Brahma Sutras (Shankaracharya)

by George Thibaut | 1890 | 203,611 words

English translation of the Brahma sutras (aka. Vedanta Sutras) with commentary by Shankaracharya (Shankara Bhashya): One of the three canonical texts of the Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy. The Brahma sutra is the exposition of the philosophy of the Upanishads. It is an attempt to systematise the various strands of the Upanishads which form the ...

Second Adhyāya

The first adhyāya has proved that all the Vedānta-texts unanimously teach that there is only one cause of the world, viz. Brahman, whose nature is intelligence, and that there exists no scriptural passage which can be used to establish systems opposed to the Vedānta, more especially the Sāṅkhya system. The task of the two first pādas of the second adhyāya is to rebut any objections which may be raised against the Vedānta doctrine on purely speculative grounds, apart from scriptural authority, and to show, again on purely speculative grounds, that none of the systems irreconcilable with the Vedānta can be satisfactorily established.


Adhikaraṇa I refutes the Sāṅkhya objection that the acceptation of the Vedānta system involves the rejection of the Sāṅkhya doctrine which after all constitutes a part of Smṛti, and as such has claims on consideration.--To accept the Sāṅkhya-smṛti, the Vedāntin replies, would compel us to reject other Smṛtis, such as the Manu-smṛti, which are opposed to the Sāṅkhya doctrine. The conflicting claims of Smṛtis can be settled only on the ground of the Veda, and there can be no doubt that the Veda does not confirm the Sāṅkhya-smṛti, but rather those Smṛtis which teach the origination of the world from an intelligent primary cause.

Adhik. II (3) extends the same line of argumentation to the Yoga-smṛti.

Adhik. III (4-11) shows that Brahman, although of the nature of intelligence, yet may be the cause of the non-intelligent material world, and that it is not contaminated by the qualities of the world when the latter is refunded into Brahman. For ordinary experience teaches us that like does not always spring from like, and that the qualities of effected things when the latter are refunded into their causes--as when golden ornaments, for instance, are melted

p. xlviii

and thereby become simple gold again--do not continue to exist in those causes.--Here also the argumentation is specially directed against the Sāṅkhyas, who, in order to account for the materiality and the various imperfections of the world, think it necessary to assume a causal substance participating in the same characteristics.

Adhik. IV (12) points out that the line of reasoning followed in the preceding adhikaraṇa is valid also against other theories, such as the atomistic doctrine.

The one Sūtra (13) constituting Adhik. V teaches, according to Śaṅkara, that although the enjoying souls as well as the objects of fruition are in reality nothing but Brahman, and on that account identical, yet the two sets may practically be held apart, just as in ordinary life we hold apart, and distinguish as separate individual things, the waves, ripples, and foam of the sea, although at the bottom waves, ripples, and foam are all of them identical as being neither more nor less than sea-water.--The Śrī-bhāṣya gives a totally different interpretation of the Sūtra, according to which the latter has nothing whatever to do with the eventual non-distinction of enjoying souls and objects to be enjoyed. Translated according to Rāmānuja's view, the Sūtra runs as follows: 'If non-distinction (of the Lord and the individual souls) is said to result from the circumstance of (the Lord himself) becoming an enjoyer (a soul), we refute this objection by instances from every-day experience.' That is to say: If it be maintained that from our doctrine previously expounded, according to which this world springs from the Lord and constitutes his body, it follows that the Lord, as an embodied being, is not essentially different from other souls, and subject to fruition as they are; we reply that the Lord's having a body does not involve his being subject to fruition, not any more than in ordinary life a king, although himself an embodied being, is affected by the experiences of pleasure and pain which his servants have to undergo.--The construction which Rāmānuja puts on the Sūtra is not repugnant either to the words of the Sutra or to the context in which the latter stands, and that it rests on earlier authority appears

p. xlix

from a quotation made by Rāmānuja from the Dramiḍabhāṣyakāra[1].

Adhik. VI (14-20) treats of the non-difference of the effect from the cause; a Vedānta doctrine which is defended by its adherents against the Vaiśeṣikas according to whom the effect is something different from the cause.--The divergent views of Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja on this important point have been sufficiently illustrated in the general sketch of the two systems.

Adhik. VII (21-23) refutes the objection that, from the Vedic passages insisting on the identity of the Lord and the individual soul, it follows that the Lord must be like the individual soul the cause of evil, and that hence the entire doctrine of an all-powerful and all-wise Lord being the cause of the world has to be rejected. For, the Sūtra-kāra remarks, the creative principle of the world is additional to, i.e. other than, the individual soul, the difference of the two being distinctly declared by Scripture.--The way in which the three Sūtras constituting this adhikaraṇa are treated by Śaṅkara on the one hand and Rāmānuja on the other is characteristic. Rāmānuja throughout simply follows the words of the Sūtras, of which Sūtra 21 formulates the objection based on such texts as 'Thou art that,' while Sūtra 22 replies that Brahman is different from the soul, since that is expressly declared by Scripture. Śaṅkara, on the other hand, sees himself obliged to add that the difference of the two, plainly maintained in Sūtra 22, is not real, but due to the soul's fictitious limiting adjuncts.

Adhik. VIII (24, 25) shows that Brahman, although destitute of material and instruments of action, may yet produce the world, just as gods by their mere power create

p. l

palaces, animals, and the like, and as milk by itself turns into curds.

Adhik. IX (26-29) explains that, according to the express doctrine of Scripture, Brahman does not in its entirety pass over into the world, and, although emitting the world from itself, yet remains one and undivided. This is possible, according to Śaṅkara, because the world is unreal; according to Rāmānuja, because the creation is merely the visible and tangible manifestation of what previously existed in Brahman in a subtle imperceptible condition.

Adhik. X (30, 31) teaches that Brahman, although destitute of instruments of action, is enabled to create the world by means of the manifold powers which it possesses.

Adhik. XI (32, 33) assigns the motive of the creation, or, more properly expressed, teaches that Brahman, in creating the world, has no motive in the strict sense of the word, but follows a mere sportive impulse.

Adhik. XII (34-36) justifies Brahman from the charges of partiality and cruelty which might be brought against it owing to the inequality of position and fate of the various animate beings, and the universal suffering of the world. Brahman, as a creator and dispenser, acts with a view to the merit and demerit of the individual souls, and has so acted from all eternity.

Adhik. XIII (37) sums up the preceding argumentation by declaring that all the qualities of Brahman--omniscience and so on--are such as to capacitate it for the creation of the world.


The task of the second pāda is to refute, by arguments independent of Vedic passages, the more important philosophical theories concerning the origin of the world which are opposed to the Vedānta view.--The first adhikaraṇa (1-10) is directed against the Sāṅkhyas, whose doctrine had already been touched upon incidentally in several previous places, and aims at proving that a non-intelligent first cause, such as the pradhāna of the Sāṅkhyas, is unable to create and dispose.--The second adhikaraṇa (11-17) refutes the

p. li

Vaiśeṣika tenet that the world originates from atoms set in motion by the adṛṣṭa.--The third and fourth adhikaraṇas are directed against various schools of Bauddha philosophers. Adhik. III (18-27) impugns the view of the so-called sarvāstitvavādins, or bāhyārthavādins, who maintain the reality of an external as well as an internal world; Adhik. IV (28-32) is directed against the vijñānavādins, according to whom ideas are the only reality.--The last Sūtra of this adhikaraṇa is treated by Rāmānuja as a separate adhikaraṇa refuting the view of the Mādhyamikas, who teach that everything is void, i.e. that nothing whatever is real.--Adhik. V (33-36) is directed against the doctrine of the Jainas; Adhik. VI (37-41) against those philosophical schools which teach that a highest Lord is not the material but only the operative cause of the world.

The last adhikaraṇa of the pāda (42-45) refers, according to the unanimous statement of the commentators, to the doctrine of the Bhāgavatas or Pāñcarātras. But Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja totally disagree as to the drift of the Sūtrakāra's opinion regarding that system. According to the former it is condemned like the systems previously referred to; according to the latter it is approved of.--Sūtras 42 and 43, according to both commentators, raise objections against the system; Sūtra 42 being directed against the doctrine that from the highest being, called Vāsudeva, there is originated Saṅkarṣaṇa, i.e. the jīva, on the ground that thereby those scriptural passages would be contradicted which teach the soul's eternity; and Sūtra 43 impugning the doctrine that from Saṅkarṣaṇa there springs Pradyumna, i. e. the manas.--The Sūtra on which the difference of interpretation turns is 44. Literally translated it runs, 'Or, on account of there being' (or, 'their being') 'knowledge and so on, there is non-contradiction of that.'--This means, according to Śaṅkara, 'Or, if in consequence of the existence of knowledge and so on (on the part of Saṅkarṣaṇa, &c. they be taken not as soul, mind, &c. but as Lords of pre-eminent knowledge, &c.), yet there is non-contradiction of that (viz. of the objection raised in Sūtra 42 against the Bhāgavata doctrine).'--

p. lii

According to Rāmānuja, on the other hand, the Sūtra has to be explained as follows: 'Or, rather there is non-contradiction of that (i.e. the Pañcarātra doctrine) on account of their being knowledge and so on (i. e. on account of their being Brahman).' Which means: Since Saṅkarṣaṇa and so on are merely forms of manifestation of Brahman, the Pāñcarātra doctrine, according to which they spring from Brahman, is not contradicted.--The form of the Sūtra makes it difficult for us to decide which of the two interpretations is the right one; it, however, appears to me that the explanations of the 'vā' and of the 'tat,' implied in Rāmānuja's comment, are more natural than those resulting from Śaṅkara's interpretation. Nor would it be an unnatural proceeding to close the polemical pāda with a defence of that doctrine which--in spite of objections--has to be viewed as the true one.


The third pāda discusses the question whether the different forms of existence which, in their totality, constitute the world have an origin or not, i. e. whether they are co-eternal with Brahman, or issue from it and are refunded into it at stated intervals.

The first seven adhikaraṇas treat of the five elementary substances.--Adhik. I (1-7) teaches that the ether is not co-eternal with Brahman, but springs from it as its first effect.--Adhik. II (8) shows that air springs from ether; Adhik. IV, V, VI (10; 11; 12) that fire springs from air, water from fire, earth from water.--Adhik. III (9) explains by way of digression that Brahman, which is not some special entity, but quite generally 'that which is,' cannot have originated from anything else.

Adhik. VII (13) demonstrates that the origination of one element from another is due, not to the latter in itself, but to Brahman acting in it.

Adhik. VIII (14) teaches that the reabsorption of the elements into Brahman takes place in the inverse order of their emission.

Adhik. IX (15) remarks that the indicated order in which

p. liii

the emission and the reabsorption of the elementary substances take place is not interfered with by the creation and reabsorption of the organs of the soul, i.e. the sense organs and the internal organ (manas); for they also are of elemental nature, and as such created and retracted together with the elements of which they consist.

The remainder of the pāda is taken up by a discussion of the nature of the individual soul, the jīva.--Adhik. X (16) teaches that expressions such as 'Devadatta is born,' 'Devadatta has died,' strictly apply to the body only, and are transferred to the soul in so far only as it is connected with a body.

Adhik. XI (17) teaches that the individual soul is, according to Scripture, permanent, eternal, and therefore not, like the ether and the other elements, produced from Brahman at the time of creation.--This Sūtra is of course commented on in a very different manner by Śaṅkara on the one hand and Rāmānuja on the other. According to the former, the jīva is in reality identical--and as such co-eternal--with Brahman; what originates is merely the soul's connexion with its limiting adjuncts, and that connexion is moreover illusory.--According to Rāmānuja, the jīva is indeed an effect of Brahman, but has existed in Brahman from all eternity as an individual being and as a mode (prakāra) of Brahman. So indeed have also the material elements; yet there is an important distinction owing to which the elements may be said to originate at the time of creation, while the same cannot be said of the soul. Previously to creation the material elements exist in a subtle condition in which they possess none of the qualities that later on render them the objects of ordinary experience; hence, when passing over into the gross state at the time of creation, they may be said to originate. The souls, on the other hand, possess at all times the same essential qualities, i.e. they are cognizing agents; only, whenever a new creation takes place, they associate themselves with bodies, and their intelligence therewith undergoes a certain expansion or development (vikāsa); contrasting with the unevolved or contracted state (saṅkoca)

p. liv

which characterised it during the preceding pralaya. But this change is not a change of essential nature (svarūpānyathābhāva) and hence we have to distinguish the souls as permanent entities from the material elements which at the time of each creation and reabsorption change their essential characteristics.

Adhik. XII (18) defines the nature of the individual soul. The Sūtra declares that the soul is 'jña.' This means, according to Śaṅkara, that intelligence or knowledge does not, as the Vaiśeṣikas teach, constitute a mere attribute of the soul which in itself is essentially non-intelligent, but is the very essence of the soul. The soul is not a knower, but knowledge; not intelligent, but intelligence.--Rāmānuja, on the other hand, explains 'jña' by 'jñatṛ,' i.e. knower, knowing agent, and considers the Sūtra to be directed not only against the Vaiśeṣikas, but also against those philosophers who--like the Sāṅkhyas and the Vedāntins of Śaṅkara's school--maintain that the soul is not a knowing agent, but pure caitanya.--The wording of the Sūtra certainly seems to favour Rāmānuja's interpretation; we can hardly imagine that an author definitely holding the views of Śaṅkara should, when propounding the important dogma of the soul's nature, use the term jña of which the most obvious interpretation jñātṛ, not jñānam.

Adhik. XIII (19-32) treats the question whether the individual soul is aṇu, i. e. of very minute size, or omnipresent, all-pervading (sarvagata, vyāpin). Here, again, we meet with diametrically opposite views.--In Śaṅkara's opinion the Sūtras 19-38 represent the pūrvapakṣa view, according to which the jīva is aṇu, while Sūtra 29 formulates the siddhānta, viz. that the jīva, which in reality is all-pervading, is spoken of as aṇu in some scriptural passages, because the qualities of the internal organ--which itself is aṇu--constitute the essence of the individual soul as long as the latter is implicated in the saṃsāra.--According to Rāmānuja, on the other hand, the first Sūtra of the adhikaraṇa gives utterance to the siddhānta view, according to which the soul is of minute size; the Sūtras 20-25 confirm this view and refute objections raised against it; while the

p. lv

Sūtras 26-29 resume the question already mooted under Sūtra 18, viz. in what relation the soul as knowing agent (jñātṛ) stands to knowledge (jñāna).--In order to decide between the conflicting claims of these two interpretations we must enter into some details.--Śaṅkara maintains that Sūtras 19-28 state and enforce a pūrvapakṣa view, which is finally refuted in 29. What here strikes us at the outset, is the unusual length to which the defence of a mere primā facie view is carried; in no other place the Sūtras take so much trouble to render plausible what is meant to be rejected in the end, and an unbiassed reader will certainly feel inclined to think that in 19-28 we have to do, not with the preliminary statement of a view finally to be abandoned, but with an elaborate bonā fide attempt to establish and vindicate an essential dogma of the system. Still it is not altogether impossible that the pūrvapakṣa should here be treated at greater length than usual, and the decisive point is therefore whether we can, with Śaṅkara, look upon Sūtra 29 as embodying a refutation of the pūrvapakṣa and thus implicitly acknowledging the doctrine that the individual soul is all-pervading. Now I think there can be no doubt that Śaṅkara's interpretation of the Sūtra is exceedingly forced. Literally translated (and leaving out the non-essential word 'prājñavat') the Sūtra runs as follows: 'But on account of that quality (or "those qualities;" or else "on account of the quality--or qualities--of that") being the essence, (there is) that designation (or "the designation of that").' This Śaṅkara maintains to mean, 'Because the qualities of the buddhi are the essence of the soul in the saṃsāra state, therefore the soul itself is sometimes spoken of as aṇu.' Now, in the first place, nothing in the context warrants the explanation of the first 'tat' by buddhi. And--which is more important--in the second place, it is more than doubtful whether on Śaṅkara's own system the qualities of the buddhi--such as pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, &c.--can with any propriety be said to constitute the essence of the soul even in the saṃsāra state. The essence of the soul in whatever state, according to Śaṅkara's system, is knowledge or intelligence; whatever is due to its

p. lvi

association with the buddhi is non-essential or, more strictly, unreal, false.

There are no similar difficulties in the way of Rāmānuja's interpretation of the adhikaraṇa. He agrees with Śaṅkara in the explanation of Sūtras 19-35, with this difference that he views them as setting forth, not the pūrvapakṣa, but the siddhānta. Sūtras 26-28 also are interpreted in a manner not very different from Śaṅkara's, special stress being laid on the distinction made by Scripture between knowledge as a mere quality and the soul as a knowing agent, the substratum of knowledge. This discussion naturally gives rise to the question how it is that Scripture in some places makes use of the term vijñāna when meaning the individual soul. The answer is given in Sūtra 29, 'The soul is designated as knowledge because it has that quality for its essence,' i.e. because knowledge is the essential characteristic quality of the soul, therefore the term 'knowledge' is employed here and there to denote the soul itself. This latter interpretation gives rise to no doubt whatever. It closely follows the wording of the text and does not necessitate any forced supplementation. The 'tu' of the Sūtra which, according to Śaṅkara, is meant to discard the pūrvapakṣa, serves on Rāmānuja's view to set aside a previously-raised objection; an altogether legitimate assumption.

Of the three remaining Sūtras of the adhikaraṇa (30-32), 30 explains, according to Śaṅkara, that the soul may be called aṇu, since, as long as it exists in the saṃsāra condition, it is connected with the buddhi. According to Rāmānuja the Sūtra teaches that the soul may be called vijñāna because the latter constitutes its essential quality as long as it exists.--Sūtra 31 intimates, according to Śaṅkara, that in the states of deep sleep, and so on, the soul is potentially connected with the buddhi, while in the waking state that connexion becomes actually manifest. The same Sūtra, according to Rāmānuja, teaches that jñātṛtva is properly said to constitute the soul's essential nature, although it is actually manifested in some states of the soul only.--In Sūtra 32, finally, Śaṅkara sees a statement of the

p. lvii

doctrine that, unless the soul had the buddhi for its limiting adjunct, it would either be permanently cognizing or permanently non-cognizing; while, according to Rāmānuja, the Sūtra means that the soul would either be permanently cognizing or permanently non-cognizing, if it were pure knowledge and all-pervading (instead of being jñātṛ and aṇu, as it is in reality).--The three Sūtras can be made to fit in with either interpretation, although it must be noted that none of them explicitly refers to the soul's connexion with the buddhi.

Adhik. XIV and XV (33-39; 40) refer to the kartṛtva of the jīva, i. e. the question whether the soul is an agent. Sūtras 33-39 clearly say that it is such. But as, according to Śaṅkara's system, this cannot be the final view,--the soul being essentially non-active, and all action belonging to the world of upādhis,--he looks upon the next following Sūtra (40) as constituting an adhikaraṇa by itself, and teaching that the soul is an agent when connected with the instruments of action, buddhi, &c., while it ceases to be so when dissociated from them, 'just as the carpenter acts in both ways,' i.e. just as the carpenter works as long as he wields his instruments, and rests after having laid them aside.--Rāmānuja, perhaps more naturally, does not separate Sūtra 40 from the preceding Sūtras, but interprets it as follows: Activity is indeed an essential attribute of the soul; but therefrom it does not follow that the soul is always actually active, just as the carpenter, even when furnished with the requisite instruments, may either work or not work, just as he pleases.

Adhik. XVI (41, 42) teaches that the soul in its activity is dependent on the Lord who impels it with a view to its former actions.

Adhik. XVII (43-53) treats of the relation of the individual soul to Brahman. Sūtra 43 declares that the individual soul is a part (aṃsa) of Brahman, and the following Sūtras show how that relation does not involve either that Brahman is affected by the imperfections, sufferings, &c. of the souls, or that one soul has to participate in the experiences of other souls. The two commentators of course take entirely

p. lviii

different views of the doctrine that the soul is a part of Brahman. According to Rāmānuja the souls are in reality parts of Brahman[2]; according to Śaṅkara the 'aṃsa' of the Sūtra must be understood to mean 'aṃsa iva,' 'a part as it were;' the one universal indivisible Brahman having no real parts, but appearing to be divided owing to its limiting adjuncts.--One Sūtra (50) in this adhikaraṇa calls for special notice. According to Śaṅkara the words 'ābhāsa eva ca.' mean '(the soul is) a mere reflection,' which, as the commentators remark, is a statement of the so-called pratibimbavāda, i.e. the doctrine that the so-called individual soul is nothing but the reflection of the Self in the buddhi; while Sūtra 43 had propounded the so-called avacchedavāda, i.e. the doctrine that the soul is the highest Self in so far as limited by its adjuncts.--According to Rāmānuja the ābhāsa of the Sūtra has to be taken in the

p. lix

sense of hetvābhāsa, a fallacious argument, and the Sūtra is explained as being directed against the reasoning of those Vedāntins according to whom the soul is Brahman in so far as limited by non-real adjuncts[3].


Adhik. I, II, III (1-4; 5-6; 7) teach that the prāṇas (by which generic name are denoted the buddhīndriyas, karmen-driyas, and the manas) spring from Brahman; are eleven in number; and are of minute size (aṇu).

Adhik. IV, V, VI (8; 9-12; 13) inform us also that the mukhya prāṇa, i.e. the vital air, is produced from Brahman; that it is a principle distinct from air in general and from the prāṇas discussed above; and that it is minute (aṇu).

Adhik. VII and VIII (14-16; 17-19) teach that the prāṇas are superintended and guided in their activity by special divinities, and that they are independent principles, not mere modifications of the mukhya prāṇa.

Adhik. IX (20-22) declares that the evolution of names and forms (the nāmarūpavyākaraṇa) is the work, not of the individual soul, but of the Lord

Footnotes and references:


Lokavat, Yathā loke rājaśāsanānuvartināṃ ca rājānugrahanigrahakṛtasukhadukhayoge ' pi na saśarīraīvamātreṇa sāsake rājany api śāsanānuvṛttyativṛttinimittasukhadukhayor bhoktṛvaprasaṅgaḥ. Yathāha Dramiḍabhāṣyakāraḥ yathā loke rājā pracuradandaśūke ghore ' narthasaṃkaṭe ' pi pradeśe vartamāno ' pi vyajanādyavadhūtadeho doṣair na spṛśyate abhipretāṃś ca lokān paripipālayiṣati bhogāṃś ca gandhādīn aviśvajanopabhogyān dhārayati tathāsau lokeśvaro bhramatsvasāmaitḥyacāmaro doṣair na spṛśyate rakṣati ca lokān brahmalokādiṃś cāviśvajanopabhogyān dhārayatīti.


Jīvasya kartṛtvaṃ paramapuruṣāyattam ity uktam. Idānīm kim ayaṃ gīvaḥ parasmād atyantabhinnaḥ uta param eva brahma bhrāntam uta brahmaivopādhyavacchinnam atha brahmāṃśa iti saṃsayyate śrutivipratipatteḥ saṃsayaḥ. Nanu tadananyam ārambhaṇaśabdādibhyaḥ adhikaṃ tu bhedanirdeśād ity atraivāyam artho nirṇītaḥ Satyaṃ sa eva nānātvaikatvaśrutivipratipattyā 'kṣipya jīvasya brahmāṃśatvopapādanena viśeṣato nirṇīyate. Yāvad dhi jīvasya brahmāṃsatvaṃ na nirṇītam tāvaj jīvasya brahmano'nanyatvaṃ brahmaṇas tasmād adhikatvāṃ ca na pratitiṣṭhati. Kiṃ tāvat prāptam. Atyantaṃ bhinna iti. Kutaḥ. Jñājñnau dvāv ityādibhedanirdeśāt. Jñājñayor abhedaśrutayas tv agninā siñced itivad viruddhārthapratipādanād aupacārikyaḥ, Brahmaṇo'ṃśo jīva ity api na sādhīyaḥ, ekavastvekadeśavācī hy aṃśaśsabdaḥ, jīvasya brahmaikadeśatve tadgatā doṣā brahmaṇi bhaveyuḥ. Na ca brahmakhaṇḍo jīva ity aṃśatvopapattiḥ khaṇḍanānarhatvād brahmaṇaḥ prāguktadoṣaprasaṅgāc ca, tasmād atyantabhinnasya tadaṃśatvaṃ durupapādam. Yadvā bhrāntaṃ brahmaiva gīvaḥ. Kutaḥ. Tat tvam asi ayam ātmā brahmetyādibrahmātmabhāvopadeśāt, nānātmatvavādinyas tu pratyakṣādisiddhārthānuvāditvād ananyathāsiddhādvaitopadeśaparābhiḥ śrutibhiḥ pratyakṣādayaś ca avidyāntargatāḥ khyāpyante.--Athavā brahmaivānādyupādhyavacchinnaṃ jīvaḥ. Kutaḥ. Tata eva brahmātmabhāvopadeśāt. Na cāyam upādhir bhrāntiparikalpita ita vaktuṃ śakyaṃ bandhamokṣādivyavasthānupapatter. Ity evaṃ prātpte'bhidhīyate. Brahmāṃśa iti. Kutaḥ. Nānāvyapadeśād anyathā caikatvena vyapadeśād ubhayathā hi vyapadeśo dṛśyate. Nāvāvyapadeśas tāvat sraṣṭṛtvasṛśjyatva--niyantṛtvaniyāmyatva--sarvajñatvājñatva--svādhīnatvaparādhīnatva--śuddhatvāśuddhatva--kalyāṇaguṇākaratvaviparītatva--patitvaśeṣatvādibhir dṛśyate. Anyathā cābhedena vyapadeśo ' pi tat tvam asi ayam ātmā brahmetyādibhir dṛśyate. Api dāśakitavāditvam apy adhīyate eke, brahma dāśā brahma dāśā brahmeme kitavā ity ātharvaṇikā brahmaṇo dāśakitavāditvam apy adhīyate, tataś ca sarvajīvavyāpitvena abhedo vyapadiśyata ity arthaḥ. Evam ubhayavyapadeśamukhyatvasiddhaye jīvo'yaṃ brahmaṇo'ṃśa ity abhyupagantavyaḥ.


Nanu bhrāntabrahmajīvavādes'py avidyākṛtopādhibhedād bhogavyavasthādaya upapadyanta ata āha, ābhāsa eva ca. Akhaṇḍaikarasaprakāśamātratvarūpasya svarūpatirodhānapūrvakopādhibhedopapādanahetur ābhāsa eva. Prakāśaikasvarūpasya prakāśatirodhānaṃ prakāśanāśa eveti prāg evopapāditam. Ābhāsā eveti vā pāṭhaḥ, tathā sati hetava ābhāsāḥ.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: