वेदान्तसारः/द्वितीयाध्यायः/तृतीयःपादः

by रामानुजाचार्यः

द्वितीयाध्याये तृतीयः पादः

वियदधिकणम् १

न वियदश्रुतेः ॥ १ ॥

वियन्नोत्पद्यते, अश्रुतेः | श्रुतिः श्रवणम् । निरवयवस्यात्मन इवोत्पत्तिश्रवणासंभवात् ॥

अस्ति तु ॥ २ ॥

ADHYAAYA II, PADA III

VIYADADHIKARANA 1

1. Na viyadaSruteh

The spatial ether is not produced on account of the non-hearing of its production.

The spatial ether is not generated, because there are not heard the scriptural statements on its production. It is not possible to hear from the scriptures the origination of it which has no parts, just as in the case of the self.

2. Asti tu

But there is hearing about the production of the spatial ether.

१९२

[अधि

वेदान्तसारः

श्रवणम्¹संभवत्येव--"²आत्मन आकाशः संभूतः" इत्येव हि श्रुतेिरतीन्द्रियार्थविषया³ वियदुत्पतिं प्रतिपादयत्ति । ⁴आत्मनः "न जायते" इति प्रतिषेधादनुत्पत्तिः ॥

गौण्यसंभवाच्छब्दाश्च ॥ ३ ॥

"तत्तेजोऽसृजत" इति तेजः:प्राथम्यवचनात् "आकाशः संभूतः" इति ⁵श्रुतिर्गौणी । " वायुश्चान्तरिक्षं चैतदमृतम् इति शब्दाश्च ॥

It is heard that the spatial ether is a product. Indeed, the very same scriptural text, which treats of the objects, that are beyond the congnizance of the sense-organs declares that the spatial ether is a product- 'The Spatial ether is produced from the self' (Tait. II-1-2) But the individual self is known not produced because the scriptural statement 'He is not born' (Kath. I-2-18).

3. Gaunyasambhavaacchabdaacca

The scriptural text here, has a secondary meaning, on account of the impossibility and of the verbal authority.

Fire is mentioned as the first product in the text, 'It sent forth fire' (Chaand. VI-2-3). Hence, the text, 'The spatial ether is produced' (Tait. II-1-2). is to be taken in the secondary sense. It is so also because there is the text, ' The wind and the spatial ether. This is Immortal' (Brh. II-3-3).

1भवत्येव M 1. , 2आत्मनः omitted M 1, 2. Pr, 3विषयतया M 2., 4आत्मनोऽपि M 1, 2.Pr., 5श्रुतिः omitted M 1. 2. १] द्वितीयाध्याये तृतीयः पादः १९३

            स्याचैकस्य ब्रह्यशब्दवत् ॥ ४ ॥

एकस्य संभूतशब्द्स्याकाशे गौणत्वमन्यत्र मुख्यत्वं 'त्वनुषङ्गे संभव-त्येव, श्रवणाव्रुतिवत् । यथैकस्य ब्रह्मशब्दस्य "तस्मादेतद् ब्रह्म नाम रूपमन्नं च जायते इति प्रकृतौ गौणत्वम् ; '* तपसा चीयते ब्रह्म इति मुख्यत्वमावृत्तौ ॥

    परिहरति--

           प्रतिज्ञाहानिरव्यतिरेकात् ॥ ५ ॥

     4. Syaccaikasya Brahmas'abdavat 

A word may be used in different senses, as in the case of the word, Brahman.

The word, Sambhuta is used in a secondary sense with reference to the spatial ether, and in its original sense with reference to other objects. This discrimination is quite possible when the same word is referred to in a further text, just as in the case of the word which is actually uttered in other place. Consider the following for instance-The word, Brahman, is used in the secondary sense in the text, 'From Him is born this Brahman" name, form and food ' (Mund. 1-10). Here the word Brahman denotes the Prakrti in the secondary sense. But in other text it is used in the primary sense; vide "The Brahman swells on His thought' (Mund. 1.9).

This view is refuted thus-

       5. Pratijnahaniravyatirekat 

The non-abandonment of the Pratijna (proposition) results from non-difference.

1 त्वनुषग्ने omitted M 1 : तु omitted Pr.

,

१९४

[अधि.

वेदान्तसारः

'येनाश्रुतं श्रुतम्' इत्यादिनैकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानप्रतिज्ञाया ¹अहानिर्वेियदादेर्ब्रह्मकार्यत्वेन तदव्यतिरेकादेव ॥

शब्देभ्यः ॥ ६ ॥

'आकाशः संभूतः' इत्यादेिशब्देभ्योऽवगतां वियदुत्पत्तिं 'तते- जोऽसृजत' इत्यत्राकाशशब्दावचनावगतं तेजःप्राथम्यं न ²निवारयितुं क्षमम् ॥

यावद्विकारं तु विभागो लोकवत् ॥ ७॥

The proposition, mentioned in the scriptural text, 'By hearing on whom, the unheard becomes heard' is this-'The knowledge of one produces the knowledge of all'. This proposition is not discarded, because the spatial ether etc. are the effects produced by the Brahman and they are not different from Him.

6. Sabdebyh

This follows from other texts. The scriptural text, namely, 'The ether is produced' makes one understand that the spatial ether is created. This statement cannot be over-ridden by the absense of the word Akasa in the text, ' He produced the fire', which declares that the fire was the first among the creatures.

7. Yavadvikaram tu vibhago lokavat

But the division (i.e. origination) extends over all effects as in popular worldly usage.
¹ अहानिः omitted M 2. ² नि omitted M 1 ' ऐतदात्म्यमिदं सर्वम्' इत्यादिनाकाशादेरपेि विकारत्वावगमात्, तेजःप्रभृतिविभागवचमं सर्वस्य प्रदर्शनार्थमेिति निश्चीयते; '1यथा लोके 'दशेमे देवदत्तपुत्राः ' इत्युक्त्वा तेषु केषांचिदुत्पत्तिवचनम् |

एतेन मातरिश्वा व्याख्यातः ॥ ८ ॥

'तेजोऽत: ' इत्यादि वक्तुं वायोः पृथगुपादानम् ॥

असंभवस्तु सतोऽनुपपत्तेः ॥ ९ ॥

The spatial ether, etc. undergo modifications, as stated in the text, 'All this has Him as the Self' (Chand. VI-8-7). What has been determined here is this-- The statements made as regards the creation of fire, etc. are intended to include also the creation of all other creatures. In the popular usage, some one has said first, ' All these ten are the sons of Devadatta . Then he mentions some of them as born from Devadatta.

8. Etena Mettarishwa vyakhyatah

Hereby the wind becomes explained (as an effect). The wind is separately mentioned here so that it may be referred to in the further Sutras 11-3-10 and so on.

9. Asambhavastu satonupapatteh

The non-origination is for that existence only, because of its impossibility in other cases.

1 यथा च Pr, असंभवस्तु परस्य ब्रह्मण एव ।इतरस्य 'सदेव' इत्यवधारणाद्यनुपपत्तेरुत्पत्तिरेव॥

तेजोऽधिकरणम् २

¹आकाशादिव्यवहितकार्याणामपि साक्षाद्ब्रह्मण उत्पत्तिं वक्तुं पूर्वपक्षमाह-

तेजोऽतस्तथा ह्याह ॥ १० ॥

तेजो ² वायोरेवोत्पद्यते, न साक्षाद्ब्रह्मणः | 'वायोरग्निः' इति ह्याह' ³ ॥

The impossibility of the production is only in the case of the Brahman. The objects, other than the Brahman, are created, because there is in the text 'existence only' (Chdnd. VI-2-2) the word Eva (only) excluding others

TEJODHIKARANA 2

The effects that are said to have been produced with the mediation of the ether etc. are produced directly by the Brahman. To establish this truth, the Sutrakara raises the following objections to answer-

10.Tejotastathahyaha

Fire is produced thence, for thus the scripture declares'.

The fire is originated from the wind alone and not directly from th Brahman, because the scriptural text states thus- 'From wind the fire is produced' (Tait. 1-2.1-2).

{{smaller|¹ Pre omits this introductory passage. I ² एव omitted M 1,

³हेि omitted M 1. Pr.

आपः ॥ ११ ॥

'अग्नेरापः' इति श्रुतेरापोऽग्नेः ॥

पृथिवी ॥ १२ ॥

पृथिव्यद्भ्यः, ' अद्भयः पृथिवी ' इति श्रुतेः ॥

अधिकाररूपशब्दान्तरेभ्यः ॥ १३ ॥

' ता अन्नमसृजन्त ' इत्यन्नशब्देन पृथिव्येवाभिधीयते, ¹भूत-

11. Apah

Water originates from fire. Water originates from fire as stated in the text, From fire the water' '(Tait. 1-2-1-2).

12. Prithvi

The earth originates from water. The earth is produced from water. The scriptural text in support of this is this-From water the earth (Tait. 1-2-1-2)

13. Adhikararupashabdantarebhyah"

Earth alone is referred to, on account of the context, the colour, and other texts. The word 'food' mentioned in the text, They created the food' (Chand. VI-2.4), denotes the earth only; because of the context of the creation of the elements. The earth is

¹महाभूत M 3. Pr सृष्ट्यधिकारात्; ' यत्कृष्णं तदन्नस्य ' इति पृथिवीरूपविधानात्, ' अद्भ्यः पृथिवी ' इति पृथिवीशब्दाच्च '¹ ॥ राद्धान्तमाह-

तदभिध्यानादेव तु तल्लिङ्गात् सः ॥ १४ ॥

' तत्तेज ऐक्षत ' ' ता आप ऐक्षन्त ' इति तदभिध्यानरूपात् ' तदैक्षत बहु स्याम् ' इत्येतत्सरूपात्² परमात्मकारणत्वलिङ्गात् स एव परमात्मा तेज:प्रभृतिशरीरकस्तत्तच्छब्दैः साक्षात्कारणत्वेनाभिधीयते ॥

stated to have a colour in the scriptural text. ' That which is black is of the food' (Chand. VI-4-1). The word 'earth,' is mentioned in the text, 'The earth springs forth from water' (Tait. 1-2-1-2).

Here the conclusive answer of the objection is this-

14. Tadabhidhyanadeva tu tallingat sah

But He is the cause of the creation, etc. of the world; because there are indicative marks namely His contemplation.' There is the expression in the phrases, 'The fire thought' (Chand. VI-2-3) and 'The water, thought' (Chand. VI.2.4) which resemble more or less the other text' That thought may I become many and furnish the token of the universal cause i.e. Highest Self. This text proves that the Highest Self is the direct cause of the creation, etc. of the world; because He has fire etc. as His body and is denoted by the words fire etc.

{{smaller|¹ शब्दाभिधानाच्च Pr. ²स्वरूपात् Pr.

२]

१९९

द्वितीयाध्याये तृतीयः पादः

विपर्ययेण तु क्रमोऽत उपपद्यते च ॥ १५ ॥

पारंपर्यक्रमात् वेिपर्ययेण ' एतस्माज्जायते प्राणः खं वायुर्ज्योतिरापः¹' इत्यादिवाक्याद्यः साक्षाद्ब्रह्मणः सृष्टिरूपः क्रमः² सोप्यतस्तेजःप्रभृतिशरीरकब्रह्मण एव सृष्टेरुपपद्यते ॥

'अन्तरा विज्ञानमनसी क्रमेण तल्लिङ्गादेिति चेत्;न, अविशेषात् l १६ ॥'

15. Viparyayena tu kramota upapadyate ca

The contrariety of the order of succession is possible, only if the origination of all effect is from Him (the Brahman).

The order of succession in a different form is stated in the scriptural text, From Him is produced the vital wind. the spatial ether, wind, fire and water · (Kath. 11.1-3) From this statement it is clear that the creation proceeds direct from the Brahman. Therefore it follows that the crea- tion proceeds from the Brahman, ,who has fire, etc. as His body.

16. Antaravijnanamanasi kramena tallingaditi cet ; na, avisesat

If it be said that knowledge (sense-organs) and mind, which are mentioned between the vital wind and the elements are stated in order of succession,

¹ज्योतिरापः omitted M 1. ²सृष्टिरुपक्रमः Pr. भूतप्राणयोरन्तराले इन्द्रियग्राममनसी क्रमेणोत्पद्येते इत्येतत्परमिदं वाक्यम्–“खं वायुज्योतिरापः' इत्यादि, श्रुत्यन्तरप्राप्तक्रमप्रत्यभि 'ज्ञानरूपालिङ्गात्'¹ । अत इदमपि पारंपर्यक्रमपरमिति चेत्; न, “ एतस्माज्जायते ' इत्यस्य प्राणादिपृथिव्यन्तेषु सर्वेषु प्रत्येकमन्वयाविशेषात् । अतस्तेजःप्रभृतीनामपि साक्षात्परमात्मैव कारणम् ॥

तत्तेज ऐक्षत' इति तेजःप्रभृतिशब्दा लोके तत्तद्वस्तुवाचिनो ब्रह्मणि भाक्ता इत्यत्राह-

owing to the particular mark ; we say , not so , on account of non-difference. That between the vital wind (Prana) and elements are produced the sense-organs and mind, is taught in the text- ' The spatial ether, the wind, the fire and the water,' (Mund2-1-3), because the recognition of the order mentioned in the other Sruti passage. Therefore this text also states the creation in certain order with mediation. It is not so ; because the statement, ' From Him is produced ' (Mund 2-1-3), is common in regard to the creation of the substances beginning with the vital-wind and ending with the earth. Therefore the Highest Self only is the direct cause of fire, etc

In the statements ' The fire thought ', etc.' the words,Fire, etc., refer to the well-known popular fire etc. They are used in secondary sense in the case of the Brahman. To this objection the reply is stated thus :-

¹श्रुतिप्रत्यभिज्ञानरूपाल्लिङ्गात् A 1. Pr.) २] द्वितीयाध्याये तृतीयः पादः २०१ चराचरव्यपाश्रयस्तु स्यात्तद्व्यपदेशो- ऽभाक्तस्तद्भावभावित्वात् ॥ १७ ॥ चराचरवस्तुसंबन्धी तत्तद्वाचकः शब्दो¹ ब्रह्मण्यभाक्तो मुख्य एव, ' अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रवेिश्य नामरूपे व्याकरवाणि ' ²इतेि सर्वस्य वस्तुनो नामरूपभाक्त्वस्यात्मतया ब्रह्मानुप्रवेशभावित्वात् | लैौकिकास्त्वेवमजानन्तो वाच्यैकदेशे प्रयुञ्जते ॥

17. Caracaravyapasrayastu syattadvyapadesobhaktastadbhavabhlvitavt But the terms which are connected with the things movable and immovable, i.e. denoting those things, are non-secondary (i.e. of primary denotative power, with regard to the Brahman); since their denotative power is effected by the being of that Brahman. Those terms which are connected with things movable and imlnovable, i.e. the terms denoting those things, refer to the Brahman in the non-secondary sense, i.e. in the primary sense. According to the scriptural text 'Let me enter as the soul and separate out name and form' (Chand. VI- 3-2) the Brahman enters all the things as their soul and gives them separate names and forms. But the people ignorant of this, use the words in a portion of their full meaning. ¹वाची शब्दः M 2. ²इति तु Pr. २०२ वेदान्तसारः [अधि. आत्माधिकरणम् ३ नात्मा श्रुतेर्नित्यत्वाच्च ताभ्यः ॥ १८ ॥ नात्मोत्पद्यते, ' न जायते म्रियते ' इति श्रुते: ; ' नित्यो नित्यानाम् ' इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यो नित्यत्वावगतेश्च ॥ ज्ञाधिकरणम् ४ ज्ञोऽत एव ॥! १९ ॥ ' अथ यो वेदेदं जिघ्राणीति स आत्मा ' ' मनसैतान् कामान्

ATMADHIKARANA 3 18. Natma sruternityatvacca tabhyah The self is not born; because he is thus heard from the scriptural texts and on account of eternity, which results from them. The self is not born, because we hear Him unborn from the scriptural statement, ' He is neither born nor dead ' (Kath. 1-2-18). He is also apprehended to be eternal ; because there are tbe texts, ' Eternal among the eternals ' (Svet. VI.13) etc. JNADHIKARANA 4 19. Jnota eva For the same reason, the individual self is in. variably the knower. The self, either in the state of bondage or in the state of Mukti (i.e. final release), is invariably the knower. Thus he is heard from the scriptural text, ·' Now, he who knows, ' let me smell this' 'he is the self ' (Chand. VIII.12.4). 'He, ३, ४] द्वितीयाध्याये तृतीयः पादः २०३ पश्यन् रमते य एते ब्रह्मलोके ' इत्यादिश्रुतेर्बद्धो मुक्तश्चात्मा ज्ञातैव । मनोऽस्य ¹दिव्यं चक्षुः इति श्रुतेः स्वधर्मभूतं ज्ञानं मनः ॥' उत्क्रान्तिगत्यागतीनाम् ॥ २० ॥ ²उत्कान्तिगत्यागतीनां श्रुतेरणुर्जीवः ॥ स्वात्मना चोत्तरयोः ॥ २१ ॥ गत्यागत्योः स्वात्मनैव संपाद्यत्वादुप्यणुत्वं निश्चितम् ॥

with the mind, sees these desires and experiences enjoyment of them that are related to the Brahman-world" (Chand.VIII.12.,5). Here by the word' mind' is meant the knowledge that is his essential characteristic as stated in the text 'The mind is his divine eye' (Chand. VIII.12.5). 20. Utkrantigatytagatinam And on account of his going up, moving and returning. The individual selves are atomic in size; because the scriptures state that they go up leaving the body, that they move and that they return to the body. 21. Svatmana cottarayoh And on account of the latter two being effected through his very self. The moving and the returning must be taken as effected by the self himself. Hence the individual selves are determined to be atomic in size.

¹दैवं Pr, ²अत्र added before M 1.

नाणुरतच्छूतेरिति चेत्; न, इतराधिकारात् ॥ २२ ॥

' स वा एष महानज आत्मा ' इति श्रुतेर्नाणुरिति चेत्; न, ' यस्यानुवित्तः प्रतिबुद्ध आत्मा ' इति परमात्माधिकारात् ।

स्वशब्दोन्मानाभ्यां च ॥ २३ ॥

' एषोऽणुरात्मा ' इत्यणुशब्दात् ' आराग्रमात्रो ह्यवरः ' इत्युद्धृत्य¹मानाच्चाणुरात्मा ॥

22.Nanuratacchruteriti cenna, itaradhikarat

If it be said that the individual selves are notatomic in size, on account of the scriptural statement of what is not that ; we say no, on account of the other's being in the topic.

The individual selves are not atomic in size ; because there is the scriptural text, ' Verily He is infinite, unborm Self' (Brh. IV-4-22). This is not so, because the context refers to the Highest Self. This is seen in the text, ' By whom this Self is understood and meditated ' (Brh. VI-4-13).

23. Svasabdonmanabhyam ca

And on account of the use of the word referring to him and his measurement. The word ' atomic ' is used in the scriptural text, ' This self of atomic size ' (Mund. III-1-9). In another text the self is described thus– ' He is of the size of the point of a goad or even subtler than it ' (Sve. V-9). Hence the self is atomic in size

¹उन्मानशब्दाच्च Pr.

अणोरपि सकलदेहव्यापिवेदनानुभवेऽन्यमतेन हेतुमाह-

अविरोधश्चन्दनवत् ॥ २४ ॥

यथा ¹चन्दनबिन्दुर्देहैकदेशस्थोऽपि सकलदेहव्यापि सुखं जनयति,तद्वदविरोधः ॥

अवस्थितिवैशेष्यादिति चेत्; न, अभ्युपगमाद्धृदि हि ॥ २९ ॥

The self, who is atomic in size, experiences the sensations extending over the whole of the body. In this regard the arguments advanced by other school of thought are thus-

24. Avirodhascandanavat

There is no contradiction, taking the case of the sandal-ointment for instance. A drop of sandal-ointment, although applied to one spot of the body, produces the refreshing sensation extending all over the body. Same is the case ,with the self also. Hence no contradiction arises.

25. Avasthitivaisesyaditi cenna, abhyupagamddhrudi hi

Should it be said that the case is different on account of specialisation of abode; we say no, on account of the acknowledgment (of a place for the self. Vis. the heart).

¹हरिचन्दनबिन्दुर्देहैकदेशवर्त्यप्यणुरपि M 1. ¹देहदेशविशेषस्थितेश्चन्दनस्येति चेत्; न, आत्मनोऽपि तदभ्युपगमात्, हृदेि ह्ययमात्मा, ' योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु हृद्यन्तर्ज्योतिः ' इति श्रुतेः ॥ स्यमतेनाह--

गुणाद्वालोकवत् ॥ २६ ॥

आत्मा स्वगुणेन ज्ञानेन सकलदेहं व्याप्यानुभवति, यथा मणिप्रभृयः स्वकीयेनालोकेन सकलदेशं व्याप्य प्रकाशयन्ति, ' प्रज्ञामात्रास्वर्पिताः ' इति श्रुते:" ॥

If it be said that the case is different, because the drop of the sandal-ointment is in contact with a definite part of the body; we say-this is not so; because the self also abides in a part of the body. It is an accepted fact that the self abides in the heart. In support of this statement, there is the following scriptural passage ' He who is within the heart, among the Pranas, the person of light consisting of knowledge ' (Brh. IV. 3-7). The author states his own view thus:-

26. Gunadva lokaat

Or through his quality, like the light. The self experiences happiness by pervading the whole of the body through knowledge, which is his attribute. This is similar to a gem, etc. that enlighten all the space pervading through their own light. Thus the scriptural text says ¹ देश omitted A 1,देह omitted Pr. ²सकलं देशं omitted A 1, M 2. ³श्रुत्युक्तेः A 1.

न ¹ज्ञानात्मनोर्व्यतिरेक इत्यत्राह-

व्यतिरेको गन्धवत्; तथाच दर्शयति ॥ २७॥

' गन्धवती पृथिवी ' इतिवत् ' अहं जानामि ' इति गुणत्वेनोपलब्धेर्व्यतिरेकोऽस्ति । दर्शयति च श्रुतिर्व्यतिरेकम्- ' जानात्येवायं पुरुषः ' इति ॥

पृथगुपदेशात् ॥ २८ ॥

' The elements of being are fixed on the elements of intellegence (kaus.III-9). On the objection that the knowledge and the self are not distinct entities from each other, the answer is stated thus :-

27. Vyatireko gandhavat; tathaca darsayati

There is distinction as in the case of the smell ; thus scripture declares. There is distinction between the knowledge and the self; because the knowledge is apprehended as the attribute of the self, in the notion, ' I know '. This is similar to the smell, which is known as a quality of the earth by the notion ' the earth has the smell '. The scriptural text, namely, ' This person knows ' also proves this.

28. Pruthagupadesat

It is so on account of the scriptural statement as different.
¹ज्ञानादात्मनः M 1. आत्मनः पृथक्वेन चोपदिश्यते ' न हि विज्ञातुर्विज्ञातेर्विपरिलोपो वेिद्यते ' इति ॥ ' योऽयं विज्ञानमयः ' इति ज्ञानमात्रव्यपदेशः कथमित्यत्राह-

तद्गुणसारत्वात्तु¹ तद्व्यपदेशः प्राज्ञवत् ॥ २९ ॥

ज्ञानगुणसारत्वादात्मनो ²ज्ञानमेिति व्यपदेशः, यथा प्राज्ञस्य विपश्चितोऽपि ' सत्यं ज्ञानम् ' इति ॥ The self is taught to be different from the knowledge in the scriptural text, ' There is no cessation of the knowledge of the knower' (Brh. IV.3-30). How then is it possible to explain the statement that the self is only mere knowledge, as found in the scriptural text. ' He is the only knowledge ' (Brh. IV.3-7). It is replied thus :-

29. Tadgunasaratvattu tadyapadesah prajnavat

But the self is designated as the knowledge; because he has that knowledge for his essential quality ; as in the case of the intelligent Highest Self (Prajna).
The self is designated as knowledge; because he has knowledge as his essential quality. As regards the intelligent Self (Brahman). it is so stated in the scriptural text, ' The Brahman ' is the Truth, knowledge ' (Tait. I-2-1).

¹ तु ०mitted M 1. ²ज्ञानादि A1 M 2.

थावदात्मभावित्वाच्च न दोषस्तद्दर्शनात् ॥ ३० ॥

आत्मस्वरूपानुबन्धित्वात् ज्ञानस्य, तेन व्यपदेशे¹ न दोषः । स्वरूपानुबन्धिधर्मत्वेन गोत्वादीनां खण्ङादेर्गौरित्यादिव्यपदेशो हि दृश्यते ॥

सुषुप्त्यादिष्वसतो ज्ञानस्य यावदात्मभावित्वं कथमित्यत्राह--

पुंस्त्वादिवत्वस्य सतोऽभिव्यक्तियोगात् ॥ ३१ ॥

30. Yavadatmabhavitvcca na doasstaddarsanat

No mistake arises in such designation, since the quality of knowledge exists in the self, as long as the self exists; this is so observed in the scriptural text.

No mistake arises, when the self is designated as the knowledge; because that knowledge is seen through out as the essential nature of the self. Indeed, it is seen that a cow with broken horns is designated as cow, on account of its particular characteristic appearing through out as its essential nature.

How could it be said that the knowledge is always associated with the self as long as he exists, when it is absent in him at the state of deep sleep (i.e. susupti) ? In reply it is stated thus :-

31. Pumstvadivattvasya satobhivyaktiyogat

Since there may be the manifestation of that which has been already in existence, as in the case of the virile power, etc,

{{smaller|)¹व्यपदेशो M 2. सुषुप्त्यादिषु सतो ज्ञानस्यानभिव्यक्तस्यापि जागरादावभिव्यक्तिसंभवात् स्वरूपानुबन्ध्येव ज्ञानम् | यथा पुंस्त्वाऽसाधारणसप्तमधातोर्बाल्येऽपि सतो युवत्वेऽभिव्यक्तिः ॥

नित्योपलब्ध्यनुपलब्धिप्रसङ्गोऽन्यतरनियमो वान्यथा ॥ ३२ ॥

जीवात्मनो ज्ञातृत्वमणुत्वं चोक्तम् ; ,अन्यथा ज्ञप्तिमात्रसर्वगतात्मवादे² तावन्नित्यवत् सर्वदोपलब्धिः स्यात्, ³संकोचकाभावात् | विद्यमानाया

The knowledge, that is in existense does not manifest itself in the deep sleep (Suspti) etc. But it manifests itself in the waking state etc. Therefore the knowledge is certainly the essential nature of the self. This is similar to the virile power, which is the seventh of the elementary substances forming the body and is peculiar to males.⁴ It manifests itself only in the youth though it was in existence even in the boyhood.

32. NityopalabdhyanupalabdhiPrasangonya'taraniyamo vanyatha

Otherwise there would result permanent consciousness or non-consciousness, or else limitative restriction to either.

It has been stated that the self is the knower and is atomic in size. Otherwise, if he is viewed as being mere knowledge and omnipresent, then consciousness would permanently take place always, because there is no reason for

¹अन्यथा omitted M 2, 3, Pr. ²सर्वगतत्ववादे M 2, ³संकोचे कारणभावात् । अविद्यमानायाः M 1.

⁴The seven elementary substances of the human body are-blood,humour, flesh, fat, marrow. bone and semon.

५]

२११

द्वितीयाध्याथे तृतीयः पादः

अनुपलब्धेरपि सैव हेतुरिति साऽपि नित्यवत् स्यात् ; ज्ञाने विद्यमानेऽपि¹ हेत्वन्तरेण निवारणाऽसंभवात् | आगन्तुकज्ञानसर्वगतात्मवादेऽपि स एव दोषः, सर्वात्मनां सर्वगतत्वेन ज्ञानहेतूनां मन:संयोगादीनां सर्वसाधारणत्वात्। अदृष्टहेतूनामपि सर्वसाधारणत्वात्तेनाऽपि न नियमः² । अथोपलब्ध्यनुप लव्ध्योर्विरोधादुपलब्धेर्वैते हेतवः स्युरनुपलब्धेर्वा, तथा सत्यन्यतरनियमः स्यात् ॥

कर्त्रधिकरणम् ५

कर्ता शास्त्रार्थवत्त्वात् ॥ ३३ ॥

restriction. By following the same line of argument, the non-consciousness also would always take place. When the knowledge is apprehended, it cannot be prevented by other reasons. The same mistakes arise in the school, that accepts the self is identical with knowledge that arises occasionally and is omnipresent. All the selves are extant everywhere. What is common to all these selves is that the knowledge is produced when they are brought in contact with the mind (manaas) and so on. Nor it cannot be restricted by Adrsta, because it is produced in all the individual selves. If it is argued that consciousness and non-consciousness are opposed to each other and therefore it may cause consciousness or non-consciousness only. In that case either consciousness or non-consciousness only will necessarily take place.

KARTRADHIKARAA 5

33. Karta sastrarthavattvat

The self is doer, on account of the scripture having a purpose to be served.

{{smaller|¹अपि omitted A 1, M 2. * ²तन्नियमः A 1,

२९२

[अधि.

वेदान्तसारः

ज्ञाता सन्नयमात्मा कर्मसु कर्ता च । आत्मनोऽकर्तृत्वे ' कुर्यात्, न कुर्यात् ' इति शास्त्रानर्थक्यं स्यात् ॥

उपादानाद्विहारोपदेशाच्च ॥ ३४ ॥

' प्राणान् गृहीत्वा स्वे शरीरे यथाकामं परिवर्तते ' इत्युपादान विहारोपदे'शाच्च कर्ता ॥

व्यपदेशाच्च क्रियायाम्; न चेन्निर्देशविपर्ययः ॥ ३५ ॥

Besides being the knower, the self is also the doer of actions. If the self is not the doer the scriptures enjoining 'one should do this or should not do this ' will become meaningless.

34. Upapadanadviharopadesacca

On account of the declaration of his taking and moving about.

' The self taking with him the senses, moves around in his own body, according to his will and pleasure ' (Brh. II-1-18). This text teaches that the self is active in taking the senses and in moving. Therefore he is the doer.

35. Vyapadesacca kriyayam; nacennirdesa- viparyayah

And on account of the designation of the self as the doer of actions. If not so, the word would have been used in different way.

९]

२१३

द्वितीयाध्याये तृतीयः पादः

' विज्ञानं यज्ञं तनुते । कर्माणि तनुतेऽपि च ' ¹ " इत्यादिना यज्ञादौ कर्तृत्वव्यपदेशाच्च कर्ता । विज्ञानशब्दो बुद्धेः, नात्मन इति चेत् ; तन्न,² तदा विज्ञानेनेति निर्देशविपर्ययः स्यात्, बुद्धेः करणत्वात् ॥

उपलब्धिवदनियमः ॥ ३६ ॥

प्रकृतेरेव कर्तृत्वे तस्याः सर्वसाधारणत्वेन पूर्वोक्तोपलब्ध्यनियमवत् फलानियमः स्यात् ॥

शक्तिविपर्ययात् ॥ ३७ ॥

The self is doer; because he is designated as an agent performing sacrifice etc. in the scriptural text, 'Knowledge (Vijnana) performs the sacrifice, and does the actions also ' (Tait. I-2-5). If it is argued that the word, Vijnana means Buddhi (understanding) and not the self; it is not so. In that case the word Vijnana should have been used with different case-affix, namely , Vijnanena (by understanding), because Buddhi is only the instrument.

36. Upalabdivadaniyamah

There would be no any definite rule, as in the case of consciousness.

In the case that the Prakrti" alone is the cause of the creation, etc. of the world, as this is common to all the selves, there would be no definite rule, as regards the distribution of results. This is similar to the case of no rule being fixed as regards the consciousness as mentioned above.

37. Saktiviparyayat

"'On account of the inversion of power."'

¹कर्माणि etc omitted A 1, M 1, Pr. ²न A 1, Pr.

२१४

[अधि.

वेदान्तसारः

प्रकृतेरेव कर्तृत्वे, कर्तुरेव भोक्त्तृत्वमिति सैव भोक्त्री स्यादित्यर्थः॥

समाध्यभावाच्च ॥ ३८ ॥

प्रकृतेरेव कर्तृत्वे ' प्रकृतेरन्योऽस्मि ' इति समाध्यभावप्रसङ्गाच्च ॥

यथा च तक्षोभयथा ॥ ३९ ॥

आ'त्मनः कर्तृत्वे ' इच्छायां करोति, अन्यथा न करोति ' इति' व्यवस्था च सिध्यति ; यथा तक्षा स्वकार्येषु । बुध्देरिच्छाभावान्न व्यवस्था, चेतनधर्मत्वादिच्छायाः ॥

Suppose the Pradhana is the doer. Then the power of enjoyment also must belong to it as there is a rule, namely, that the doer only must be enjoyer of the effect. The meaning is that the Prakruti will enjoy the fruits of the actions.

'38. Samadhyabhavacca

And on account of the absence of such a meditation.' Suppose the Prakrti is the doer. Then the meditation with the conviction, ' I am other than the Prakurti ' would not take place.

39. Yatha ca taksobhayatha

And then only, both the alternatives are possible as in the case of a carpenter.

Suppose the self is the doer. Then only the fact, namely, ' He does when he wishes and does not in other case ' is possible to accept. This is similar to the case of a carpenter, regarding his work. This fact cannot be

६]

२१५

द्वितीयाध्याये तृतीयः पादः

परायत्ताधिकरणम् ६

परात्तु तच्छ्रुतेः ॥४० ॥

' य आत्मानमन्तरो यमयति ' ¹ इत्यादिश्रुतेरात्मनः कर्तृत्वं परायत्तम्; ' सर्वस्य चाहं हृदेि संनिविष्टो मत्तः स्मृतिर्ज्ञानमपोहनं च ' इत्यादिस्मृतेश्च ॥

कृतप्रयत्नापेक्षस्तु, विहितप्रतिषिद्धावैयर्थ्यादिभ्यः ॥४१॥

acceptable in the case that the Buddhi is doer, because the desire is an attribute of sentient beings only.

PARAYATTADHIIKARAANA 6

फलकम्:C'''But, from In the Highest, the se]f's action starts, this being declared in the scripture.
The activity of the individual selves proceeds from the Highest Self. This is stated in the scriptural text, ' He, who rules the self dwelling within (Brh. III-7-22 Madh.). The Smrti text also teaches the same-' And I am placed in the hearts of all. From me come memory, knowledge, and their loss also' (Blag. Gi. XV -15).

41. Krtaprayatnapekshastu vihitapratisiddhavaiyarthtyadibhyah

But, with a view to the efforts made, the Lord makes the individual selves act; on account of the non-meaninglessness of injunctions al1d prohibition and so on.

¹ आदि omitted M 2. [

२१६

[अधि

वेदान्तसारः

जीवः स्वेच्छया प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिहेतुभूतं¹ प्रयत्नं करोति ; जीवेन² कृतं प्रयत्नं ³प्रर्वृत्तिनिवृत्तिहेतुमपेक्ष्य तदनुमतिदानेन परः प्रवर्तयतीति ⁴विधिनिषेधावैयर्थ्यनिग्रहानुग्रहेभ्योऽवगम्यते ! यथा गुरुतरदार्वादिहरणं^{5 6}दुर्बलः प्रबलसहकृतः कुर्वन्नपि स्वप्रयत्ने⁷ विधिनिषेधयोग्यो भवति, एवमेव जीवः परमपुरुषानुमतिसहकृतः प्रवर्तमानोऽपि विधिनिषेधयोग्य इति न' कश्चिद्विरोधंः ॥

अंशाधिकरणम् ७

अंशो नानाव्यपदेशादन्यथा चापि दाशकितवादित्वमधीयत एके ॥ ४२ ॥

The individual selves do an act or abstain from doing it, out of their own will. Then the Highest Self taking into account the individual soul's effort resulting the activity and abstinence, aids the individual selves in their efferts by granting his permission. This fact is known from the non- meaninglessness of injunctions and prohibitions, punishment and favoure of the Lord. A weak person cannot carry a heavy load of wood etc. himsef . Yet he carries the same with the help of a strong man and comes in the scope of the Vidhi (injunction) or Nisedha (prohibition) of the act. In the same way the individual selves do an act with the permission of the Highest Self. Yet they become parties to the injunctions or prohibitions. Hence no contradiction arises.

AMSADHIKARANA 7

42. Amso nanavyapadesadanyatha capi dasakitavadi tvamadhiyata eke

The individual self forms a part of the Brahman,

¹हेतुं A 1, M 2. ²जीवेन तु A 1, Pr. ³प्रथमप्रवृत्तिहेतुं A 1, Pr.

⁴तद्विधि M 3, Pr. ⁵भरणं A 1, pr. ⁶अबलः M 3. Pr. ⁷स्वीयप्रयत्नेन Pr.

७]

२१७

द्वितीयाध्याये तृतीयः पादः

जीवात्मा ^१परमपुरुषांशः, पृथगात्मानं प्रेरितारं च मत्वा सकारणं करणाधिपाधिपः इत्यादिनानाव्यपदेशात् | अन्यथा च ; तत्त्वमसि अयमात्मा ब्रह्म इत्यैक्योपदेशाच्च^२। ब्रह्म दाशाः इत्यादिना^३ सर्वजीवव्याप्त्यैक्यमधीयत एके । ^४अंशत्वाभ्युपगमे ह्युभयं मुख्यं भवति ॥

मन्त्रवर्णात् ॥ ४३ ॥

on account of the declaration of difference and other-wise; some also record that the Brahman is the fishermen, gamblers, and so on. The individual self is a part of the Highest Person. The scriptural texts, namely , Knowing the individual self and the actuator to be different' (S'vet. 1-6), and' He is the cause, He is the lord of the lords of the senses' (S'vet. VI-9) indicate that the individual selves are different from the Brahman. Otherwise also that the Brahman is one with the individual self, has been stated in the texts, , That thou art' (Chand. VI-IO-3) and' This self is the Brahman ' (Brit. IV -4-5). Some declare the oneness of the Brahman with the individual selves in the text,' Brahman are these fishermen etc.' (Brahma-Sukta) because He is pervading all the individual selves. Both these statements (i.e, difference and non-differ- ence between the Brahman and the individual selves) become sensible in primary and original thought, when the individual selves are held to form the part of the Brahman.

43. Mantravarnat

On account of the wording of the Mantra, the individual self must be a part of the Brahman. ^१ परमात्मांशः A 1. ^२ऐक्योपदेशः A 1, M 2. ^३ सर्वजीवानामैक्यम् M 2, Pr. ^४ अंशत्वे द्युमयं M 3.

28 २१८ वेदान्तसारः [अधि.

' पादोऽस्य विश्वा भूतानेि ' इति मन्त्रवर्णाच्च ॥ अपि स्मर्यते ॥ ४४ ॥ ' ममैवांशो जीवलोके जीवभूतः सनातनः ' इत्यादिना ॥

प्रकाशादिवत्तु नैवं परः ॥ ४५ ॥

ब्रह्मांशत्वेऽपि जीवस्य, जीवो यत्स्वरूपो यत्स्वभावश्च नैवं परः। किंतु नेिरवद्यः सर्वज्ञः सत्यसंकल्प एव सर्वदा¹ | कथम् ? प्रकाशादिवत् ; प्रकाशविशिष्टानां मणिप्रभृतीनां प्रकाशो विशिष्टैकदेशत्वेन यथांशः ।

The individual selves must be the part of the Brahman, because there is the wording of the mantra, namely, ' One quarter of Him is represented by all the beings ' (Tait. Ar. III.12-2).

44. Api smaryate

Moreover it is so stated in the Smrutis.

The smrutis have stated thus ' The individual self is an eternal part of myself, in the world of life ' (Bhag. gi. XV -7).

45. Prakasadivattu naivam parah But it is as in the case of the light, etc. Not so is the case with the Highest Self.

Though the individual self is a part of the Highest self, the latter is not of the former's characteristics and nature. But the Brahman is always free from faults, is all-knowing, and is possessed with true will. How? As in the case of the light, etc. The light which emanates from the luminous gem, etc. is regarded as a part of gem etc. By the word,

¹ सदा M 2. ४] द्वितीयाध्याये तृतीयः पादः २१९

आदिश्ब्दाद्विशेषणतैकस्वभावजातिगुणशरीराणि गृह्यन्ते | विशेषणानां विशिष्टैकदेशतया तदंशत्वेऽपि विशेषणविशेष्ययोः स्वरूपस्वभावभेदी न विरुद्धः । ' य आत्मनि तिष्ठन् यस्यात्मा शरीरम् ' इति हि श्रुतिः ॥

स्मरन्ति च ॥ ४६ ॥

चिदचिदात्मकजगतो ब्रह्मांशत्वं प्रकाशादिवदिति पराशरादयः स्मरन्ति-

' एकदेशस्थितस्याग्नेर्ज्योत्स्रा विस्तारिणी यथा |

परस्य ब्रह्मणः शक्तिस्तथेदमखिलं जगत् ॥ '

' तत्सर्वे वै हरेस्तनुः ' ' तानि सर्वाणि तद्वपुः ' इत्यादिषु ॥

' etcetera ' are apprehended the class, quality and body, that are always known as adjectives. The adjectival attributes form the portions of the objects. Yet no contra- diction arises, in regard to the difference in the essential nature and charactertistics between the objects and their adjectives. The scriptural text says thus-' He remains in the selves and has the selves for His body ' (Brh. III-7-II Madhy).

46. Smaranti ca

And the Smruti texts declare thus.

Parasara and others declare that the world consisting of sentient and non-sentient beings is the part of the Brahman and this is similar to the case of the light. The Smruti texts are these-'The fire is stationed in a place, but its light spreads all round. Thus is the whole world which is the power of the Brahman ' Vis. Pu. I-22-56). ' All those are His body ' (Vis. Pu. I-22-38). ' All those are His body ' (Vis. Pu I-22-86). २२० वेदान्तसारः [अधि.

अनुज्ञापरिहारौ देहसंबन्धाज्ज्येतिरादिवत् ॥ ४७ ॥

ब्रह्मांशत्वेऽपि सर्वजीवानां कस्यचिद्वेदाध्ययनादावनुज्ञा, कस्यचित्परिहार इत्येतौ ब्राह्मणादिदेहविशेषसंबन्धादुपपद्येते, यथाग्न्यादेःश्रोत्रियागारश्मशानादिसंबन्धात् ॥

असंततेश्चाव्यतिकरः ॥| ४८ ॥

प्रतिदेहं भिन्नत्वादणुत्वेन तत्र तत्र¹परिच्छिन्नत्वाच्च ज्ञानसुखाद्य- व्यतिकरः । अज्ञानोपाधिभ्यां ब्रह्मैव संबध्यत इति पक्षद्वयेऽपि न तद्वव्यवस्था II

47. Anujnapariharau dehasamhbhandhajjiyottradivat

Permission and prohibition result from the connection with the body, as in the case of the fire etc.

Though all the individual selves form the part of the Brahman, the permission and exclusion of some of them regarding the study of the vedas etc., are possible; because they are ordained in consideration of the connection of each individual self with a distinct body of Brhmana etc. This discrimination is similar to the case of the fire in the Srotriya's house or in the cremation ground.

48. Asantatescavyatikarah

And on account of the separateness of each self in each body, there is no confusion.

Each of the individual selves is separate in each body and is atomic in size. More over in each body he is limited. For this reason, there is no confusion in regard to the knowledge, happiness etc. This fact could not be maintained by

¹विच्छिन्नत्वाच्च M 1. ७] द्वितीयाध्याये तृतीयः पादः २२१

आभासा एव च ॥ ४९ ॥

पक्षद्वयेऽपि हेतवश्चाभासाः ॥

अदृष्टानियमात् ॥ ५० ॥

सत्यमिथ्योपाधिकृतत्वेऽप्यात्मनां ब्रह्मण एवाज्ञानमुपाधिश्चेति तत्तत्कृते नादृष्टादिनापि न नियमः ॥

अभिसंध्यादिष्वपि चैवम् ॥ ५१ ॥

the followers of the two schools, that connect the "Brahman" with ignorance or limiting conditions and hold that the Brahman gets the knowledge and happiness etc.

49. Abhasa eva ca

And the arguments also are wholly fallacious.

The arguments advanced in the other two schools are also fallacious.

50. Adrustaniyamat

And there is no definite rule due to the Adrusta.

The Brahman alone becomes the seat of ignorance and limiting conditions, when the individual selves are said to have been effected by limiting conditions that may be either true or false. Hence there is no definite rule due to the Adrusta of the selves.

51. Abhisandhyadisvapi caivam

And it is thus also in the case of the will, etc.

¹तत्कृतेन M 1. २२२ वेदान्तसारः [अधि.

अदृष्टहेतुभूताभिसंध्यादिष्वपि चैवमेव ॥

प्रदेशभेदादिति चेन्नान्तर्भावात् ॥ ५२ ॥

उपाधिसंबन्धिब्रह्मप्रदेशभेदाद्व्यवस्थेति चेत्; न, उपाधिषु गच्छत्सु सर्व प्रदेशानां तदन्तर्भावात् ॥

इति श्रीभगवद्रामनुजविरचिते वेदान्तसारे द्वितीयस्याध्यायस्य तृतीयः पादः ॥

For the same reason there can be no definite rule in the cases of the will, etc., which may cause the Adrusta.

52. Pradesabedhaditi cennantarbhavat

Should it be said that this is possible owing to the difference of place; we deny this on account of the inclusion of all places in it.

Suppose it is stated that this is possible, as the Brahman's particular place due to a limiting condition becomes the individual self. It is not so; when the limiting adjuncts move about, all the places of the Brahman become the subject of limitation.

THUS ENDS THE 3RD PADA OF THE 2ND ADHYAYA.ट

)