Part 33 - The Bhedabheda Theory

At this point, it might prove useful to obtain a comprehensive view of the Bhedabheda view propounded by Sripati. Sripati's Bhashya is to the Virasaivas what Ramanuja's is to the Sri-Vaishnavas, Anandatirtha's to Sad-Vaishnavas (or Madhva-Vaishnavas) and Sankara's to Smartas. It came to be written at a time when the Virasaivas occupied the foremost position in the religious counsels of the first Vijayanagar Empire. If Virasaivism may justly claim to be a revival of the ancient Saiva faith which became popular amongst the generality of the Western and South Indian people, long anterior to and more prominently since the days of Basava, the reformer, who largely democratised it about the middle of the 12 th century A.D., Sripati's Bhashya may be taken to represent its higher philosophical aspects. Its chief merit-as any one who reads through it will readily acknowledge-is that it seeks to put Virasaivism on a philosophical footing. What Srikantha did for Suddhasaivism, Sripati did for Virasaivism.

While Srikantha's system has been sometimes interpreted, notably by Appaya Dikshita, in terms of Sankara's Advaita, though he himself styles it Visishtadvaita, it is impossible to so interpret Sripati's. It is Virasaiva in letter and spirit where Srikantha's is Saivite. It touches on every important article of faith of Virasaivism and brings it within the philosophic sweep of Badarayana's Sutras. Coming as it did after the efforts of Sankara, Ramanuja, Anandatirtha and Srikantha, it passes in review the first three of these and rejects their standpoints as also of Srikantha, though not in the same open manner as it does the first three, and this for the obvious reason that Srikantha and Sripati were both Saivas, though differing from each other in certain respects. Sripati does not accept the Saiva Visishtadvaitism of Srikantha any more than he accepts the Advaita of Sankara. Even the casual reader will be struck with the deep learning, the extensive range of knowledge, the high dialectic skill and the intimate acquaintance Sripati shows of the systems he criticizes at such great length and with such effect. In places, his argumentation is searching and his criticism piercing to a degree. As a philosophical polemic, it is not a mere destructive treatise; it is something more than that. It builds up a system, which seeks to give a broader base to the transcendental aspect of Virasaivism. What is particularly noteworthy is that he does not put it forth as a mere statement of his own individual views but as one founded on an old and well-established tradition going back to the hoary days of Agastya, the sage to whom all South Indian culture is attributed. This suggestion is of considerable importance, because it enables us not only to determine what authority should attach to the commentary of Sripati but also helps us to fix, within certain tolerable limits, the comparative age of the view-points taken by him and his predecessors in interpreting the Sutras of Badarayana. The Sutras themselves bear eloquent testimony to the fact that there were, at or about the time they came to be composed, different schools of Vedantic thought, led by well-known teachers, to whom specific references

are made by Badarayana. Among these are Aemarathya (I. 2. 29 and I. 4. 20); Atreya (III. 4. 44); Audulomi (I. 4. 21; III. 4. 45 and IV. 4. 6); Badari (I. 2. 31; III. 1. 11; IV. 3. 7 and IV. 4. 10); Jaimini (I. 2. 28; I. 2. 31; I. 3. 31; I. 4. 18; III. 2. 40; III. 4. 2; III. 4. 18; III. 4. 40; IV. 1. 17; IV. 3. 12; IV. 4. 5 and IV. 4. 11); Karshnajini (III. 1. 9) and Kasakritsna (I. 4. 22). If the interpretation of Sankara and Ramanuja of II. 1. 1 and II. 1. 2 and II. 1. 4 are to be accepted-Anandatirtha differs from them in his interpretation of these Sutras as in many othersthen, we have to concede that Badarayana refers, though without mentioning his name, to Kapila also. Of these teachers, the view of Asmarathya is, if the interpretation of Sankara of I. 4. 20 is adopted, that the soul stands to the Brahman in the bhedabheda relation, i.e., it is neither absolutely different nor absolutely non-different from it, as sparks are from fire. This, in other words, means that individual souls are somehow different from Brahman and somehow non-different. This is the bhedabhedavada associated with the name of. Asmarathya. Audulomi, however, takes a different view. He teaches (I. 4. 21) that the soul is altogether different from Brahman up to the time when, obtaining final release, it is merged in it. Sankara commenting on this Sutra, which is devoted to Audulomi's opinion, says that the individual soul which is rendered restless by the contact with its different limiting adjuncts, viz., body, senses and mind, attains through the instrumentality of knowledge, meditation, and so on, a state of complete serenity, and thus enables itself, when passing at some future time out of the body, to become one with the higher self; hence the initial statement in which it is represented as non-different from the highest Self. This opinion of Audulomi is supported by him by two texts from the Upanishads. The first of these is: Evame vaisha samprasado, etc., that serene being arising from this body appears in its form as soon as it has approached the highest high.40 408 The second intimates, by means 108 Chchandogya-upanishad , VIII. 12. 3.

of the simile of the rivers, that name and form abide in the individual soul, Yatha nadyah syandamanah, etc., as the flowing rivers disappear in the sea, having lost their name and their form thus, a wise man freed from name and form goes to the divine Person who is greater than the great.400 That is, as the rivers losing the names and forms abiding in them disappear in the sea, so the individual soul also losing the name and form abiding in it becomes united with the highest Person. That the latter half of the passage has the meaning assigned to it, follows-adds Sankara-from the parallelism which we must assume to exist between the two members of the comparison. Vachaspati Misra in his Bhamati, a commentary on Sankara's Bhashya, remarks, when writing in this connection that the Upanishadic texts quoted transfer a future state of non-difference to that time when the difference exists. He quotes the following saying of the Pancharatrikas:-"Up to the moment of emancipation being reached the soul and the highest Self are different. But the emancipated soul is no longer different from the highest Self, since there is no further cause of difference." Audulomi's doctrine is known as Satyabhedavada. Finally, we have the view of Kasakritsna, who holds that the individual soul is absolutely non-different from the Brahman (I. 4. 22). Sankara in commenting on this Sutra makes it read "the highest Self exists in the condition of the individual soul". That the highest Self only is that which appears as the individual, is, he says, evident from the Brahmana passage, "Let me enter into them with this living Self and evolve names and forms" and similar texts. He also cites mantras to the same effect, for instance, "The wise one who, having produced all forms and made all names, sits calling the things by their names.' Where the Srutis relate the creation of fire and other elements, they do not-he says-at the same time relate a separate creation of the individual soul; we have, therefore, 409 Mundaka-upanishad , III. 2. 8. 410 Taitt, Ar., III. 12. 7. 1410

he argues, no right to look on the soul as a product of the highest Self, different from the latter. In the opinion of Kasakritsna, the non-modified highest Lord himself is the individual soul, not anything else. Asmarathya, although meaning to say that the soul is not (absolutely) different from the highest self, yet intimates by the expression "On account of the fulfilment of the promise which declares a certain mutual dependence-that there does exist a certain relation of cause and effect between the highest Self and the individual soul and not the relation of absolute identity." The opinion of Audulomi, again, clearly implies that the difference and non-difference of the two depend on difference of condition, i.e., upon the state of emancipation and its absence. Of these three opinions, Sankara holds that of Kasakritsna accords with the Srutis, because it agrees with what all the Vedanta texts, for example, Tattvamasi, etc., aim at inculcating. Only on the basis of his opinion, says Sankara, immortality can be viewed as the result of the knowledge of the soul; while it would be impossible to hold the same view if the soul were a modification (product) of the Self and as such liable to lose its existence by being merged in its causal substance. For the same reason, name and form cannot abide in the soul-as was above attempted to prove by means of the simile of the rivers-but abide in the limiting adjunct and are ascribed to the soul itself in a figurative sense only. For the same reason, the origin of the souls from the highest Self, of which the Srutis speak in some places as analogous to the issuing of the sparks from the fire, must be viewed as based only on the limiting adjuncts of the soul. Because the highest Self itself is that which appears as the individual soul, the statement as to the non-difference of the two-propounded by Kasakritsna-is well founded. Having said that, Sankara considers a possible objection to that view. After quoting the passage, 'Rising from out of these elements he vanishes again after them. When he has departed there is no more knowledge,' he states that this might be taken to intimate the final destruction of the soul,

" 423 " not its identity with the highest Self! ' By no means, he replies. The passage means to say only that on the soul departing from the body all specific cognition vanishes, not that the Self is destroyed. The eternally unchanging Self, which is one mass of knowledge, cannot possibly perish; but by means of true knowledge there is effected its dissociation from the matras, i.e., the elements and the sense organs, which are the product of Nescience. When the connection has been solved, specific cognition which depended on it, no longer takes place, and thus it can be said, 'When he has departed there is no more knowledge'. Then, Sankara says, if Kasakritsna's view is, as shown above, in keeping with the Srutis, all the adherents of Vedanta must admit that the difference of the soul and the highest Self is not real, but due to the limiting adjuncts, viz., the body, and so on, which are the product of name and form as presented by Nescience. After quoting numerous texts, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Gita in support of this view, he states that if the doctrine of general identity were not true, those who are desirous of release could not be in the possession of irrefutable knowledge and there would be no possibility of any matter being well settled; while yet the knowledge of which the Self is the object is declared to be irrefutable and to satisfy all desire. The Srutis, he says, speak of those "who have well ascertained the object of the knowledge of the Vedanta." He compares the passage, 'What trouble, what sorrow can there be to him who has once beheld that unity?'412 He further notes that the Smriti also represents the mind of him who contemplates the Self as steady. 413 Finally Sankara winds up the argument by observing that as the individual and the highest Soul differ in name only, it being a settled matter that perfect knowledge has for 411 412 Mundaka-upanishad , III. 2. 6. (Vedantavijnana, etc.) Isavasya-upanishad , 7. (Yasmin sarvani bhutani atmaivabhudvijanatah | tatra ko mohah kah sokah yekatva manupasyatah >>) 418 Bhagavad-Gita, II. 54-58.

its object the absolute oneness of the two, it is senseless to insist as some do,--Sankara says-on a plurality of Selfs, and to maintain that the individual soul is different from the highest Self, and the highest Self from the individual soul. For the Self is indeed called by many different names, but it is one only. Nor does the passage, 'He who knows Brahman which is real, knowledge, infinite, as hidden in the cave '414 refer to some one cave (different from the abode of the individual soul). And that nobody else but Brahman is hidden in the cave we know from a subsequent passage, viz., Tat srishtva tadevanu pravisat, 'Having sent forth he entered into it', 415 according to which the Creator only entered into the created beings. He then adds that those who insist on the distinction of the individual and the highest Self oppose themselves to the true sense of the Vedanta texts stand thereby in the way of perfect knowledge which is the door to perfect beatitude, and groundlessly assume release to be something effected, and therefore non-eternal (while it is really eternal, it being in fact not different from the eternally unchanging Brahman). And, he adds, if they attempt to show that moksha, although effected, is eternal, they involve themselves in a conflict with sound logic. We thus see Sankara rejecting Asmarathya's bhedabheda and Audulomi's satyabhedavida and accepting the doctrine of Kasakritsna, as interpreted by himself, that the highest Soul exists in the condition of the individual Soul and deducing from it the theory of the identity of the Jiva and the Brahman. Turning to Sripati, we find him interpreting these three Sutras (I. 4. 20, I. 4. 21 and I. 4. 22) in a somewhat different manner. In connection with the first of these, he quotes the Sruti texts: Atmani vignate sarvamidam vignatam bhavati (When the Self is known, all this is known); Idam sarvam yadayamatma iti cha¹16 (All 414 Taittiriya-upanishad , II. 1. (Brahmavidapnoti sarvam, etc.) 415 Taittiriya-upanishad , II. 6. (Asanneva sa bhavati, etc.) 416 Brihadaranyaka-upanishad , II. 4. 6.

these, wherever they may be that appear to us, are nothing but Atma); and Eka vignanena sarva vijnana pratignasiddheh lingam suchitam bhavati ¹¹7 ('If one is known, all is known' indicates the fulfilment of the promissory statement). The statement that "if one is known, all is known" leads to no contradiction, because Sruti texts, such as Yato va imani bhutani jayante¹¹s iti, etc., explain clearly that all those things, whatever that appear to us, are jivas consisting of the five elements (bhuta panchaka) and they came to existence from Brahman. As they are connected mutually as cause and effect, there can be no separation between the two and hence they are relatively connected with each other, and therefore, according to the maxim dadhi kshiravat (curds resulting from milk), 119 a thorough knowledge of the cause of transformation from one state to another will lead to the realization of the whole truth laid down in the text Eka vignanena sarva vijnanam. And therefore Asmarathya considers that in order to gain a knowledge of the principles of difference underlying the text Eka vignanena sarva vijnanam, a close study of what is enunciated in the texts Yasya atma sariram 420 iti, etc., is necessary. Such a study would show the transformation of the sarira into the Atma (i.e., Brahman), and fulfil the texts Sarva vijnana pratigna, etc. In order to clearly point out the close connection that exists between sarira and atma-which is as close as between the body and its 417 Chchandogya-upanishad , VI. 1. 4. 418 Taittiriya-upanishad , III. 1. 419 Cf. Anandatirtha's Anuvyakhyana on the Brahma-Sutra Bhashya, I. 4. 6, where the phrase Kshiravat vikarah syat naiva sa syaddhareh kvachit occurs. Also see Jayatirtha's Nyayasudha, I. 4. 6, where the same phrase is commented upon. For Sankara's view see Bhashya on the Vedanta Sutras, II. 1. 18, where he maintains as his final conclusion that milk and other substances are called effects when they are in the state of curds and so on, and that it is impossible even within hundreds of years ever to bring about an effect which is different from its cause. See also Sankara's Bhashya, II. 1. 24. 420 Chchandogya-upanishad , VI. 1. 4.

members (angangi)-Asmarathya, who upholds the bhedavada doctrine, considers that a close study into the nature of the difference between atma and sarira is necessary. In this manner, having considered both the doctrine of Asamyukta bhedavada, which differentiates between jiva and Brahman as between ghata and pata, and the doctrine of angangivat samyukta bheda, which connects the jiva with the Brahman as closely as the body is related to its members, Asmarathya demonstrates (thereby) the doctrine of Suddhadvaita. Sripati next passes on to I. 4. 21, which propounds Audulomi's view. He interprets the Sutra thus, utkramishyatah, svam vidyopalhim tyajatah, jivasya ghatakasa, mahakasavat Brahmabhinnatvat sarvada Brahmabhinnataya jivopakramanam. Here the expression utkramishyatah means svam vidyopadhim tyajatah, i.e., abandon the deceptive knowledge inherent in the Self-by which the jiva realizes that the Brahman is absolutely identical with the Self, just as ghatakasa is quite the same as mahakasa. Therefore by knowing correctly Brahman, all is known and a thorough knowledge of all is possessed by the Self. Thus considers Audulomacharya. In other words, as soon as the Sarpabhranti is removed in the rope, the rope appears quite plain-i.e., simply as a rope; similarly when the deceptive knowledge inherent in the Self is removed, Brahmatva is realized. So thinks Audulomi. In all the Sruti texts, such as Tattvamasi, etc., the prime object of the teaching is to inculcate the truth of the doctrine that the jiva and the Brahman are absolutely one, behaving in the manner of bimba and pratibimba just as ghatakasa and mahakasa. (Just as the space in the pot is the same as the unlimited space outside of it, so the jiva, as soon as he is relieved of the ignorance that veils him from the knowledge of Brahman, will realize that he is Brahman. That is, knowledge will make the jiva aware of his identity with the Brahman.) Some believe that they-va and Brahmanalways exist in this manner. The fact is that in Brahman jivatva is falsely postulated to exist as the rajju (rope) is falsely understood to be sarpa (serpent). According to the

Advaita doctrine, it is pointed out that adhyasa is the chief cause for bhranti, which when removed, Brahman is realized as being identical with the jiva. Some conceive the truth in this fashion. Having thus proved the one-sided views of the different argumentators holding different doctrines, the chief Vedanta doctrine is thus set down (in the next Sutra) by the Sutrakara in a manner which harmonizes every Sruti text. 421 In keeping with this suggestion is Sripati's interpretation of I. 4. 22. This Sutra, he says, sets down the siddhanta of the Sutrakara. Kasakritsna abides by the doctrine of bhedabheda which is declared by the Sruti texts which, without contradicting each other, enunciate in Dva suparna, etc., and other texts the bheda doctrine and the abheda doctrine in Tattvamasi, etc., and other texts. In order to point out clearly the existence of bheda and abheda between the jiva and the Brahman, Kasakritsna here declares that all Sruti texts purport to propound the underlying doctrine of bhedabheda. Therefore the third (variety of) doctrine-of bhedabheda-is the highest essential truth (paramarthika) declared by all the Sruti texts; and so it must be understood. Hundreds of Sruti texts declare that during the Samsaradasa (i.e., one's lifetime) jiva and Brahman are quite distinct from each other and separate; and that during the Mokshadasa, abheda is declared to be the established truth. Sruti texts like the following: Esha samprasadortha atma sarirat samuththaya Paranjoti rupam sampadya svena rupenabhinishpadyate \\\ 422 Yatha nadyah syandamanah samudre astam gachchanti namarupe vihaya Tatha vidvan namarupad vimuktah paratparam purusham upaiti divyam | 423 Dhyatva munir gachchati bhutayonim samastasakshim tamasah parastat || Sraddha bhakti dhyanayogadavehi || 424 421 Mundaka-upanishad , III. 1. 1. 422 Chchandogya-upanishad , VIII. 12. 14. 423 Mundaka-upanishad , III. 2. 8. 424 Kaivalya Upa.

Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati || 425 Brahmavidapnoti param || 120 Gnatva sivam Santam atyantameti || 427 Siva eko dhyayah sivamkarah sarvamanyat parityajya|| 128 iti, and hundreds of other Sruti texts declare to the same effect. Then, if it is doubted how at all two sets of Sruti texts which hold to two such clearly contradictory views as bheda and abheda, which are as opposed to each other as darkness and light (are to each other), could be summed up in the single word bhedabheda and that doctrine declared as enunciating the highest essential truth and as containing the siddhanta view, we answer (says Sripati) it should not be so doubted. Because there is no proof that the Srutis should be taken only to declare an one-sided view (Ekadesapramanya). If such an one-sided view is accepted as the truth, the Srutis as a whole would become unauthoritative. We must never think that the Sruti texts (relating to bheda and abheda) are as opposed to each other as sleep and wakefulness, as darkness and light, as fire and water and as ignorance and wisdom. Then, if we are to accept the mutually contradictory doctrine of bhedabheda, is it on account of the contradictory nature of things; the absence of contradictory causes; the wrong (committed) by adopting only one of these-bheda or abheda; the non-existence of either (bheda or abheda); of either being proved (bheda and abheda); of inconsistency in either of them; of the fruitlessness of. either of them; 429 of either of them being not perceptible to the mind; of the absence of difference between them; or on account of the absence of the unity in the Srutis referring to them? It is not the first, because Yat param Brahma sarvatma visvasyayatanam mahat 430 | iti, and other 425 Mundaka-upanishad , III. 2. 9. 420 Taittiriya-upanishad , II. 1. 427 Sveta. Upa., IV. 14. 423 Sveta. Upa., IV. 18. 429 That is, the unrealizable character of either of them. 430 Maha-upanishad , XI. 2. 5.

Sruti texts show that prapancha and Brahman are composed of dvaitadvaita in the form of radharadhetvam (effect and cause). Then Tamevabhantamanubhati sarvam 431 | iti, and other texts declare the nature of the illuminator and the illumination (Bhasya and bhasakatvam). Next Samasta sakshyam tamasah parastat 32 1 iti, and other texts declare the sakshya and sakshitvam-the evidence and the matter that is evidenced. Finally Tat srishtva tadevanu pravisat¹³3 | iti, and other texts show clearly the cause of the world's creation and the form by which Brahman is evidenced in the world by his entering into it. While living in the world, as jiva, experience of jnana and ajnana is seen. In prakriti (in the original state) the three forms of gunas (sattva, rajasa and tamasa) are also seen; in vikruti (in transformed state), jiva is seen possessed of a bodily existence, subject to the three states, and of a body formed from the elementary condition of matter (kanadeh) composed of panchabhautika (the five elementals), of the nature of nitya and anitya. It is also seen that coldness and warmth attaching to earth and air are experienced. The dual characteristic of jahadajahallakshana is exhibited in conformity with the Sankhyadvaita doctrine as exemplified in Mahesvara in his ardhanari form consisting of saguna and nirguna qualities. With human beings, the existence of fear in respect of punya and papa is seen. With the Sun, the state of brilliancy and dimness is seen. Nor is it the second. The Sruti text Yada tamastannadiva naratrih nasannachasachchiva eva kevalah134 | iti and hundreds of other texts show that even before the creation of the world the self-illuminating Paramesvara existed in combination with prakriti in the form of darkness (tamah). In Yatova imani bhutani jayante 435 | iti and other Sruti texts Siva, who is Parabrahman and who 431 Kath. Upa., V. 15. 432 Atharvasiras. 433 Taittiriya-upanishad , II. 6. 434 Sveta. Upa., IV. 18. 435 Taittiriya-upanishad , III. 1.

has no second, is represented as the cause for the creation of the world, etc., which is evidence of his dvaita character. Parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate svabhaviki jnana bala kriyacha 36 iti and other texts point out clearly that as all matter is associated with its qualities, 437 Brahman is naturally possessed of all connected qualities without which creation is impossible just as a gem (mani) is possessed of its natural lustrous qualities without which it cannot be called by that name. If we should admit that the prapancha is composed of maya and therefore illusory just as a lotus in the sky or horns in a rabbit, then we cannot be prevented from arriving at the manifestly wrong conclusion which is witnessed to by the maxim "my mother is barren". Moreover, Dva suparna 38 etc., and other Sruti texts distinctly teach that the jiva and Brahman are different (bheda), while Tattvamasi and hundreds of other texts point to abheda. Therefore, it is right that we should adopt both combined as bhedabheda. If we only accept one side (of this truth), then we will be shrinking the import of the Sruti texts. Nor is it the third. For Esho anu jivo hridaye sannivishtah Esho anuratma chetasa veditavyah (439 Valagra Sata bhagasya Satadha kalpitasyacha fivo bhagah savigneyo hridaye sarvajantushu Akasavat sarvagato niramsah Mahantam vibhuratmanam matva dhiro na sochati 1440 Antah purno bahihpurnah purnakumbha ivambhasi \ Antah sunyo bahissunyah sunyakumbha ivambare Tadadi madhyanta vihinamekam vibhum chidanandam arupam adbhutam iti and other texts explain that jiva and Brahman possess mental unity (chittaikatva). While in their dimensions of anutva and vibhutva 141 they are distinctly contradictory to each other. Therefore it is but right 436 Sveta. Upa., VI. 8. 437 Dharmadharmanoriva. 438 Mundaka-upanishad , III. 1. 1. 439 Mundaka-upanishad , III. 1. 9. 440 Kath. Upa., II. 22. 441 Anutva is atomic state and vibhutva is the supreme state.

that we should agree to bhedabheda. Just as a coiled serpent is seen in a contracted form in its quiescent condition, while in motion it is seen in an elongated form, so the mutual contradiction is clear in their dimensions (parimana), the object being the same. Also, just as the rays of the Sun proceeding from his disc show a larger area than the disc itself, even though the disc is small, the area covered up by the light appears contradictory in its dimensions on account of the areas respectively covered by them-the rays and the disc from which the rays proceed. And lastly just as a sheet of cloth coiled up appears much shorter in length than it is seen when it is expanded out, the cloth being the same, similarly in conclusion bhedabheda has to be accepted. Nor is it the fourth. Vacharambhanam vikaro namadheyam mriltiketyeva satyam 442 | Sarvam khalvidam Brahma i Tajjalaniti santa upasita 443 | Tadananyatvam arambhana sabdadibhyah 144 | iti and other Sruti and Sutra texts together denote the characteristic contrasts between Brahman and prapancha and cause and effect (karya and karana); by introducing the example of mrittika, etc., bhedabheda is clearly pointed out. Similarly in the first khanda of the Atharvasiras text beginning with Devah vai svarga magaman Tam deeva rudramapruchchan Kobhavaniti | So'bravit ahamekah prathama masam vartamicha bhavishyamicha Nanyah kaschin matto vyatiriktah and ending with Jyotirityahameka sarvecha mameva mam yo veda sa sarvam veda | Sivabhinnatvam is pointed out. Also, in the second khanda (of the same work), it is stated clearly in the text Yo vai rudra sa bhagavanyascha Brahma tasmai vai namo namah | Yo vai rudra sa bhagavanyascha Vishnuh tasmai vai namo namah by which Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesvara, etc., are conclusively declared to be the chief cause for prapancha, which is the effect. Also, 442 Chchandogya-upanishad , VI. 1. 4. 443 Chchandogya-upanishad , III. 14. 444 *** Brahma-Sutra, II. 1. 14. 445 445 Atharvasiras.

the Kaivalya and Taittiriya texts Sa Brahma sa Sivah sa Harih sendra sokshara paramasvarat 440 Sa eva Vishnuh sa pranah sa kalognih sa chandramah Sa eva sarvam yadbhutam yachchabhavyam sanatanam Ritam satyam Param Brahma purusham krishna pingalam 447 | Urdhvanretam Virupaksham visvarupaya vai namo namah | iti state that the work which is the form of effect is seen clearly as not being different (abhinnatvat) from Parasiva, who is the original cause. Nor is it the fifth. The Sruti texts Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati 448 Brahmavid Brahmaiva bhavati iti, \ etc., declare that the jiva who is distinct from Brahman will realize Brahman through meditation and worship until he becomes one with Brahman. Here also bhedabheda is shown to be not contrary to the authorities. Moreover, in the Suta Samhita, it is said Bhedabheda stathabhedo bheda ete matastrayah. In Mahimna is seen Dhruvam kaschit brute sakala maparastavad dhruvam iti paro dhravyadhravyeti, etc. (Some say that what is experienced at present is true; and all the future is untrue; the remote (i.e., the highest truth) is either existent or non-existent). In Kurma it is said, Kechit dvaitam prasamsanti kechidadvaita vadinah Dvayossrutyeka desatvat sarva sruti samanvayah Bhedabheda matasraute parigrahyo mumukshubhih | iti (Some extol dvaita. Some argue in favour of advaita; both (these) are partial interpreters; bhedabheda mata is the one that should be accepted by mumukshus (i.e., those who desire salvation) as the doctrine that will harmonize the Sruti texts relating to both dvaita and advaita.) The Gatha,*** Nadvaitamaparoksham chennachidrupena bhasanat Aviseshena bhatamchet dvaitam kim bhasate kila | Dingmatrena vibhatantu dvayorapi samam khalu Dvaita siddhivadadvaita siddhistvetavata na kim Dvaitena hina madvaiMahopa 447 Maha-upanishad , X. 21. 448 Mundaka-upanishad , III. 2. 9. 449 Literally, verse, especially a religious verse, but not belonging to one of the Vedas,

tam dvaita gnane kathamtvidam | Dvirbhavitva virodhascha dvaita sadho same ubhe Tatha visuddha chidrupa Siva sarvadhikah smruthah Jagajjanmadi hetutvat sarvagnatvadi lakshanat | Asangatvat nirmalatvat satya kamadi lakshanat Dvaitastad aprakrishtopi tadupasana rupatah Svikaryam yogibhissarvaih vedamargaika vedibhih Asau mayamayam dvaitam iti chet tannayujyate Arthasiddhi kriyasiddhyor drishtatvat srutidarsanat | Bhedabheda matam chaiva vidheyam panditaih sada iti establishes that the doctrine of dvaitadvaita alone is the highest spiritual knowledge (paramarthika). That is delightful (tadiya ramaniyam). The Gatha quoted by Sripati may be thus translated:"If advaita will not lead to the knowledge that is necessary to realize the Brahman, if chidrupa cannot throw any light, how can it be possible to find out by the rest a true knowledge which will enable the realization of Brahman? The light that is seen only shows the directions in the space but the space and light are one and the same. It is not possible to understand through controversial argument which is the correct one (i.e., the correct knowledge to realize Brahman). Advaita appears inferior to Dvaita; but the dualistic view is not in conformity with nor is it in harmony with the Srutis. Therefore the only chidrupa that should be accepted as Brahman is the Almighty Siva, because He is the sole Creator, the all-knowing, the unassociated, the all-pure, and possessed of Satyakama and other characteristics. And even though he appears to be of a Dvaita character as being realizable through meditation and worship, yet Yogis acknowledge that Srutis prove artha siddhi and kriya siddhi (realizing the cause by the effect). Therefore it is that the learned should accept the bhedabheda doctrine only as the highest spiritual truth." Nor is it the sixth. Sruti texts like Mayantu prakritim vindyat mayinantu Mahesvaram Tasyavayava bhutoththam vyaptam sarvam idam jagat 450 Etasmat jayate 450 Sveta. Upa., IV. 10. 28 > F

prano manassarvendriyanicha | 481 Vidyavidye isate yastu sonyah Pradhana kshetragnapatirgunesah 452 | Isanassarvavidyanam | 453 iti || 454 etc., and hundreds of other Sruti texts speak of Paramatman and the prapancha in the form niyamya and niyamaka in a reconciliatory manner and as establishing the doctrine of dvaitadvaita. And also the text 455 Isanassarvavidyanam, etc., and hundreds of other similar texts also declare the above view. Nor can it be the seventh. The text Sraddha bhakti dhyana yogadavehi 1456 jnana nirmathanabhyasat pasam dahati panditahVidyanchavidyancha yastad vedobhayam saha 1157 Tena Brahmavit punyakrichcha Satyena labdha stapasa hyesha atma samyaggnanena brahmacharyena nityam | £58 iti, etc., and hundreds of other similar texts declare that Paramasiva can be realized in the Advaita form only after following dhyana and dharana practices, according to the dvaita karmanushthana, which is the only way for such realization, as the fruit of it. 459 451 Mundaka-upanishad , II. 1. 3. 452 Sveta. Upa., VI. 16. 458 Maha-upanishad , X. 21. 454 Know that Maya is Prakriti and that Mahesvara is Mayin. Out of his body has resulted this whole universe which pervades everywhere. From him has been created prana and all the limbs of the body. Also out of him, prana, manas and other sensory organs have taken their origin. Vidya and avidya are subordinate to Isa, who is quite free and unconnected and is called anvah. Isvara is also the Kshetragna and the Lord who sees into the characteristics of all. 455 Maha-upanishad , X. 21. 458 Kaivalya Upa. 457 Isa. Upa., 11. 458 Mundaka-upanishad , III. 1. 5. 459 Know that fraddha and bhakti can be obtained only through the practice of meditation in the form of Yoga. The wise can get. their bondage burnt to ashes only through that correct knowledge got out of the process of churning known as the practice (of meditation). Both vidya and avidya must be understood along with it (dhyana yoga), for then only they (the wise) will have understood Brahman by their virtue, because this atman can be realized only by virtue and by a thorough knowledge through Brahmacharya practice followed continuously.

Moreover, if it is asked what is the good of all the trouble taken in discussing the topics of the Sastras which are the end of the Veda in order to cause the realization of Advaita Brahman, if such realization can be had only through the practice of Dvaita karma, then our answer is, it is not so. According to the Sthularundhati nyaya, the realization of Brahman will be caused after the destruction of all evil through actions which are devoid of a desire for fruit. So declare the Smritis. In the Vedic text beginning with Yasyaiteshta chatvarimsat samskara | iti and ending with Sa Brahmanas sayujyam salokyam gachchanti iti, the realization of Brahman is declared for all who are born through the rites of garbhadhana, etc., and after the destruction of all sinful actions. Therefore, there is no contradiction in the worshipper of Paramesvara being the worshipped Paramesvara in the state of religious worship (aradhakarupa karmanam aradhyarupa paramesvarasya cha prapya prapakatvam). The text Na cha sarva ete punyaloka bhavanti iti which means "these all cannot obtain the Punyaloka" cannot be taken to mean anything in contradiction to the Srutis, in regard to the obtaining of the respective fruits of the different asramas. Because even though actions done with certain desires readily yield the fruits aimed at, actions done without any such desire will still lead to Paramapurushartha after destroying the three-fold sins and the like associated with the three ages of man-youth, manhood and old age (manavadi malatrayadi nirmukta, etc.).464 If not, in the absence of any such karmanushthana, one cannot have a mental purification. In the absence of such purification, he will not give birth to true knowledge. In the absence of such true knowledge, no realization (moksha) will result. Therefore, what has been said above must be said to be pleasant to the wise. Nor is it the eighth. For in order to establish this same fact that that all-wise crest-jewel-like (personage), the 460 Kaumaram yauvanam jara.-Bhagavad-Gita, II, 13.

most revered Vyasa, declares, in order to stop the fruitless controversies of vain logicians in their wranglings over Veda and Vedanta, in the fourth Pada of the IV Adhyaya under the Sutras, Abhavam Badari rahadyevam and Bhavam Jaiminir vikalpamananat 461 iti, that the dvaitadvaita doctrine is the sole truth underlying both sets of Srutis which seem to be contradictory to each other, and establishes the truth at length under the Sutras which come later on-Dvadasahavad ubhayavidham Badarayanotah and Tasyabhave sandhyavadu papatteh 1 462 itiwhich also establish the fact that the essence of all Sastras is contained in embracing the doctrine of bhedabheda. Nor is it the ninth. According to the dvaita doctrine it is not possible to realize the unity with Brahman (Brahmaikatva) agreeably to the Sruti saying samudravat.465 According to the advaita doctrine, wherein Saguna Brahmatva and Isvaratva are mere invented siddhantas like the invented theory of rajju sarpa, the Vedas, Sastras, Agamas and the Puranas are reduced to mere matters of belief without faith and finally they are reduced to nothingness (dattanjaliprasangah). Thus both these doctrines-dvaita and advaita-should not be adopted. Also Anisaya sochati muhyamanah Brahmaveda Brahmaiva bhavati 1404 iti, and other texts decisively prove that the jiva, being tied up in the sorrowful envelopment of the bondage of Maya, becomes ignorant of Paramasiva, and yet after liberation (from such a bondage) becomes Paramasiva himself. Thus, it is said in the Kaivalya in the text Sraddha bhakti dhyana yogat avehi 465 | and in the 401 Brahma-Sutras, IV. 4. 10-11. 462 403 Ibid., 12-13. Yatha nadyah syandamanah samudre astam gachchanti namarupe vihaya | Tatha vidvan namarupat vimuktah paratparam purusham upaiti divyam It is suggested by Sripati that the word upaiti here does not indicate ekatva by transformation. Upaiti means obtain", i.e., will obtain divyam paramapurusham. will 464 Mundaka-upanishad , III. 2. 9. 465 Kaivalya Upa.

text beginning with Uma sahayam Paramesvaram prabhum and ending with Samasta sakshim tamasah parastat¹ \ iti, that meditation done with devotion and faith (sraddha and bhakti) regarding Paramesvara and also being helped by his grace, with the aid of Parvati, he gets out of the darkness and emanates into the light and through the means of meditation and worship of Sagunesvara will obtain nirguna Brahmatva (Nirguna sakshi Brahmapraptih). In this doctrine (of bhedabheda), above all doctrines, by the triple application of bhakti, kriya and jnana, a three-fold practice exists, which is capable of leading to mukti by enabling one to cross the ocean of samsara and obtain unity with the Brahman, which is the essence of both the sets of Sruti texts. Therefore, it is only the doctrine of bhedabheda which harmonizes the Sruti texts should be accepted. We, however, do not opine that the advaita doctrine is devoid of the teachings of bhakti, kriya, jnana, sraddha, etc. Postulating avidya as existing in Isvara from the expression asad used in the Sruti text 487 is like using a false saligrama as an object of worship. Who at all can be expected to acquire bhakti, sraddha and visvasa for such an Isvara? Nor can an invented Isvara, who resembles a coiled serpent in a rope (rajjvaropita sarpavat), though he be propitiated with all the duties involved in the service of worship, be the donor of all the boons required of him? 408 Nor can it be the tenth. In the text Dva suparna, +88 Dva etc., both vidya and avidya are inseparably coupled up as Siva and jiva and as constant associates. If the standpoint of the doctrine of Suddhadvaita can, without adversely affecting the conception of advaita Brahman, be reconciled to dvaita prapancha, then the doctrine of bhedabheda opposes the position of neither (doctrine). Nor does the bhedabheda doctrine, in such a case, contradict the principles of either side (dvaita and advaita). The Sruti text Atma vare 466 Kaivalya Upa. 467 Asadva idamagra asit-Taittiriya-upanishad , II. 7. Cf. Asaditi chenna pratishedhamatratvat-Brahma-Sutra, II. 1. 7. 468 Mundaka-upanishad , III. 1. 1.

drashtavyah, etc., is a clear authority for Vedantins that the object of realization is Brahman. The knowledge of Brah. man will lead them to the realization (of Brahman). But in texts like Samidhoyajati, 469 etc., the expressions (Samidhoyajati, etc.) denote that the way to realize the Brahman is through adopting the sacrificial rites known as the panchaprayaja vidhi, by fulfilling which the realization will be attained. By adopting the bhedabheda doctrine, the double fruits that are the result of the sacrifices of Sautramani and Brihaspatisavana, Agnichayana, Vajapeya, etc., carried out conjointly, will be obtained.470 Also it is stated in the opening Sutra, Athato Brahmajijnasa, as a firm conclusion that after the preliminary rites-according to the Purva Mimamsa-are finished, Brahmajijnasa should be begun in order to realize the double aspect of bhedabheda doctrine. Moreover, as in the Sutra IV. 4. 12, Dvadasahavat, etc., Badarayana declares his opinion by referring to the example of the Dvadasaha*71 that both ought to be observed (i.e., both Karma and jnana) and establishes in the Sutra next following Sandhyavat upapatteh72 that both the doctrines of bheda and abheda are established; it has therefore to be held that bhedabheda is the established siddhanta according to Badarayana. It is also the chief siddhanta of Kasakritsna and this is without doubt the established siddhanta. In Sruti texts like Ya atmani tishthan 473 etc. Paramatma is stated to be in a readily realizable condition 469 Purva Mimamsa: Panchaprayaja Vidhi-the law relating to the five principal sacrificial ceremonies. 470 Sripati's suggestion is that the adoption of the doctrine of bhidabheda in the region of Sariraka Mimamsa is equal in result to the performance of Sautramani and Brihaspatisavana, Agnichayana and Vajapeya, which have in each case to be conjointly done, if they are (according to the Purva Mimamsa) to bear fruit. 471 A sacrifice lasting for or completed in twelve days. 472 The twilight is suitable, i.e., the meeting point of day and night is helpful. This Sutra suggests, says Sripati, the truth of the bhedabheda doctrine which is the meeting point of bheda and abheda as sandhya is of day and night. Brihadaranyaka-upanishad , V. 7. 9. 473

when the jiva attains the stage of vijnana. Jiva and Brahman are, therefore, declared to be distinctly separate. Asmarathya decides on the support of the middle term (madhya vakya vakya pramanam adaya). He endeavours to prevent a contradiction arising from the abheda Sruti texts such as Tattvamasi, etc., by means of comparison (sadrusyena varayati). As for Audulomi, he argues on the strength of the proof afforded by Sruti texts like Neha nanasti kinchana, etc., and argues on the analogy of the rajjusarpa that in the advaita Brahman a vision of dvaita prapancha is seen without any contradiction arising therefrom. Kasakritsna having studied, in an inquiring mood, the first, central and last stages of the whole of the Vedanta, establishes a harmonious whole by the aid of the six-fold proofs (shadvidha linga tatparyena) and concludes that bhedabheda is the correct and acceptable doctrine and adds that this should be accepted as the chief doctrine of the Vedanta system. In this way the doctrine of bhedabheda is established without any contradiction being established between jiva and Brahman.