Part 12 - Commentators on Brahma-Sutras mentioned by Bhaskara

Of these, Bhaskara deserves special mention. His date is not yet definitely settled. As he is not referred to by Sankara, but mentioned by name and criticized by Ramanuja, the upper and lower limits of his age may be fixed between the beginning of the 9 th century A.D. and the middle of the 12 th century A.D. He may probably put down to circa 1000 A.D., as some time will have to be allowed for his attaining that extent of celebrity for his views as to be specially quoted and refuted by Ramanuja in his Sri Bhashya. That this date is not by any means a mere conjecture will be evident when it is remarked that he has been identified with Bhaskara Bhatta, son of Kavi Chakravarti Trivikrama Bhatta, mentioned in the Nasik copper-plates. 12 These plates state that Trivikrama Bhatta belonged to the Sandilyagotra and that his son Bhaskara Bhatta was honoured with the title of Vidyapathi by King Bhoja. King Bhoja, who is said to have thus honoured Bhaskara Bhatta, has to be identified with the famous Paramara King of Malwa who bore that name. According to the latest view, King Bhoja lived about the middle of the 11 th century A.D.13 Bhaskara Bhatta Vidyapathi will 12 See Bhumika to Bhaskaracharya's Commentary on the Brahma Sutra edited by Pandit Vindhyesvari Prasada Dvivedin, I to III, Chowkhamba. 61 13 Bhoja's date has been variously assigned by scholars. Thus, according to Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, he ruled from 997 A.D. to 1050 A.D. (Early History of Dekkan, 214-215). Sir Ramakrishna assigns to him about fifty-three years". Dr. Vincent Smith, however, says that "he reigned gloriously for more than forty years" and fixes him between 1018-1060 A.D. (The Early History of India, 410-411). Apart from the length of his reign, a later date seems

" accordingly have to be set down to about the third quarter of the 11 th century A.D. Corroborative of this inference is the statement made by Bhaskaracharya, the author of Siddhanta Siromani, who mentions Bhaskara Bhatta nearer the truth, for, as suggested by Dr. Buhler and Dr. Zacharia, some time has to be allowed, if the Navasahasanka Charita referred to at length by them is to be believed; for King Sindhuraja, the father of Bhoja, appears to have reigned for a fairly long period of time before Bhoja actually came to the throne. The Prabandhas followed by Sir Ramakrishna do not allow any period of rule to Sindhuraja which is now held to be without warrant. Indeed Buhler and Zacharia definitely state that "it is necessary to place the beginning of Bhoja's reign further down than is usually done (Indian Antiquary, June 1907, 172). As tradition states that Bhoja ruled in all for 55 years, 6 moons and 3 days, it is possible that this lengthy period includes his years of office as Yuvaraja under Munja and Sindhuraja. Munja began his reign before 974 A.D. and his death occurred in one of the three years 994 to 996 A.D. Sindhuraja, his younger brother, succeeded him and he may be allowed-judging from the active life led by him as detailed in the Navasahasanka Charita-a period of rule commencing from 997 A.D. and ending probably with a year or two before 1019 A.D. which is the first definite date we meet with in Bhoja's life. That year marks the defeat which the Chalukya King Jayasimha inflicted on the confederacy of seven kings led by Bhoja, who was obliged to take. to flight (Balagami inscription dated 1019 A.D. See Indian Antiquary , V. 17%; Epigraphia Carnatika , VII. Shikarpur 125). If this suggestion proves acceptable, Sindhuraja may be set down to 997-1017 A.D., Bhoja following him and ruling from about 1017 A.D. to about 1072 A.D. This would mean a reign of about 55 years for Bhoja, the period fixed by tradition. At least three land grants of Bhoja are known. These are (1) The Ujjain copper-plate land grant, dated in Vikrama Samvat 1078, Chaitra Sudi 14, corresponding to 30 th March 1021 A.D.; (2) Land grant of his Karana of the Raja Mriganka, dated in Sa Samvat 964, or A.D. 1042-1043; and (3) Land grant dated 4 th bright half of Magha of Vikrama Samvat 1176, two years earlier than the Ujjain grant or A.D. 1019. (For these grants, see Indian Antiquary , June 1907, 170; and September 1912, 201-203.) Besides these, Bhoja's defeat and flight are mentioned in the Balagami record dated in 1019 A.D. Thus, there can be no question he ruled from about 1019 A.D. to 1043 A.D. But if tradition is taken into account, as most scholars have done, he should be held to have ruled, as before suggested, from 1017 to 1072 A.D.

Vidyapathi and claims him as his ancestor in the sixth degree. As this Bhaskaracharya states that he was well versed in Smritis and Srutis and styles himself Kavi Bhaskara (Srauta smartha vichara sura chaturo nissesha vidyanidhi, etc.), it has to be conceded that Bhaskara Bhatta Vidyapathi's family was hereditarily one well known for its learning. It is interesting to note that this Kavi Bhaskaracharya's name is actually reminiscent of Bhatta Bhaskara Vidyapathi's name as it occurs in the colophons to the Brahmasutra Bhashya, wherein it appears as Bhaskaracharya (Iti Sri Bhagavad Bhaskaracharya pranite Sariraka Mimamsabhashye, etc.). What is more important is that Kavi Bhaskaracharya states that he himself was born in Saka 1036, which corresponds to 1114 A.D., that Bhaskara Bhatta Vidyapathi was his ancestor in the sixth degree, and that he wrote his work Siddhanta Siromani in his 36 th year. Allowing twenty years for a generation, Kavi Bhaskaracharya should have come about 120 years after Bhaskara Bhatta Vidyapathi, which means that the latter should have flourished about 120 years before Kavi Bhaskaracharya's birth. This works out to 994 A.D. (1114 A.D. minus 120 years, which gives us 994 A.D.). From this, it would seem to follow that Bhatta Bhaskara Vidyapathi lived through the reigns of the Paramara kings Munja, Sindhuraja and Bhoja, the last of whom is said to have honoured him, quite late in his (Bhaskara Bhatta's) life with the valued title of Vidyapathi. This last fact is mentioned by Udayana, the author of the well-known work Nyaya Kusumanjali (see p. 35, line 5). In this work, Udayana writes thus of himself :-Brahmaparinateriti Bhaskaragotre yujyate. A little later he adds:-Bhaskara tridandimatha Bhashyakara. Since Udayana says he wrote his Subodha Kusumanjali just past Saka 906 (A.D. 984), he must have been a younger contemporary of Bhaskara. If this is conceded-and it has to be, as Udayana states he was of Bhaskara's gotra-then Bhaskara should have been much earlier than Saka 906. Udayana adds that Bhaskara wrote his Bhashya after he became a great

proficient in learning. And he mentions that when he had advanced in his age, and had attained great renown, Bhoja conferred on him the title of Vidyapathi. This should have occurred before Bhoja's death, the latest known date for which is 1072-1073 A.D. On these grounds, Bhaskara, the author of the Bhashya on the Brahma Sutras, will have to be differentiated from Bhatta Bhaskara, the teacher who was honoured by Ahavamalla, the Kalachurya king, who has been identified above (see pp. 45-46) with the commentator on the Taittiriya Aranyaka. As will be seen, the latter belongs to the third quarter of the 12 th century A.D. and thus came about a century after Tridandi Bhaskara, surnamed Vidyapathi, the author of the Bhashya on the Brahma Sutras. The author of Taittiriya Aranyaka also went by the name of Trikanda Mandana Bhatta Bhaskara (see Bhumika to his work in the Anandasrama Series).14 The title Tridandimatha Bhashyakara affixed to Bhaskara Bhatta Vidyapathi the author of 14 In the Bhumika referred to, it is stated that this Bhatta Bhaskara lived before Madhavacharya, the author of the Sarvadarsana Sangraha; for he mentions Bhatta Bhaskara in his Sankara Vijaya (Sarga XV, sloka 80) as having disputed with Sankara. This is an anachronism. It will be seen that according to the inscriptions mentioned at pages 45-46 of this Introduction, he was honoured by Ahavamalla, the Kalachurya king, between 1181-1183 A.D. Tradition assigns him to 950 A.D., evidently confusing him with his namesake who lived during the reign of King Bhoja. In a verse which occurs at the end of his commentary on the Taittiriya Samhita, it is said he lived in Nishpavake Sake, which Professor M. Seshagiri Sastri read as Nishpapake Sake, thus changing Saka 1410 into Saka 1110. This change of reading (of va into pa) can be supported on inree grounds (1) It gives a more intelligent meaning to the verse than the one assigned to it by Dr. Burnell; (2) it makes Bhatta Bhaskara, the author of the Taittiriya commentary anterior to Madhavacharya, the author of Sarvadarsana Sangraha, which tradition avers; and (3) the date Saka 1110 corresponds to 1189 A.D. which would only mean that Bhatta Bhaskara, who was honoured by Ahavamalla, the Kalachurya king, in 1181-1183 was still living in 1189 A.D. when he wrote or finished his commentary on the Taittiriya Samhita, which prima facie seems quite acceptable.

the commentary on the Brahma Sutras, shows that he should have been a Sanyasin of the Tridandi order. Since he styles himself Bhagavat in his colophons, there can be no doubt, as to this. A Tridandi is a sanyasin who has renounced all worldly attachments, indicating such renunciation by carrying in his right hand three long staves (danda) tied together so as to form one. Such a sanyasin is said to have obtained command over his mind, speech and body, or rather over thought, word and deed (cf. Manu, XII. 10). A Tridandi is usually distinguished from an Ekadandi, more commonly called Hamsa, who carries a single staff, which is said to represent his kaya or body, which he has, by undertaking his vow of sanyasa, thrown off. This staff is buried with him, when he dies and is sainted. The Ekadandi class of sanyasins is, according to Harita, divided into four orders: Kutichako, Bahudako, Hamsa and Paramahamsa. The last of these is often designated Parivrajaka, literally one who has renounced the world and wanders from place to place. Judging from Bhaskara's long and detailed criticism of the status of Paramahamsas, whom he takes as typical of the Ekadandi class, and the praise he bestows on that of the Tridandis, when commenting on the Sutra Sarvapeksha cha yagnadisruterasvavat (III. 4. 26), it would seem that he belonged to the Tridandi order of sanyasins. He plainly suggests that the status of the Tridandi, with the right to wear the sikha (tuft of hair on the head), the yagnopavita (the sacred thread) and the rest, is a much superior one to that of Paramahamsas, who though they are supposed to renounce everything belonging to the world-including all karmas are still in the world and move in it and have much to do with it. This is probably the reason why Bhaskara came to be known-if Udayana is to be believed -as Tridandimatha Bhashyakara, the espouser of the doctrine of the Tridandi class.15 15 The fundamental difference between Tridandis and Ekadanois is in regard to the performance of karma. The former is only a Phalatyagi, i.e., one who has given up the fruits of his karma, while

122 A INTRODUCTION In commenting on the Sutra Utpaththya-sambhavat (II. 2. 42), Bhaskara holds, with Sankara, that it refers to the Pancharatra doctrine and not to the Sakti, as is suggested by Anandatirtha and Nimbarka. He, however, defends the Pancharatra doctrine, definitely arguing against the views of Sankara. He holds that Pancharatra is not against the Srutis. Vasudeva is upadana karana and Jaggatu is nimitta karana. Pancharatra sets down the relationship between these two karanas. This is exemplified in devarchana, dhyana, samadhilakshana and karmagnana. In none of these four is there anything against the Srutis. Devarchana is the worship of Vasudeva-rupa; dhyana, the the latter is not only a Phalatyagi but also a Svarupatyagi, i.e., one who has also given up his physical body. The Ekadandi is, in fact, taken to have given up everything, both karma and its phala. He accordingly shaves the tuft off his head, gives up his yagnopavita, etc., which signify karma, and completely transforms himself in his physical appearance. He no longer is of this world; he is a true sanyasin. On the other hand, the Tridandi being only a Phalatyagi, retains his connection with the world and as such he is bound by karma. He accordingly wears the sikha (the tuft of hair on his head), the yagnopavita (the sacred thread) and performs his nityakarmas just like a householder. He is, however, subject to the discipline of his order in regard to other matters. Among the Visishtadvaitas (Sri-Vaishnavas of both sects, Vadagalai and Tengalai) sanyasins are wholly of the Tridandi order, while among the Smarthas and Madhwas (i.e., Advaitins and Dvaitins) they are entirely of the Ekadandi class. It is interesting to note that Bhaskara, the author of the Brahmasutra Bhashya was a Tridandi. He not only preceded Ramanuja in point of time but also belonged to Central India. These facts coupled with the references that are to be found in Manu, Harita, etc., it would seem that the order of 7.dendi is quite an ancient one and has been in considerable vogue both in the north and south of India for ages long anterior to Ramanuja. Of Ramanuja, it was foretold in the Vriddha Padma Purana that he would be a sage of the Tridandi order and restore the lost faith to its original brilliancy. It is said that Tanka, Bharuchi, Guhadeva, Dramila, Yamunacharya and others referred to by Ramanuja belonged to the Tridandi order. Tradition, as recorded in the Vadagalai Guruparampara, states that Ramanuja became a sanyasin of this order and, what is more, converted his former guru,

meditation in Sankarshana-rupa; samadhi (Sukshma-rupa) in Pradyumna; and lastly, karmagnana is seen in the Sthula Aniruddha-rupa. These being exemplified in Pancharatragama, it is not against the Srutis. This Sutra accordingly is devoted to the consideration of the characteristics of the sakti which is implicit in the Pancharatragama. Hence the invented statement (kalpana) that Pancharatragama is against the Srutis is false (anupapannam). He quotes the Chchandogya text: Adhigamanopadanejyasvadhyaya yogaihi Bhagavantam Vasudevamaradhya tameva pratipadyata and says that what is stated to be against the Srutis is really well known to them. Accordingly, he holds that the suggested contradiction is a mere invention. Yadavaprakasa, also into one such after making him renounce formally the Ekadandi order to which he belonged by undergoing once again the chaula (tonsure) and upanayana rites and then assuming at his (Ramanuja's) hands the Tridandi staff and the orange-tawney robe. It is said that before he could renounce the Ekadandi order he felt he should undertake, by way of penance, a circumambulation of the holy places of the Earth, for which he was too old. In these circumstances, he was advised to go round Ramanuja once and seek re-initiation at his hands. This done, he was made a Tridandi and duly invested with the insignia of that order. (See Prapannamritam, Ramanujacharya Divya Charitai, etc.) According to the Prapannamritam, since he had all his life carried on a tirade against Tridandins, criticising their religious life and observances, Yadavaprakasa was commanded by Ramanuja to compose a work on the duties of yatis, reconciling all the conflicting passages in the Smritis. Agreeing, Yadavaprakasa, who had been renamed Govinda Jeer, wrote, it is said, the Yati Dharma Samuchchaya in eleven chapters, a work which has survived to this day. The Tridandins are thrice referred to by Manu in his Laws, once in Chapter IX dealing with the Duties of Kings and twice in Chapter XII dealing with Transmigration (IX. 296, page 395; XII. 10-11, page 485). The first of these shows the rigour with which the three kinds of discipline to which the Tridandin was subjected were insisted on. Each constituent part of his three-fold discipline was, it would seem, important for the maintenance of each of the other two. Manu says "Yet in a kingdom, containing seven constituent parts, which is upheld like the triple staff (of an ascetic), there is no (single part) more important (than the others) by reason of the -

That Tridandi Bhaskara had in view some of the previous commentators is made plain in the opening verse of his own Bhashya, which reads thus:- janmabandhavinivrttikaranam brahmasutramidamudvabhauyatah | srotrcittakrama laikabhaskaram badarayanamrsim namami tam || sutrabhiprayasamvrtya svabhiprayaprakasanat | vyakhyatamyairidamsastram vyakhyeyam tannivrttaye || This verse explains why Bhaskara undertook the task of composing a new Bhashya. He says that he bows down to Badarayana, whose genius produced the Brahma Sutras to relieve people from the bondage of birth. Badarayana, he says, is like the Sun (Bhaskara), who dispels the darkness of the minds of those who pray for such relief. Then he adds: "Embodying the teaching of the Sutras, I make known my own meaning of them in the interpretation (vyakhyatam) I offer. I am interpreting (the Sutras) because I am desirous of removing the doubts caused by my several predecessors (vyakhyatam yairidam sastram) because such doubts ought to be removed (tannivrittaye)." The use of the plural (yairidam) indicates more than one previous commentator. Bhaskara should, therefore, be importance of the qualities of each for the others." This threefold discipline is thus described in Chapter XII. 10-11 :-"That man is called a (true) Tridandin in whose mind these three, the control over his speech (vagdanda), the control over his thoughts (manodanda), the control over his body (kayadanda), are firmly fixed." As Buhler suggests, though this verse (XII. 10) gives the usual description of a true Tridandin as an ascetic who holds three staves (danda) tied together, according to it, this outward sign avails nothing. That man only deserves the name Tridandin who keeps a three-fold Control (danda) over himself. The maintaining of the three-fold. discipline over himself is more important than carrying the triple danda, which signifies him. The fruit of this three-fold discipline is described in the next verse (XII. 11) as final liberation. It says: "That man who keeps this three-fold control (over himself) with respect to all created beings and wholly subdues desire and wrath, thereby assuredly gains complete success "i.e., final liberation. As to the duties of the Sanyasin, see Buhler, Manu, VI, 33-97; also Vishnu Purana.

taken to suggest that he is controverting not only Sankara,16 his immediate predecessor in the field, but also some of Sankara's own predecessors, from whom he evidently differed in certain respects. Though he generally agrees in the matter of the text of the Sutras with Sankara, Bhaskara differs from him sometimes, as, for example, in I. 2. 19; II. 2. 18; II. 2. 31; II. 2. 38; III. 4. 46; IV. 3. 5; etc. Not only are there differences in regard to the text between the two but Bhaskara does not also agree with Sankara in his conception of the general import of the Sutras. Bhaskara's standpoint is that of Bhedabheda,11 while Sankara's is that of a confirmed Advaitin. In commenting on the Sutra Atma krute parinamat (I. 4. 25), Bhaskara criticizes at some length Sankara's statement postulating Adhyasa on account of which everything is destructible. This, he suggests, is nothing more than naked Mahayanism of the Bauddha system. He says:-Tathacha vakyam parinamasthusyadivadati vigitam vichchinnamulam mahayanika Bauddha gaththitam mayavadam vyavarnayanto lokan vyamohayanti. He thus very plainly states that what is postulated by Sankara is manifestly contained in the Bauddha system of Mahayanism. Thus saying, he adds, Sankara is making people lose themselves in Buddhism. Again, commenting on the Sutra Vaidharmyachcha nasvapnadivat (II. 2. 29), Bhaskara states that those who follow the Bauddha system are Mayavadis and that they are among those who are with justice rejected by the Sutrakara. He says:-Yetu Bauddhamatavalambino Mayavadinaste pyanena nyayena Sutrakarenaiva nirasta veditavyaha.18 His own position, Bhaskara makes plain in 18 Bhaskara's Brahma-Sutra Bhashyam, edited by Pandit V. P. Dvivedin, Bhumika, 9. 17 Pandit V. P. Dvivedin quotes Bhattoji Dikshita's Vedanta tatva viveka tika vivarana in support of this description of Bhaskara's standpoint. Bhattoji Dikshita calls Bhaskara a "Bhedabheda vedanta siddhanta vadi." See Pandit V. P. Dvivedin's Edition of Bhaskara's Brahma-Sutra Bhashyam, Bhumika 9, f.n. 1. 18 Among King Bhoja's possible contemporaries were Ramapala (1084-1130 A,D,) and Govindapala (1175 A.D.). During their

his comments. Thus, while explaining the Sutra Adhikaniu bhedanirdesat (II. 1. 22), he states that the jiva is different from para, for the jiva cannot be said, he says, to create himself and destroy himself. But he is only different from para up to a particular stage. The indeclinable thu in the Sutra, according to him, applies to both sides-bheda and abheda. He then asks: "Nanu bhedabhedau katham paraspara viruddho sambhavetam" and answers the question thus: Naisha doshaha. And he quotes the following sloka: Pramanataschetu pratiyate kovirodho ayamuchyate " Virodhechavirodhecha pramanam karanam matam" This may be broadly set down thus: That authority which we set down in support, how can we postulate of it that it is in contradiction with our own view; an authority which is quoted in support of an argument, if it proves it without contradicting it, then alone will it be universally accepted as an authority (pramanam).¹º Similarly, in commenting on the Sutra Nasthanathopi parasyobhayalingam sarvatrahi (III. 2. 11), Bhaskara reiterates his position. reigns, Buddhism, though declining in Hindustan, was flourishing in the Pala dominions, the monasteries of Magadha being crowded with thousands of residents. Ramapala was, according to inscriptions, followed by five kings. It was during the reign of Indradyumnapala (1197 A.D.) that the Pala kingdom was subverted by the Muhammadan invasion led by Kutb-ud-din's general, Muhammad, the son of Bakhtyar and the Buddhist monasteries destroyed (Vincent Smith, The Early History of India, 419). Buddhism was accordingly still a dominant religion in India about 1150 A.D., when Bhaskara lived and wrote. 19 An authority is usually quoted to support and not to conti. dict the position taken. An authority is sought for only when there is anumanam, i.e., doubt as to the authenticity of the position taken. Cf. the following quoted by Anandatirtha as from the Mahakaurma, when commenting on the Sutra Sastra yonitvat : Nischayat sadhayet artham pramanantara mevachal Sruti smriti sahayam yatthu pramanantaramuttamam| Pramana padavim gachchet nathra karya vicharana || Purvottaravirodhena kotrartho abhimatobhavet| Ityadyamuhanam tarkaha shushka tarkantu var jayet ||

This Sutra, he says, deals with the jiva in its condition of sleep (suptavastha) and its relation to Brahman in that condition. Of course, it is stated in connection with the Sutra Ikshiter na sabdam and the following Sutras that Chetanam is Brahman and that it is the chief cause for the creation of the world. Therefore, that Brahman is the chief Sat (in Chelana) is established. What is explained in this Sutra is what is the result of such a combination. This may be admitted. It is also proved that Brahman is of a bhedabheda rupa. Now, it is to be understood clearly whether the bhedabheda rupam is to be meditated upon or whether all which appears to be different is one in its entirety (Samastha bhedamabhinnam sallakshana bodharupam upasyam). This is the question that is considered in this Sutra. The fact is that Brahman is nirguna; but according to those well versed in Sandilya Vidya, this Brahman is saguna; and therefore it has to be proved whether Brahman is saguna or nirguna. Here and there, it can be clearly seen as proved that Brahman is to be meditated upon as saguna. The purvapakshin raises the doubt whether Brahman is to be meditated upon as one of sakara or nirakara or in a form which is a combination of both, and also as having a bodily form (prapanchatmana cha). At any rate, it is but right that the actual form should be meditated upon. Amidst so many doubts, it is stated in the Sutra Nobhayalingam Brahmopasyam prapanchakarena sakaram nirakaram cha (neither both forms nor the form of the prapancha consisting of sakara or nirakara). For the word lingam means lakshana, chinha (characteristic symbol), etc. Truly, the formless form of Brahman should be meditated upon as being Shuddhakarana-rupa. For it is stated in the Sruti text astula mananva hrasva miti iti, there is no such form of Brahman as the prapancha form. Because the essential (svathasya) form of Brahman is an entire, undivided (kutastham) and everlasting (nityam) form. This is declared by the Sruti text Ekameva advitiyam, etc. Afterwards Brahman assumes a secondary form, at times, on account of certain changes (vikara); when the changes

disappear, that form ceases to exist and Brahman assumes its original state of oneness. Therefore, in conclusion, the nirakara form of Brahman, i.e., the karana-rupa, is the one to be meditated upon. Therefore, the svarupa of Brahman in whom the worldly form is also combined, should be meditated upon. It is said that such a form should not be worshipped, for in this Sutra it is clearly statedNapritivyadi sthanatopi parasthobhayalingitha Svatho abhinnatvat aganthukatvachcha >> (Brahman has no material or worldly form; and therefore he has no two different forms; he himself being undivided and incapable of any division, cannot have two different forms.) The mundane form of Brahman (as declared in the Upanishads) is simply for namesake (namarupa panchaka) ; it is not his real form (na prapanchatmakam Brahman) just as the ocean is not a mere collection of water (yatha samudratmaka samudra iti). Then, if it is asked how does it reach (the "collection" in the end), the answer is that as throughout the Vedanta it is said that the nishprapancha Brahma (nishprapancha Brahmopasyam) should be meditated upon, therefore such a form only should be meditated upon. In the Sruti text asabdamasparsya marupamavyayam sa yesha neti neti atma sthula miti cha, the material form of Brahman is denied. The whole of this comment shows that Bhaskara holds bheda as a transient state of Brahman and abheda as his permanent state. " | In commenting on the Sutra Anavritti sabdat anavritti sabdat (IV. 4. 23), Bhaskara after mentioning the classes of people for whom "no return is prescribed in the Srutis, says that they go to Brahma-loka and thus attain the state from which there is no return (na cha punaravartale). They reach, he says, Surya's abode and there unite with Brahman (sasambhutah) in his virat form (Vairaja sarira); there they become equal to Brahman. There, all the worlds, all the Vedas, all the Devas are united (sasambhutah).20 So, it is said in the Mantravarna (Upanishad).-Prachara chakri parivardhamane taramtimam 20 Sa saha, together, and sambhuti join or unite with,

tushita trishita bhuvanani visva, etc., which states that while the wandering wheel of time keeps turning, the atma crosses over these material worlds of the universe. Then having realized his own atma (tadantharatman prathamam prapya), he realizes Paramatma (tataha paramatmanam pratipadya) and in his company enjoys (ekibhuya Brahmana modate). The union here suggested, looking to the chaturthi vibhakti used (Brahmana) and not panchami or saptami, is one of company and not aikya with Brahman. The use of the word modate as the finite verb also suggests that the released atma enjoys in company with Brahman and does not find aikya in him. This shows that there is, according to Bhaskara, no union with Brahman in the sense. of aikya but only the privilege of being in company with Brahman and there, in his world and in his presence, enjoying perfect bliss, along with Brahman.