1 ;� A� B >�Y � H � 1> � A;� �)� . 1 >� A; � �'� �Í6� R� 4 �1 >� R 1�Q��� ��� �1 � A:� R1 �Q �9 �W 36� b� "\ ��5 � �Ì 5 �U :� R 5� �� > �@ � ;� � ������ �

21. Refutation Of Five Differences (Logical)

1. Objection: Brahman or Jiva has difference which is not subject to sublation byknowledge of the one having the nature of anatman as its counter-positive (Hetu)because it is a substance (Example) like the jar.Reply: Because it has the fallacy of an adjunct of insentience, limitedness and beingborn.

2. Objection: (Sadya) Brahman is not with out difference (Hetu) because it is a substance(Example) Like the pot.Reply: Insentience is the fallacy of adjunct.

3.. Therefore, the five differences are not the object of inference.

����� �� �99 �� WW 33FF UU11 �� WW<<55 �� UU >> �� RR 3311 >> �� ��ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �5 � 5�U ���9 �W 31 �R t H> � "�1 >�W ��� ] � R A�U 6� 0� R] �Ø ��Ø ; � �Ì R1 :�� 5� �� 1� ­ 5 �Q ��] � � � � � �� � � �� Ò� 1 � �FU 1 �; �RW �:� R 5� � :�� 1� �' �W 1 �Q � �5 � � ������� �9 �W 3> ; � 6� 3W ? � A;� �" �R º6� � 5� " �9 �W 3:� R 3R ;� �Ì � 6� ��Í6� 6� H �W � � ��9 �W 31 � Rt H >� " �1 > � �Ì 6� ; �] > � A� R �; �1 > �R 1�Q �� FU 1 ;� 51 � <�� >� <RW 4 �R c� ����5 � �' � �Ï1 �1 �Q �FU� 1 � ��> � <RW 4 � R1 �Q � ��A� X > � �FU � 1 � <5 ;� 6� <R� �9 �W 3FU 1�W � �6� _ 1; �D �� A� �9�W 3R 5 �U > � R 31 >�W 5 � ��B T 5� 8� =1> � R1 �Q ��������

22 Compatibility - Srutis On Differences Are Restatements

1. Objection: The Srutis, 'Two birds, who is in Atman' are valid for real difference.

62

2. Reply: No It is compatible that mention of differences is based on imposeddifferences; since difference is not absolute and since it contradicts other Srutis; Not that,because they are contradictory, they have other import; Srutis on difference are weakerbecause they are restatements of the difference based on empirical perception.

����� �� �99 �� WW 33FF UU11 �� WW>> ;; �� RR ]]>> �� BB R SR S <<"" ����99 �� WW3366�� <<11 >> � �� ���ÍÍ 66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �Ì 2� >� R ��Ì 5�U > � R 3" �1> � �Ì 9 �R >�W � 6� ��> ; � R> �B R S <" ��9 �W 36� <1 >�W 5 � �FU 1 ; �U 6� 6� � H� � ��������� �5 � �' � �Ì9 �W 3FU1 �W � Ì #� 0. � '� 5 :� R G� 6� <1> �W 5 � ��9 �W 3R � > � <RW � 4 �1 > � :�Q � �1 � � R <T9 �V 1 � R 2�]:�R 3R ;� ��1 � �� <RW 4 �R 1�Q �������

23. Compatibility - Srutis On Differences Are Based On Empiricality

1. Or though they are not restatements, the Srutis are compatible as they take intoaccount the empirical differences.2. There is no non-contradiction of difference, since non-dual Srutis have their purportonly in impartite Consciousness. The contradiction is only taking into account themeaning through which we have to go to.

����� �� �?? �� 88 33RR 55 11 �� <<RR 33WW� �� �ÌÌ RR 11 ::�� 99 �� WW33AA�� RR 44 �� "" ��11 >> � �� ���ÌÌ AA�� \\ 99 �� >> �� ��

� � �6�_ 1 ;� D �R � 3A� :� " �D ;� 1� ; �R �? �8 3R 51 � <R 3T 5� R\ �9 � W3" �1 >�W � 6� � �1 � Rt H >� " ��Ì9�W 3�Ì � >� <RW � 4 � 1> � R1�Q ��������

24. Other Srutis Cannot Establish Difference

1. Although other Srutis with the same empirical reality speak of differences, there isno contradiction on absolute non-difference.

����� �� �99 �� WW 33FF UU11 �� WW� �� �@@ �� tt .. QQ >> �� 44 �� 11 �� RR 11 66�� ;;��]] �� ==m�m�99 �� mm��

� � �Ì R 2�> �] 0� W�6� _2� :� :�U 0. " W�������Ì 9 � W3A; �X > � ��Í6� " _�R 5 1� 1> �R 1�Q ������ � 1 � T ;� �:�U 0. " W�������:� 4 ; �W �6� <R :� ? �R] 1 �Q �����1 � Y1 � T; � �:�U 0. " �R 51 �W �' � �ÏW·; � �=D � 0� 7�=W 5 � �Í6� A�\ B R <R c� �� ��:�U 0. " ��G � ;� R t 1:�" �R; � R �Í6�� 5 �@ � 3� �ÏW·; � 6� <1> �W �t A2� 1 �W ������Ì 5 � ? 5� 5�Q ��Ò1 ; � R 3W � �" �R �º6� � 5� " �9 �W 3W5 �Í6� 6� H ;� R �1� R tH > �" ��9�W 3�Í6� 6� � H �1 > � �Ì9� R >� R1 �Q �������� ����� �1 > � 3N 6� 5 ; � A1� � =mR 5� R\ �9 �W 36� <1� R �5 � 0�R] ; �" �1> �W � 6� ��" �t º6� 1� 9�W 36� <1� ; �R ��1 � Rt 1 >� "�R 9�W 3R � > � <RW S 4 �1 > �R 1�Q ���� ����

63

25. Refutation Of The Import of Six Principles In Srutis On Difference

1, In the first chapter of Mundaka (of Atharva veda), it begins only with the non-difference, 2) In the second , in the middle , non-difference is analysed 3) In the third, itends with the result of non-difference. The three chapters of Mundaka are of identity.There'"Not eating etc" are compatible only with imposed difference, as absolutedifference is not compatible.

2. Although the charcteristics given by you favour the purport of difference , there is no contradictiontaking into account the purport of imposed difference.

����� �� �ÏÏ WW ··;; �� AA>> �� ÁÁ ��66�� ��ÍÍ 66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � ��1 � 3>�Y � H � �4 � :� R] 5 � R 4� R <1> � �Í6� =�D � 1� A>� Á �6� A; � �Ì 9�W 31 > � R1 �Q �������

�� ��5 � �' � ���Ï> � :�9 �W 3A; � R 8� R� 4 �1 �R 1 :� A> � Á�6� 6�; �] > � AR R 5�W �1 � A; � �'� �Ì R1 :� A> �Á �6� A;� �6� <X <� 6� �A�\ :� 1� 1> �W 5 � ��1 > �' ( R � R� > �@ � ;� 1 >�� :� �1 � ���> �R '; � :�Q

26. Essential Nature Of Unity

1, Unity is the essential nature indicated by not being the locus of properties which do notexist in Atman.

2. It should not be said - This is not the subject of your Sastra, as it is agreed by otherson the nature of Atman which is not sublated and non-dual.

����� �� �))�� TT >> �� 88 �� __̄̄ �� RR 99 �� WW33W �W �66�� __ ::�� RR 00�� ::�� QQ

��� 5 � 5 �U ���A� R > �] E; � R A� R >�] E; � R� 3� >� S? � ­ ; � RW <X·; � :�Q � � � � �� � � �� � � �� � �8 �RW 4 ; �� :�� 1� ��' �W 1 �Q � ��5 � � �A� RW ; � � :�1 ;� R 3RX ��Ò> � �� > � À �R" �R <�1; � R$ �W 5 �? �U �; � RW � �ÏW ·; �8 � RW 4 � 5� R1 �Q ������ ��

27. Authority On Non-Difference Between Jiva And Brahman

64

1. Objection: How can Unity be taught when it is qualified by Omniscience and non-omniscience attributes.Reply:.. As in the case of "This is that" by dropping the contradictory qualifications, thepure substrates are taught in the sense of unity.

����� �� �ÏÏ WW ··;; �� FF UU 11 ��WW ÀÀ 66�� ))�� TT >> ;; �� �� >> �� <<RRWW 44 �� RR 99 �� RR >>�� ��

� � �? � � ·H � $�_ B R 3RX �1 � ; � RW À )� T> ; �1 >�W � 6� ��A> � 6�_ :� W; �W �Ì 5 �U 6� )� T > ;� 1> �R 1�Q ����1 � 3N ·H �\ �> � R '� A6� 1 ;�W �Ø �; � 1�Q ���Í6� )� T > ; �\ ��1 � ¿� �8� R 4; �1 �W � �; � �R 4 ;� 1�W1 � ¿� RW 6� )� T > ;� :�Q ���Ø �Ò� 1 � ���; � 2�R �" �2�\ � ' �1 �Q ��Ì 6� WD � R :� RG �W 0� �Í6� )� T > ; �1 >�W � �5 �W 3\�<)� 1 � \�Ò1 ; � G �R � 6� ��Ò3\ �<)� 1 �\ �Ò1 ; � A; � �Í6� )� T >; � 1�R �Ì R 6�H �W � ������

�� �1 � 3R ��1 >� :� R �' � �=� D� 1� ;� RW <W > � �6� 3R 2�] ; � RW � �ÏW·; � 8 �RW 4 � A; � ��6�_ R "Q ���6� _ � 36�R � 31�1 > � R1�Q �������

28. Non-Contradiction Of The Evidence Which Is Depended Upon With TheSrutis On Unity

1, Although they depend on perception for significative potency, still they (the UnitySrutis) do not depend on perception for the object signified.

2. It is said by Vachaspati: - "That which is depended on is not subject to sublation., andthat which is sublated is not depended on. If it is said that the state of depended upon isto be accepted, then in the knowledge "this is not silver", the knowledge "this is silver"will have to be accepted as that which is depended on."

3. By the words of "it and Thou", only the indicated meaning of the two words is unity.This has been explained before.

����� �� �11 �� 11 >> �� ::�� �� AA�� ��>> �� RR ··;; �� RR 22�� ]] ���� 55 �� ÁÁ ��66�� 00�� ::�� QQ

� Ì 9 �W 3W� 1 � R1 6� ;�W ] > � 4 �Y 1 �W � � 1 � � ¿�> �R] B =D � 0� R8 �R BN º; � A; � � Ì 3RW @ �1 > �R 1�Q � �� 5 � � � B � =D� 0�X ·; � R 5�U <R W4 �W 5 � � 1 �R 1 6�; �] 6� S <1 ;� R $� � � �� 1� 3N ·H � \Ø5 ; � R ;� �' �5 1� R :� 0� RW X� Ø � Ø� 1 � R 1 6� ; �R] 1 �Q � 1 �U � > � Y� H � � � 5� � 1 �U � > �Y H �W A1 � R1 6� ;�] :�Q � Ø � Ò� 1 � � � �� )� B 3)� B eD � 0�; �R � :�U #; � 6� <1 > �W � A� \9 � > �� 1� � � 1 �1 �Q � A� B ' �S <1� R }2�] 6� <1 >� � �" �º6� 5� A; � �Ì 5�U � ' �1 �1 > �R 1�Q ����� ��

�� � Ï1 �W 5 � � �� 1 � ' ( 8 3R 1�Q � �����������1 � 2� R � '� � � 1 �W 5 � � � 1 > �\ � � 1 � ­ � A� � > � R � � 1� 1� � � A�\ )� R 1 � � Ò�1 � � > �R � � 1� A; � � 1 > �� :� �1� � � > � R � � 1� t A:�5 �Q � 1 > � :�Q � Ò� 1 �> � R �X �Ì 2� ]� ������������ 5 � <A1 � :�Q �������

65

�� � Ï1 �W 5 � � �� 1 � A; � � 1> �\ � 1 � 1 >�\ � ÒS 1 � � A� :� A1 �\ � 6� 3� :� �1 � � �� � 5� <A1 � :�Q � � �� Ì A� :� R A� W5 �X > � � � @ � ® ×2�] =D � 0� R � 3<� B1 �W 5 � � � Í6� 6� H �RX � @ � ® T A� :� R A� A;�Ì 5 ; �R ; ;� 1> �R 1�Q ��������

29 Proof of the Meaning Of the sentence - 'Thou Art That

1.When it is understood that non-difference is the purport, there is no harm in havingmany secondary implications to maintain non-difference. The main purport cannot besacrificed to be in line with secondary implication. It is said in the Nyayachintamani thatvritti is for the purport and not the purport for the vritti. By the implication, "quasi-inclusive", when the important purport is possible, it is not proper to invent that itspurport is on concomittance.

2. By this, the following (interpretations of "Thou art That) has been refuted. (a) "youstand by him " (b) from him you are born (c) you are of him (d) you are in him.

3. By this, the following is also refuted. - You are of him., as a compound. It is improperto invoke the sixth case compound, as it has to apply to their lakshana/

����� �� �ÌÌ BB \ �\ �88 �� __̄̄ �� R �R � AA::�� ��ÒÒ11 ;; �� R �R � 3�3�ÌÌ 55 �� WW "" ��FF UU11 ;; �� 22�� ]�]�"" ��22�� 55 �� ::�� QQ

� � �8 �Y B 3R <0; � "�t A2�1 � A;� ���� ���� ���Ø �8 �_ ¯� �> � R �Ò3:� $ �_ ��Ì R A� T 1�Q ����1 � 3R 1 :� R5 � :�W > �R > �W 3B \��8 �_ ¯� Rt A:� ��Ø�Ò� 1 � �> � R ·; � A;� �Ì 5 �U 6� R A� 5� R ��6� _ "�<0� A2� 1� ;� R �Ì9 �W 36� _:� R 6�" �1 >� :�W > � ��������

�� �Ï> �\ �:� U0. " W��������Ø A� �; � RW �B �> � X�1 � 1 6� <\ �8 �_ ¯� �> �W 3��8 � _̄ � X> � �9 � >� �1 � �Ø �Ò� 1 � ���Ï1 � 3� 6� �> � R ·; �\ �Ì 9 �W 36� <:� W> � ������ �

�� �8 �_ ¯�X > � �A� 5 �Q �8 � _̄ � R 6;�W � 1 � �8�Y � Í� �������Ò� 1 � �FU � 1� <� 6� �ÏX ·; � 6� <R ������ �

�� �6� <W> ; � ; �W �A� > � ]�Ï" �T �9 �> � t5 1� ��:�U � �������Ò� 1 � �Ï1 � 3� 6� �Ì9 �W 3W�:� R 5 � :�Q ����� �

�� �1 � 2�R �Ì 5 1� ;� R] � :� �6�_ " �<0� A2�\ �8 �Y � Í� ����������Ø 5 � R 5 ;� RW 1 � RW t A1 � �Ç ­ R �Ø�Ò� 1 � �> � R ·; �\ � �Ì D � <6�_ " �<0� A2�\ �8 �Y � Í� ����� � �Ø5 � R 5 ;� 31� RW t A1 � ��Ç ­ Y�Ø �Ò� 1 � �> �R ·;�\ �' � �ÏW ·; � W�6� _:� R 0� :�Q �������

66

�� �Ø �� "\ �' � �� �1 � T; �R �X �9 � ;�\ �9 � > � �1 � ��Ø�Ò� 1 � �9 �W 3A; � �9 �; �BW 1 �U 1 > �W 5 � �� 5� t 5 31 �1 > �R 1�Q ��Ì � 6� �Ì 9 �W 3� �Ï> � �Í6� � 5� @ �~ :;� � �����

�� Ø�Ï1 � t A:� ¿�U 3<:� 5 1 � <\ �" U �À1 �W ���Ì 2� �1 � A; � �9� ;�\ �9 � >� �1 � �Ø �1 � X� Í� �����Ò� 1 � �9 �W 3�� 5 � 5 3; � R �Ì � 6� �Ì9 �W 3� A� t �� �������

30. Meaning Of Srutis 'I Am Brahman' Etc

1. In the Brihadaranyaka , the sentence "In the beginning this was verily Brahman andthat Brahman knew only itself as I am Brahman " is not in the context of meditation andtherefore is of non-difference .

2. In the Mundakopanishad - "He who knows the highest Brahman becomes Brahmanhimself" The purport of this sentence is non-difference.

3. "Being Brahman. attains Brahman " The purport of this Sruti also is non-difference.

4. "In the Supreme indestructible Brahman, all become one " This also is valid in non-difference".

5. In the Antharyami Brahmana - "There is no other seer than He" and in the AksharaBrahmana " there is nothing that sees but It" are valid in non-difference.

6. "From the second only there is fear " - difference is spurned and therefore, non-difference only is the purport of the Upanashad.

7 "If he makes the smallest distinction in It, there is fear for him. " - non-difference isestablished as difference is spurned.

���� � �� � ))�� TT >> �� 88 ��__ ¯̄�� ��ÌÌ 99 �� WW33RR 55 �� UU::�� RR 55 �� ::�� QQ

� � ��A� R ��)� T > �R � � �6� <:� R1 :� 5� A1� 1 >� 1� RW ��5 � �� 9 � }51 �W � �BW ��Ì R 1 :� 1> �R 1�Q ����6� <:� R 1 :�> �1 �Q ����� ������� �A� R ��Ì R 1 :� R� �Ç > ;� 1 >� R 6� <)� R 1; �R �5 � R5 � R �5� �� �BW ��� > � 9 �U 1 >� R 1�Q �����Ì R " �R ? � >� 1�Q ����� ���� �A� R ��� > � :� 1� R �9�W 34 � T� � �� :� 2; �R ��B W��9 �W 34 � T 1> � R1 �Q �����' � 5 Ç 9�W 34 �T > �1 �Q �����

31. Inference On Non-Difference Between Jiva And Brahman

1. (Sadhya). Jivas are not in reality different from Brahman (Hetu) because they areAtman (Example) Like Paramatman.

67

2. (Sadhya) Atma is not many as it is a class which is less pervasive than the character ofDravya (Hetu) because it is present everywhere (Dris) like Akasa.3. (Sadhya) The difference in perception of the subject is non-real, (Hetu) Because ofdifference in perception (Drish) Like the difference in perception of the moon

����� �� �ÌÌ \\ �� ?? �� 11 >> ��WW 55 �� ��ÏÏ WW ··;; �� RR WW66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �Ø�6� R 3R_ _WA; � �� > � ?> � R �9�V 1 � R� 5 � �Ø �Ò� 1 � �FU1 � RX � �Ø�:� :� X> � R\ ? � RW ��)� T > � =RW " W��)� T > � 9�V 1 �� �A� 5 �R 1� 5 �� �Ø�Ò� 1 � A:�Y 1 � RX �' � �Ì\ ? � 1 >� ��> ; � 6� 3W ? � R 1�Q ��Ì � 6� �)� T > �8 �_ ¯� �Ì 9�W 3�� A� � �� ��������

�� 1 � A:�R 1�Q �Ø�1 > �\ �� T � �� � � �� � A� >� R] � 0� �Á �6� R� 0� �� � � ��Ø ��Ò1 ; � R� 3�FU 1; �R �)� T >� 8�_ ¯� �Ì 9�W 3W�6� _� :� 1 �W � 6� � :�5 1�Y :� 51 � >; �1 > �R � 3��9 �W 3> ; � 3W ? �� 5 �> � R] B R 2�̂ �" �R º6�� 5 �" �R\ ? � 1> � A;� ��FU� 1 � A:�Y � 1� > ;� R Â1 �1 > �W 5 � �1� �=R 3� 6� �Ì 9�W 3RW > � $� :; �1 �W ��Ò� 1 � �� A� �:�Q �������

32.Compatibility of Non-Difference as Composite

1. In the Sruti "His feet are all beings in the world", in the Smruti "Jiva is part of me inthe world" - In these , Jiva is mentioned as part of Brahman. By these also,non-difference results.

2. By the Srutis, although non-difference between Jiva and Brahman is meant, still forexplaining the difference between the meditator and who is meditated upon, differenceis assumed as a part, From this also , non-difference is the result.

����� �� ��� 88 �� ::88 �� 66�� __�� 11 �� �� 88 �� ::88� �� ���55 ;; �� RR ;; ��WW 55 � �� �ÏÏ WW ··;; �� �� AA�� �� ����

� � �1 � 2� R �)� T >� �8�_ ¯� 0�RW �� �:� U#� 6�_ � 1 � :�U #� > �1 �Q ��� 8 � :8� 6�_ � 1 �� 8� :8� À 6� 1 >� R1 �Q �Ì � 6� �Ì 9 �W3R �W Ì >� $ �5 1� > ;� � �������

�� �1 � 3W > �\ �6� _� 1 �� 8� :8� A; � ��8 � :8 �W 5 �X ·; �W �> ; � > �t A2� 1�W ����8 � _̄ � X·; � \�)� T > � )�R 1� A; � �� A� �\ ���1 � 1 6�_ � 1 �� 8� :8� 5 �R 1�Q ������� �

33. By Logic Of Original And Reflection Non-Difference is proved.

1. Non-difference is to be understood as in the case of an original and reflection , asBrahman is the original and Jiva its reflection.

2.When the reflection is non-different from the original, Jiva by its reflection of Brahmanis non-different from it.

68

����� �� ��� ))�� TT >> �� RR 00�� UU 11 >> � �� �##�� 00.. 55 �� ::�� QQ

� � ��5 � 5 �U ���Ì 0� U1 > � Rd�T > � A;� �" �2�\ �> ; � R 6�" �R 3T ? >� <R 39�W 3�Ò� 1 � �' �W 1 �Q ��� ��5 � �

�� � Ø � � 5 �1 ;� � � A� > �] $ � 1� � � Ø � Ø � A� � > � R � Ï@ � � :�B R 5� )� � ÌR 1 :� R � Ø � Ò1 ; � R� 3� FU 1 ;� R � � �� A� R �� )� T> � RW � 5 � R 0�U � � � BW �� 6� _1 ; � D� $ �U 0� � Ì R F;� 1> � R 1 �Q�6� _ 1; �D �1 >� R c� � ����% �, > � 1�Q �����B W ��Ì R 1 :� 1 >� R1 �Q �� ��Ì 9 �V 1 �1 > �R 1�Q ��' � �����Ò] ? > � <>� 1�Q � � Ò1 ; �R � 3� Ì5 �U :� R 5 �X ? '� � )� T > � �Ì 5 �0�U 1 > � � � A� �W� ���� > � 6�D �W �' � �3WB > ; �R � 6� �A�U #� E� R 5 � R� 3�Ì5 �U 6� =:9 � R 6� � H� � �8� R� 4 �" �R �������� �

�� A� R ��)� T >� � �Ì 0�U � �BW ��E� R 5 �R A� :�> �R � ;� " R <0� A�\ ; �RW $ �R F; �1 >� R1 �Q ����:� 5 � RW > �1 �Q ��Ò1 ; � G � �� � �� � � )�. 1 >� A; �RW 6� R� 4 �1 >� R c� �������

34.Refutation that Jiva Is Atomic (Minute)

1. Objection: How can Jiva which is atomic be non-different from Iswara who isomnipresent.

2. Reply:. By the Srutis, "Eternal all pervading", "He is that great unborn Atma" and bythe inferences, (Sadya) Jiva is not atomic, (Hetu) because he is the locus of perceptibleproperties (Example) like a jar, (2nd Hetu) because he is Atman, he is not matter (2ndExample) like Iswara, Jiva is not atomic. If Jiva were atomic, it will not be possible forhim to feel pain or pleasure pervading the whole body.

3. (Sadhya) Jiva is atomic (Hetu) Because it has the characteristic of being the locus ofconjunction which is the nonconcomitant cause of knowledge. {Drish) Like the mind.Here insentience is an adjunct.

Notes; In Laghu Chandrika ( by Brahmananda Saraswati) which is a rejoinder to Tarangani (ByRamathirta of Madwa school ) which is a rejoinder to Advaitasiddi, the following sloka is quoted at the endof second Parichheda in support of Jiva-Brahma non-duality: �ÇRX6�3T?�R"�R:�RA>�R}��G�=RW"�u�;�W5��1��6�]1�R����1�d�T�>�8�_¯�0�RW<X·;�W�A�R�D�8�_¯�X>��5�RW�BS<����

69

�� ���� 11�� YY 11�� TT;; �� 66 �� SS <<'' (( WW 33��

PARICHEDA 3

70

� �� �::�� 55 �� 55 �� �� 55 �� �� 3344 ;; �� RR AA�� 55 �� ;; �� RRWW � �� �FF >> �� 00�� RR mm11 >> � �� ���ÍÍ 66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � � 1 � 3W > �\ � � ÏW" �R 1 :;�W � � > ; � > � t A2�1 �W � 1 � 1 A�R D� R1 " �R <R ; � � F>� 0� :�Q � Ì � m� � � :� 5 �5 � �5 �� 34 ;� R A� 5�W � � 1 � 3m1 � ;� R � :�U :� U� D � �9� � � Ì 5�U ® W W ; �W � �� 1 � 3N·H �\ � � > � > � <0RW�� Ø � F> � 0� :� � m� 6�_ :� R 0� A; � � 6�_ :�W ; � R> � $� :�\ � 6� _� 1 � �Ì> ;� >� 4 �R 5 �R 1�Q � � :� 5 � 5 �� 5� � 34; � R A� 5 �W � 1 �U � � � ' � H � A;� � 6�_ 1 ;� $ �R 1 :� 6�_ > � 0� �A�\ A" �R <6� S <� 5� @ 6� ¿� � �1 � 3W " �R $ �_ > �Y � H � �" �R ; �] � R <W0� �8 �_ ¯� R 5�U 9 � >� BW 1 �U 1 � R\ �6� _� 1 � 6� }W 1 �W ���Ò� 1 � �7�=RW 6� " �R ; �] mW����� ���

1. Thinking And Meditating Are Subsidiary To Hearing

1. Thus when the oneness of Atman is established, those wishing realisation should havehearing as primary with thinking and meditation as secondary means. It is said in theVivarana - "Hearing is primary, as there is no gap between the means and the object,whereas thinking and meditation are secondary for the realisation and become the causefor Brahman realisation by the concentration of the mind purified by the samskara ofdirection towards Self.

��� �� ��� >> �� >> �� <<00�� RR WW ··HH � �� ����� 55 �� ;; �� ::�� RR WW 66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �1 � G� �F> � 0� R� 3"\ ��� > � @ �; � R> � $� :�\ ��6� _� 1 � � �Ì5 > �; � >; �� 1� <W "�� A� �RW 6� R ;� ��Ò� 1 � �1� � �4 ��W �5 � �Ì 6�V > � ]�� > �� 4 �1 >� :�Q � �� " \��1 �U ��� 5 � ; � :� � >� � 4� 1> � :�W > � ������

2. Ordained Injunction Of Vivarana

1. Hearing etc are the means for realisation of Brahman by positive and negativereasonings. The injuntion is not "Apurva" but of ordained injunction only.

Notes:Vidhis are of three kinds. a) Apurva vidhi = not known for all times by any way. Example: Vrihinprokashati = Sprinkles the grains. (b) Niyama vidhi = Partly known to be done and partly not known tobedone.. Example: Vrihin avahanti = strikes grains. (c) Parisankya vidhi = when an effect can result inmore than one way, ordaining of one. Example. Pancha Pancha naka Bhakshyah. Only five fingered fiveanimals should be eaten..

71

��� �� �FF >> �� 00�� RR 33 WW �� >> ��]] 44 ��WW ;; �� 11 >> �� ��ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �Ì R }6�D � A;�X > � �D � RW 3D � :�1 >� R 1�Q ��? � � x�1 �R 1 6� ; �R] > � 4� R <0�\ �> � R ����5 � �'� �1� G � �?� 8 3? �t ·H � �Ì A�\ 9 � > �RW �3R W @ � �� �? �U �W�? � t ·H � �Ì A�\9� > �W � 6�� > � �? � ­ ? � ·H �W � �1 � �RW 4 � RW 6� ; �RW � $ � 5 ;� R �Ì >� 4� R <0�T ; �R ; �R � �A�\ 9 � > �R 1�Q � �1 � R 1 6� ;� R] A; � R � 6� ��A�\ ? � ; �4 �� :�] 0� R W�� 5 � t ? '�1� 1> �W 5 � ��1 � G� �Ì A�\ 9 � >�W � 6�A� \? � ;� " �RW ÈU6� =S D �1 �W �� 5 � �> �] ? �W @ � W�A� \9 � > �W 5 � �� >� '� R <�Ì >�X ; � 2; �R] 1 �Q �������

�� �1 � A:� R1 �Q �F> � 0� R 3W � �Ì 4 �T Á �6�1 �; � R �:�5 �RW > ; �R 6� <1 > �W 5 � �� >� 4 �W ; � 1> � �Í6� 6� � H� � ��������

3.Compatibility of Hearing Etc As An Injunction

1. The first can be accepted (understanding the purport of the potency.) There is no harmthat the potency of the words is not possible. Although this is not possible in pureBrahman, the qualified potency 's usefulness in understnding is posssible. Although thedoubtful aspects have been decided and it is not possible there, still it is possible in thepure Brahman by the indication of the doubtful aspects. - thus discussion is notunnecessary.

2. Therefore, injunction of hearing etc. are compatible as they are of mental state anddifferent from knowledge.

��� �� ��� >> �� '' �� RR <<AA;; � �� �FF >> �� 00�� �� >> �� �� 44 �� ::�� VV ==11 >> �� ��ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �Ï> �\ �� > � '� R <�� >� 4� R ;� " ��F> � 0�� > �� 4�W <W> � �� )� E� R A�R A�V G � :�V =:� Q�������

�� �; � � R ���A� :� 5 >� ;� R 4; �R ; �RW ·H � ��1� R1 6� ;�] � 5 � ?' �R ; �" ���Í6� "_ �:� R � 3�;�U t ·H � �Ì 5�U A� 5 4 � R 5�\ �F> � 0� \ � ��� �1 �T ;� R 4; � R; �RW ·H � �Ì 2�]�Ì A�H > � �? � kR � 5� >� 1�] " ��;�U t ·H � �Ì 5�U A� 5 4� R 5�\ �:� 5 � 5 � :�Q ��������

�� �1 � A:� R1 �Q �F> � 0� � >� �4 � � �:�V =\�� > � '� R <� >� 4� R ;� " ���S )� E� R A�R A�V G � A; � � �5� �1 �U �:� 5 � 5� � >� � 4� S <�1 � �� A� �:�Q ����� ���

4.Compatibility - Hearing Is The Root Cause For Discussion

1. The root cause for Jignsa Sutra is the injunction for hearing which is the case for theinjunction for discussion.

2. Or hearing is the repetitive thinking of the reasons like beginning etc. which decide thepurport, as said in the Samanvaya Adyaya, Reflection is the repetitive thinking of thereasons for clearing doubts and impossibilities etc, as said in the Second Chapter.

72

3. Therefore, the injunction of hearing is the cause for injunction for discussion of theJignasa Sutra and not the injunction for reflection.

��� �� �>> �� RR '' �� AA66�� 11 ;; �� UU ··HH �� ��AA>> �� RR 44 ;; �� ;; �� �� >> �� �� 44�� ���� >> �� '' �� RR <�<���ÌÌ RR DD ��WW 66�� "" ��11 >> �� ��ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �6�_ A2� R 5� R 51 � <W �1 � U��Ì 4 ; � ;� 5� � >� 4 �W <W> � R 2�R] > � $� :� 6� ; �] 5 1 �1 >� R1 �Q ��" �R 0. � ; � �> �' �R <R D�W 6� " �1 > � :�Q � �F> � 0� R� 3@ �U �' � �5 � �� >� �4 � � ��������

5.Compatibility of the presumptive discussion by the injunction ofAdyayana according to Vachaspati's View

1. In the other Prastana, the injunction for reciting is upto the understanding of themeaning and which applies to both the Khandas, there is no injunction for hearing.

��� �� � ��EE�� RR 55 �� AA;; � �� � 66�� UU ÀÀ @@ �� 11 �� 55GG �� 11 �� R �R ���99 �� mm��

� � �5 � �'� ���? � R �R 2�] E� R 5 � A;� �� 5� ; � :�W 5 � �6� U\1 � 5 G� 1> � 3? �] ]5 � R 1�Q �8 � _̄ � 0� ?' � �?� R �R 2�] 1 > � R1�Q �1 � )E� R 5� A; � �6�U \ 1� 5G �1 > �� :�� 1� ���> � R' ; � :�Q ����1 � G � R � 6�E� R 5 � A�R 4� 5 � A;�X > � �6� U\1 � 5G �1 > �R 1�Q ����; � c� �6�_ ? � A1� �Ì 6�_ ? � A1 � �E�R 5 �; �RW � �� > �� 4� � 5� @ �W 4 � 3?�] 5 � \�� �1 � 3� 6� �E� R 5 �" �R <0�� >� @ �; � "�:�W > � ���; � c� �Ò' ( R � 35� RÍ1 6� � H� � 5� <RW 4 � ; �RW � �Ì 5 �U 9 �> � � �A�RW � 6� �" �<0� >; � R 6� R <�> � @� ;� " �:�W > � ��������

�� ��5 � �� B �Ì 5 ;� 1� 5 G� 1� R :� R G�W 0� �Ì � > � 4�W ; � 1 >�\ �8 �_ V:� � �� �� "\ ��1 �U �6� U� :� ' (R � 9� � �; �1 �Q �" �R <0�W �A� � 1 � �Ì 5 ;� 2�R �" �1�] ^ U��Ì ? � ·;� 1 >� :�Q ������ ��

6. Refutation Of Man's Effort For Knowledge

1 Objection:. It should not be said : - Since the knowledge of the meaning of the Sastrais always seen as an effort of man and since Brahman is the meaning of Sastra,Brahman knowledge is also of man's effort.Reply:. There also the human effort is with reference to the instruments of knowledge.The good which are enjoined and bad which are prohibited pertain only to theinstruments of knowledge. The experience of pain etc, which are born or eradicatedalso pertain to instruments of knowledge.

73

2. We do not say that it is non-injunction by other effort alone, but when there is causeby human desire, it is not possible to do it otherwise .

��� �� � EE�� RR 55 �� �� >> �� �� 44 �� ��99 �� mm��

� � � 1 � A:�R 1�Q � 6� ±Ö ; � >�W � D � 1� :�Q �Ì R ); �\ �Ò1 ; � R 3RX � � Ì � 6� � E� R 5 � A;� � Ì � >� 4� R 5� R1 �Q � � 4 ; � R 5� A; �R � 6� � � � > � E�R 5 �> ; �� 1� <W "�A� R4 � 5� R1 �Q � � A� VD :� ?� R �R 2�] 8 �U �R X" Y�1 ;� 5 >� ; �> ; �� 1� <W "�;� RW � � 1 � 1 A�R 4� 5 � �� > �@ � ;� 1� ;� R � Ì 5; � 2� R � A� �1 >� R c�� � 5 � � Ì R1 :� E� R 5�\ � � > �4 � R1 �U \� ? � ·; �1 �W � �� � 1 � 3W> �\ � F> � 0� A;� � E� R 5� Á �6�1 >�W� > � 4�W ; � 1 >� �Ì 5�U 6� 6� � H �� � �� � 1 � A:�R 1�Q � E� R 5 � � >� )�R 1� T; �\ � F> � 0�\ � � Ì 6� <RW D � E�R 5 � )�5 � "�? �8 3�Ò�1 � "�1�] > ; �1 �; � RÁ �6� �� >�' �R <R 1 :� "\ �:� 5 � 5� �5 � � 34 ; �R A� 5� R m"\ ��6� _:� W; � R> � $� :�\ �6� _� 1 � �Ì m1 � ;� R �6�_ 4 � R 5� 9�V 1 �\ �Ì 6� <RW D � E� R 5� 7�=" �1 � ;� R �� >� 4� T ;� 1� �Ò� 1� �� A� �:�Q ��������

7. Refutation Of Injunction Of Knowledge

1. Therefore, in "Ghee seen by wife" etc. also, knowledge is not an ordained injunction;in the case of concentration also , since it is separate from knowledge, injunction ispossible. In understanding the subtle meaning of Sastra there is an injunction, byinduction and deduction of reasoning and it does not relate to knowledge but toinstruments of knowledge. and therefore , knowledge of the Atman is not possible to beenjoined. Likewise, hearing if it is defined as knowledge is incompatible to be enjoined.Sravana is discussion to find out the methods to get immediate knowledge from theSabda.Therefore, hearing is different from knowledge. Thinking and meditation aresubsidiaries to hearing. It is the principal means for realisation of Brahman and isenjoined.

��� �� �?? �� RR 88 33RR 66�� <<RR WW DD �� 11 >> �� ::��QQ

� � �5 � 5�U ���" �2� :� 6� <RW D � E�R 5� )� 5 �" �1> � :�Q �? � 8 3A;� �!�:� R 5� R 9� R >� R� 3�1 � �'�W 1�Q �� �5 � �� ��� � �] > �W 3R 5 1� �> � E�R 5 � A�U � 5 �t ? '�1 �R 2� R] ]�Ø �Ò1 ; � R 3W ? '� �:� R 5� 1> �R 1�Q �������� �5 � �' � ���A� R ��� >� :�1 �� �? �8 3RW ��5 � R 6� <RW D � 4 �T BW 1 �U � �B W��? � 8 31 > �R 1�Q �Ò� 1 � �6� _� 1 � A� R 4� 5� :�Q ���3? � :� A1 >� :� � A� �Ò1 ; �R 3R >�W > � �> ;� �9 �' �R <R 1�Q �������� ��1 � A:� R 1�Q �1 � H > � :� A; �R � 3�> �R ·;� A; � �Ì 6� <RW D � E�R 5� )� 5 �" �1> �R 1�Q �Ì � > �}R �5 � >�Y H ; � R1 :� " ��:�RW D � A�R 4 �5 � �8 �_̄ � A�R D� R1 " �R <R ; � �:� 5 �5 � R}m"\ ��F> � 0�\Ì � m�� 5 �; � :� � >� � 4� � >� @� ; � �Ò�1 � �� A� �:�Q ��������

8. Immediate Knowledge From Verbal Testimony

1.Objection: How can word produce immediate knowledge as there is no authority.?Reply: The authority is the Sruti: " Those with knowledge of the Vedanta have thedetermination of the identity (Jiva-Brahma)

74

2. It is not : (sadhya) Word isnot cause of immediate knowledge (Hetu) Because it is aword. Because it strays in "you are the tenth" etc.3.. Therefore, sentences like "Thou art That " generate immediate knowledge. It is in theform of release of nescience, a means for Liberation for Brahman realisation. Hearing isprincipal, meditation etc, are subsidiaries, it is the subject of Niyama Vidhi. This isestablished.

.

���� ���� ��� �� � ���� ���� ��� �� � ���� ���� ���� ��� �� � ���� ���� ��� �� � ���� ���� ��� �� � ���� ���� ����� � �� � � ���� ��� �� � ���� ���� ���� ��� �� � ���� ����'' �� 11�� UU 22 �� ]]���� 66 �� SS<<'' (( WW 33��

PARICHEDA 4

75

�� � �� �ÌÌ �� >> �� }} RR ���� 55 �� >> �� YY�� HH �� ���� 55 �� ÁÁ ��66�� 00�� ::�� QQ

� � �Ø�� 5 � > �Y � H � <R1 :�R �:� RW B A; � �E� R1 �1 > �W 5 � �Í6� =�D �1 �� ���Í6� =D � 0�5 � R? �W W� 6� �A; � R 5 :�U t ·H �� �6� R' R "�R � 3> �1 �Q ��������

�� 6� _ Rª� 6�_ R � ª� ��Á �6�1 � ;� R �7�=A; � �ÌR 5 �5 36�_ " �R ? � A;� �A> � Á �6� 1� RW A� R 4 ; �1 >�W � 6� ��1 � �H � <RW 4 � R; � "��Ì E� R5 �� 5 �> �1 �] " ��> � YH�W � �A� R 4 ;� 1> � :� R G�W 0�A� R 4 ;� 1 >� �Í6� 6�H �W � ���" �0-$ � 1� '� R :�T " �<R 3RX �1 � 2� R �3?�] 5 � R1�Q ���1 � A:� R1 �Q �Ì E� R 5 � �B R�5 �� ��Ì R1 :� A>� Á �6�\ �1 � 3R" �R <R �> �Y� H� � �>� R �Ò� 1� �� A� �:�Q �������

1. Proof Of Eradication Of nescience

1.The Atman who is indicated as knowledge is eradication of ignorance. Even thoughthe indicator is destroyed, release will be there like the cook etc. (even when the actionof cooking ceases, the cook remains,)

�� �Release is in the nature of what one gets that which he already has. In its nature ofBliss, although it is not possible to be a Sadhya, still it can be established by the mental

76

state of ignorance which veils Bliss. It is similar to one getting the necklace which healready has. Therefore, eradication of ignorance is the essential nature of Atman or of amental state in that form.

��� �� �ÌÌ �� >> �� }} R �R � 55 �� >> �� 11 ��]] "" �������� 55 �� ÁÁ ��66�� 00�� ::�� QQ

� � �Ì � >� }R� 5 �> �1 �] " \��' � �; � }� 6� �5� �A> � 6�_ " �R ?� 8�_ ¯� Á �6� E� R 5� :�R G� :�Q �� �1 � A; � �1� 1 A�R 4� " �1 > �R 1�Q � �1� 2� R� 6� �F>� 0� R� 3A� R4 ; � �Ì 6�<RW D � >�Y � H � �A� :�R Á �/ \1 � 3W > � ��������

�� �1 � 3U ·H �\ ���1 � Y0� R 3W 9 �R] � A� "�R 6;�W @ �R ��A� V; �] 3T � ª� A1 �Y 0�\ �3B W 1�Q ����A� V ; �] " �R 5 1� :�U 6� R À Å�1� ¿;� R ;�\ �� > � � 5 �; �RW )� ; � W 1�Q ��������

2.Proof of Eradicator Of nescience

1. The realisation of the self luminous Brahman cannot be the eradicator of ignorancebecause it is by realisation that ignorance comes to be known to be . However, Brahmanreflected in the the perceptual mental state attained by hearing etc. cannot but be theeradicator of ignorance.

2.It is said: Sunlight, by itself illumines grass etc: the same will burn grass. through alense. That logic should be applicable here.

��� �� �::�� UU ··HH �� WW<<RR 55 �� 55 33ÁÁ ��66�� 11 >> �� WW55 � �� �66�� UU ÀÀ @@ �� RR 22��]] �� 55 �� ÁÁ ��66�� 00�� ::�� QQ

� � �5 � 5�U ���1 > � 5 :� 1�W �:�U ·H � RX �� � � � � �� � � � �� �� � � �� � � �1 �G � �5� �A� U#� R 1 :� 1� R �1�R > �1 6�U À @ �R 2�] � �� �A� U#� T �A; � R� :�� 1� > �1 �Q �A� U#� \�A; � R � :�� 1� �Ò' ( R ; � RÌ 3? �] 5 � R1 �Q �� � � � � � Ò�1 � �'�W 1 �Q �� �5 � �� �A� U#� R 3RW X �� B �6�U :� 2�] 1 �R �5 �R 6� <" �u ; �1 >� 6�_ ; � U·1 �R ���5 � R� 6� �A> �" �T ;� 1> � 6�_ ; �U ·H � R ���$ � RX <> � R1 �Q �� " \�1 �UA� R D �R t1 "_ �; � :�R 0� 1> �R 1�Q � � � � �����

3.Proof - Moksha Is Bliss And Man's Goal

1. Objection: In your opinion,,,,,,,,,,man's goal is not the nature of happiness; Becauseno wish is seen that "let me be happiness" like the one "Let me be happy".Reply: In happiness etc the goal is desired neither because it is not related to othersnor is it because it is related to one's own self. as it is round about. But it is to beexperienced without a veil..

77

��� �� ��� '' �� 55 ::�� RR GG �� AA;; � �� �::�� RR WW DD �� 99 �� R �R � $$ ��11 >> �� ��ÍÍ66�� 66�� HH �� WW��

� � �5 � 5�U ���" �A; � R ;�\ �:� R WD � � �6�U :� 2�] � �!��� " �:� B :� 2�] A; � � �ÌR B RW t A> � 1�Q �� ' � 5 :� R G� A; � �!� � �� � � Ò�1 � �'�W 1 �Q �� �5 � �� �Ì B :� 2�] $ �1 �\ �� ' � 3\ ? �\:� U t·H �" �R =R5 > �� ;� 5 �\ �6� _� 1 � �6�U :� 2�] A; � �:� RW D � W�A� \9 � > � �Ò1; �U ·H � 6_ RR ;� 1 >� R1 �Q �������� � �1 � A:�R 1�Q �A> � 6�_ " �R ? �� '� 3�9 � ¿�\ �A� U #�\ �6� U:� 2�] � � �����

4.Compatibility - Consciousness Alone gets the release

1. Objection: Whose is this man's goal of liberation? Is it of the "I" or "Consciousnessalone"Reply: Man's goal of liberation is possible as Consciousness which continues in its stateof liberation is a part of "I".

2. Therefore, bliss which is non-different from self-illuminous Consciousness is the goalof man.

��� �� � ))�� TT >> �� 55 ::�� UUtt ··HH �� ��ÍÍ66�� 66�� �� HH �� ��

� � �1 � c� �)� T> � 5 :�U ·H � R 5 �R\ �A> � R 5 �U 9 � > � �� A� �:�Q �������� � � � 5 � �'� �1 �1 >� E� R 5� R 3� > �}R 5� R ?�W �A� }� ? � <T <6�R 1� R 6�� H� � �� �� 5� > �Y H � A� 6�] 9 �_ :� A; � R� 6�A� \A" �R <R 1�Q ��9 � ; �" �:6�R 5 �U > �Y � H � > �1�Q ��30. A� \; � RW $ � 5� R? �W � 6� �' � "_ �9 �_ :� 0� > � c� ��A� \A" �R <R 5 �U > �Y H � W� �Ì � >� }R� 5� > �Y H � R >� � 6� ��1 �1 " �R; � R] 5 �U > �Y � H � A�\ 9 �> � R1 �Q ������

5. Compatibility Of Jivanmukthi

1.Thar Bliss is experienced by a Jivanmukta. There is no question of the fall of the bodyimmediately real knowledge is realised. Because of the continuance of residue,although relieved of illusion, the resultant body is possible to be continued, like thecontinuance of fear and shaking after an illusion of a serpent and also like the circling ofthe potter's wheel even after taking away the stick

��� �� �::�� UU ··HH �� RRX �X �11 �� RR <<11 �� ::;; �� 99 �� mm��

78

� � �5 � R� 6� �:�U ·H � RX �Íc� 5 � T ' �9 �R > �� � �1� A; � �� �1 �T ;� �A� R 6�W D �1 > �W 5 � �1� 3R �Ì A�\ 9 �> � R1 �Q � ��Ø6� <:� \�A� R :; �\ �Ø �Í6� X� 1 � ��Ò� 1� �A� R :;� FU 1 �W ? '� ���A� R �1 � ?� ;� 1> �W:� U·H �W � �A> � $ � R] � 3> �1 �Q �Ì � 5 �1 ; �1 >�\ �A; � R 1�Q ������� ��

�� �A� R 4 � 5� RW H � :�1 > �W 5 � ��A� R 4 ;� RW H � :� A;� �Ì 6� <:� :�U t ·H � �� > �@ � ;� 1> �R 1�Q �������

�� �1 � A:� R1 �Q �A> � Á �6� R5 � 5 3A;� �A> � 6�_ " �R ?� R1 :� Á�� 6� 0� � ����6� _ R� ª� :�U ]t ·H � 5 �] ��1 � G �R t A1 � �1 �R <1� :; �\ �" �2�\ ' � 5 � ��������

6.Refutation of presence of Gradation in Mukti

1. There are also no high or low grades in mukti., as the question of degrees arise only induality which does not exist in Moksha. "he obtains absolute equality " says Sruti. Ifthere are grades in Moksha like Swarga, it will become non-eternal.

2. Attainment of bliss in its form in the self-luminous form of Atman is moksha. Sincethere is no question of grades whatsoever.

3. Therefore Liberation is attaining the form of self-luminosity which is the nature ofbliss. There is no gradation there whatsoever.

Books

1. Sanskrit

1. Advaitasiddhi (with Vittaleshiyam and Laghuchandrika - edited by Pandit Sri N.S, Ananthakrishna Sastri ) Parimal Publications, Delhi

2, Advaitasiddhi with Balabhodhini - Ratna Publications, Varanasi

3, Advaitasiddhisiddhantasara by Sadananda Vyasa - Vidya Vilas, Varanasi

2. English

79

1, Advaitasiddhi First chapter translation by Dr, Ganganath Jha - Satguru Publications, Delhi,

2. Advaitasiddhi - Translation on Mityatva by Karuna Bhattacharya - ICPR, New Delhi

3. Advaitasiddhi - A critical study by K. Maheshwaran Nair - Satguru Publications, Delhi.

Appendix I

1. Prof. S, Kuppuswamy Sastri's English translation and notes on the Tarka Sangraha(Primer of Indian Logic) gives a good working knowledge of the methodology ofIndian Logic, with its introduction on the origin and development of Indian logic . It ispublished by the Kuppusway Sastry Research Institute, Mylapore, Madras 4.

2. To understand the new School of Logic, a study of the Karikavali (BhashaPariccheda) with the commentary of Mukthavali is nescessary. An English translationby Swami Madhavanda is availble, published by Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta.

3. As a ready reckoner, the following terms and explanation s are given. These are notexhaustive but only indicative.

4. The new school of Indian logic lays much stress on the means of valid knowledge(Pramana), particularly to inference (reasoning). The terms are defined very accuratley.The methodology is unique in its brevity without sacrificing clarity.

5. It deals with four Pramanas - Perception (Pratyaksha), Inference (Anumana),Similarity (Upamana ) and Verbal Testimony (Sabda), Vedanta has accepted two more -Presumption (Arthapatti) and Non-cognition (Anupalabdhi).

6. Perception is the knowledge through the sense organs.

7.1. Inference is in the form of a syllogism -(1) The Mountain is with fire 6� > � ] 1� RW � > � t 5 B :�R 5 �Q ��Because it has smoke (4 � V :� > �1 > �R 1�Q �� Like the hearth � :� B R 5 � A� >� 1�Q �� � In this syllogism, Mountainis called Paksha (subject) ." With fire" is Probandum (Sadya), Fire is the reason (Hetu)and Hearth is the example (Drishtanta). The sadya is established by the knowledge of theinvariable concomitance between fire and smoke.

80

7.2. A defective probans (fallacious reason) (Hetvabhasa) will obstruct the inferentialknowledge and they are of five kinds. (1) Reason that strays away (Savyabhichara) (2)the adverse reason (viruddha) (3) the opposable reason (Satpratipaksha) (4) theunestablished reason (asiddha) and the stultified reason (bhadita)

7.3. The straying reason (savyabhichara) is otherwise known as anaikantika (literally notunfailing in its association with the probandum) It is of three kinds - viz, common(sadharana) , uncommon (asadharana) and non-conclusive (anupasamharin)

7.4. The common strayer (asadharana) is that variety of straying reason which is presentin a place where the probandum (sadhya) is not present; as in the argument-"Themountain has fire,because it is knowable". In this argument, knowability is found in atank where fire is not present. The uncommon strayer (asadharana) is that reason whichis present in the subject (paksha) and not present in any similar example (sapaksa) orcounter-example (vipaksa); as soundness (sabdatva), in the argument - "Sound is eternal,because it is sound", sabdatva (sound-ness) being present only in sound, and nowhereelse, eternal or non-eternal. The non-conclusive strayer (anupasamharin) is that reasonwhich has no affirmative or negative example (anvayadrishtana orvyathirekadrishtanta); as knowableness (premeyatva) in the argument - " All things arenon-eternal, because they are knowable". Here, no example is available since all thingsare treated as paksa.

7.5. The adverse reason (viruddha) is one which is invariably concomitant with with thenon-existence of the probandum; as producibility (kritakatva), in the argument - "Soundis eternal, because it is produced". Here producibility is invariably concomitant withnon-eternality, which amounts to the non-existence of eternality.

7.6 The opposable reason (satpratipaksa) is one which admits of being counter-balancedby another reason that proves the non-existence of the probandum; as audibility in theargument--"Sound is eternal, because it is audible, like soundness (Sabdatva). Thecounter - reason in this case is producibility (Kritakatva) in the argument-"Sound is non-eternal, because it is producible:".

7.7 The unestablished reason (asiddha) is of three kinds; viz, unestablished in respect ofabode (asrayaasiddha), unestablished in respect of itself (swarupaasiddha) andunestablished in respect of its concomitance (vyapyatvaasiddha). The reason isasryasiddha in the argument - "Sky-lotus is frgrant, because it is lotus, like the lotus of apond." Here, sky - lotus is the abode or subject and it never exists. The reasonswarupasiddha in the argument - "Sound is a quality, because it is visible, like colour".Here, visibility cannot be predicated of sound, which is only audible. The reason issaid to be an adventious condition (upadhi) which is pervasive of the probandum but notpervasive of the probans, In the argument - "The mountain has smoke, because it hasfire",contact with wet fuel is the adventious condition (upadhi). "Where there is smoke,there is contact with wet fuel"-thus it is pervasive of the probandum . There is nocontact with wet fuel in every place where there is fire; for instance, a red-hot iron ballhas no contact with wet fuel; thus the upadhi is non-pervasive of the probans. In this

81

manner,contact with wet fuel is the upadhi in the present instance, because it is pervasiveof the probandum but not pervasive of the probans. And fire, in the argument underreference, is vyapyatvaasiddha, since it is associated with an adventitious condition(upadhi),

7.8 The stultified reason (bhadita) is one which is put forward to prove a probandumwhose non-exitence is established by another proof.. "Fire is not hot, because it is asubstance ", the probandum is "not being hot"; its reverse - "being hot" - is perceivedthrough tactile perception; so the probans is stultified (badhita).

8. Similarity (Upamana). Analogical cognition consists in the knowledge of relationbetween a name and the object.

9. Verbal testimony (Sabda) . Verbal expectancy (Akanksha) congruity (Yogyata) andproximity (Sannidhi) these are causes that bring about verbal cognition.

10. Presumption (Arthapatti) is of an explanatory fact (upapadaka) from a knowledge ofthe thing to be explained (upapadya). Stoutness of a man who does not eat at day timeis inexplicable unless we assume his eating at night.

11, Non-cognition (Anupalabdhi) is the distinctive cause of that experience of non-existence which is not generated by an instrument of cognition, If on a brightly litground, there existed a pot ,it should be known. Now it is not known. Therefore thereis non-existence of the pot on the ground.

12. Definition (lakshana): The usual method is to give a simple definition and examinethe purpose of each word included in it (Dala-prayojana-chinta). Definition issusceptible to three faults. (Dosha). If we define a cow an animal with horns, it extendsto non-cows (ativyapti-over-applicability), it does not include cows which have no horns(avyapti-non-inclusiveness) If we define cow as "a single hoofed animal", it is notapplicable to any cow at all (Asambava-non-applicability).

13. The cause and effect relationship (Karya-karana bhava) is established by thecopresence (anvaya) and co-absence (vyatireka) (Yatsattve yatsatvam yadabhaveyadabhavah).

14. Causes are three. (1) Material cause (Samavayi karana) is a substance e, thread forthe cloth. (2) Non-material cause (asamavayi Karana) is quality or action. eg conjunctionof thread (Tantusamyoga) (3) Others . Nimitta karana - the weaver -

15. I n order to point out the difference between the various cognitions, perceptional,inferential,verbal etc, an attribute is assumed in each. objectness (vishayata), subjectness(Vishayita), Causality (Karanata) effectness (Karyata) etc.

16. Avacchedaka and avacchinna: That which delimits a thing or an attribute is calledavacchedaka, while the delimited is avachinna. Gatatva is avacchedaka and Gata isavachinna.

82

17. Abhava" Non-existence is a positive entity and it is of four kinds. Prior non-existence (Pragabhava) annihilative non-existence (Dwamsabhava), absolute non-existence (atyantabhava) and mutual non-existence (anyonyabhava).

18. Pratiyogin: A thing of which the non-existence is predicated is the pratiyogin. The potis the pratiyogin of the non-existence of the pot.

19. Vyapya and Vyapaka: That which has narrower extension is vyapya and that whichhas wider extension is vyapaka. Smoke is vyapya and fire is vyapaka.

20. Upajivya and upjivaka: That which is depended upon is upajivya and that whichdepends upon is upajivaka. Perception is upajivya and inference, sabda etc. is upajivaka.

21. Defects in Anumana (1): Siddasadana is establishing what has already beenestablished. (2) Arthanthara Probandun (Sadya) will not be there while Probans (Hetu)is there. (3) Sadana Vaikalya: Probans (Hetu) is not established in example (Drishtanta)(4) Baghaasiddha: Probans (Hetu) partially non-established in Paksha (subject).

83

Appendix II

1. Siddanta Kaumudi (By Bhattoji Dikshita ) with a commentary "Balamanorama" byVasudeva Dikshita is the standard text book for the study of Sanskrit grammar. Englishtranslations are available. Siddanta Kaumudi is a detailed explanation of the Sutras ofPanini in a subjectwise order.

2. Panini has formulated Sanskrit Grammar in "Ashtadhyayi" with 8 chapters of fourPadas each - total 3983 Sutras. In addition, he has given a list of verb roots (Dhatupata)under ten categories classified into Atmanepada a nd Parasmaipada - total 1943 roots.

3. Panini's Ashtadhyayi is a masterpiece in the field of Philology. It has beencommented upon by Vararuchi in a vartika and by Patanjali in his Maha Bhasya.

4. In the methodology of the Paninian Grammar, the most important and the unique isthe Pratyahara Sutras.

Ì ÒÍ0� Q������ �����K �L" Q �����������ÏÌ R W& Q ������ ����ÏW Ì RX ' �Q ������ ������B ; � > � <,Q ������ ������= 0� Q������ ������+� :� & 0� 5 � :�Q ��������

���� ��� ��* � 9 � +�Q ������� �����% � / 4 � @�Q ������ �����)� 8 � $ �. 3? �Q ������ ����� �#� 7�( - 2� '� , 1 �> �Q ������ � ����� �" �6� ; �Q ������ �����? � @ � A� <Q������ ����

���� ��� ��B =Q ����� ����

5, Based on these 14 Sutras, Pratyaharas which are grammatical symbols or abbreviatesare formed For example, the Pratyahara Ì ' � Q (beginning letter in Sutra 1 and the last

letter in Suitra 4 ) denote all the vowels, Similarly B =Q (the first letter of Sutra 5 andthe last letter of Sutra 14 denote all consonants. There are 43 Pratyaharas for differentcombinations. The last letter at the end of each Sutra is the indicating letter.

6. The technical terms numbering about 100, the interpreting and injunction rules havebeen clearly defined at the outset.

7. Another scientifically designed feature is the rules for conjunction of words, (Sandhi).This is based on the concept of Savarna, - letters which have the same place ofutterance in our vocal system and which in uttering have the same amount of effort.

84

8. Another important feature is the large number of Pratyayas - affixes - to be added tonouns and verbs and a great variety of derivatives are obtained. For example, for nouns,21 affixes are given - called A� U 6� Q� �� (7 case ending each for Singular, Dual and Plural).

Similarly, 18 Suffixes are given for verbs called - � 1 � &Q � �� � There are also number ofsuffixes for noun and verb derivatives.

9. Amarakosa is a Sanskrit dictionary , a separate work by Amarakosa , givingsynonyms of Sanskrit words.