2. Establishing Jivesvara-bheda

[Full title: Establishing Jivesvara-bheda by showing irrelevancy and contradiction in other Bhasyas]

Lord Vedavyasa has composed the Brahmasutras to determine the support of the scriptural passages. These sutras show the way of interpretation and hence are called sutras. and 5 610 is They are Nirnayakas or determining, the scripture Nirneya or the determined. The purport or import of the scriptures should be understood in the light of the Brahma-

Therefore, any interpretation, that is not in accordance with the Brahmasutras, is not correct. Vadiraja 611 A declares that the Bhasya or the commentory written by Madhva, - alone is relevant since it is written in accordance with the Brahmasutras. The Advaitins interpret that the Puccha in the passage -611 B of the Taittiriya sruti viz., Brahma Puccham Pratistha is Brahman. They also say that the Anandamaya is a Kosa, But in the forthcoming passages of that context, Asanneva sa bhavati, Asadbrahmeti veda cet, Asti brahmeti cedveda and the like the word Brahman is used twice and Anandamaya is described as Brahman only. The Sutra Anandamayo'bhyasat also lays down that Anandamaya is Brahman, So treating Anandamaya as Kosa and describing Puccha as Brahman is irrelevant to the context and also against the Brahmasutra. 611 D 612 1 The term Anandamaya is to be understood as Brahman and not as Puccha. Because, in the four Prakaranas of Annamaya and so on, the object of praise is Angin and not the Anga (limb). Likewise in the fifth Prakarana of the Anandamaya, the Angin (Purusa) alone is to be taken to be the object of praise and not any limb such as Puccha. The word Brahma -612 A in Brahma Puccham Pratistha does not suggest that the Puccha is Brahman but it implies that the Puccha (foot) of

Brahman is also Anandapurna or blissful, So the word Brahman is to be taken to mean Anandamaya (Angin) and not as Puccha (Anga). a Kosa. 612 B The Advaita-interpretation states that Anandayama is But it is irrelevant; because as the Kosa is insentient the Puccha, its part, must also be insentient. So Brahmatva cannot be attributed to that insentient Puccha. In the Dvaita view, as all the limbs are of the blissful form of Brahman, they are also blissful and are of the very 613 nature of Brahman and as such no such irrelevancy. there is 1 If Brahmatva is attributed to Anga (Puccha) alone, then how can there be Brahmatva in the Angin and if Abrahmatva is ascribed to the Angin then how can there be Brahmatva to the part (Puccha) of that Angin. Thus both the arguments show the defects in the Advaita-interpretation. In Brahman, who is Jnanarupa or the very form of knowledge, there are delight, bliss and the like. These are also the very nature of Brahman. When Brahman is Sukharupa or blissful, Brahmata is there in that bliss. In the passage Brahman is described -613 A as Anandam brahma kam brahma and the like. This states that Ananda or bliss is Brahman, blissful is Brahman, So Brahmata is there to that Anandamaya in complete and not Puccha. only in a part viz., 614 It is strange to know as to

200 how the Advaitins, who are very much particular about the identity of soul and Brahman, are not ready to admit the identity of Anga and Angin that constitutes or comprises of 615 one and the same object. When Puccha can be Brahman then why can't the middle portion of that body? If an Ox is made 616 of clay, the tail should also necessarily be of clay. # Moreover, Brahmatva is evident in both Amsin and Amsas and it is complete in all respects. The passage Padam brahma 616 A karau brahma } clearly mentions that Brahmata is seen in all the parts. Brahmata being complete in all respects. It glorifies the limbs of Brahman as having 617 The Purnatva or perfection described in passage of Brahman, has been realized by the knowers like Brahma and others. Yasoda is the witness in this regard who saw the entire world in the 617 A graceful mouth of Lord Krsna. So all the limbs of Brahman are all-pervasive and hence are of the nature of Brahman. In the Bhrguvalli of Taittiriyopanisad, while delineating the definition of Brahman, it is described that creation and the like of this world take place from Ananda and the same Ananda as Brahman is praised at the Anandamaya-prakarana 617 B of the Brahmavalli, So the Anandamaya is Brahman. 618 A By the passage Brahma Puccham pratistha, if Brahmatva is restricted to Pucche only then, according to the passage 618

201 Ananda atma, of Brahman. 618 B Anandatva is to be restricted to the soul Then it implies that there is no Ananda in Brahman denoted by Puccham. So if Brahmatva is negated in the Anandamaya, then the Anandatva is to be negated in Brahman. Thus, the entire exposition of the Advaitins becomes absurd and contradictory. 619 If the Anandamaya is the material sheath, then how can there be Brahmatva in its Puccha? And by referring to Puccha, form is to be admitted. But in the Advaita, Brahman is formless (Nirakara).619 A By admitting Brahmatva in the Puccha of material sheath which is deprived of Brahmatva it appears as if the organ is cut off from the Anandamaya. It is as good as saying that the passage is Atatvavedaka or not 620 imparting the right knowledge. And if for attributing Brahmatva, Puccha is taken to be Adhisthana or substratum, then Brahmatva becomes Aropita or superimposed. And whatever is superimposed is unreal. So Brahmatva would become unreal. tھm And how is that this Brahmatva is attributed to Puccha alone which is a limb and why not to other limbs of that Anandamaya. Therefore, Brahmatva should not be restricted to the Puccha. It should also to be referred to the Anandamaya as a whole. Then only there would be concordance among scriptural passages Anandam brahmeti vyajanat, Brahma puccham pratistha and the like. 620 A

202 621 If the Advaitins have high regard to scripture, let them admit. Brahmatva to Puccha but they cannot have the privilege of discarding Brahmatva to Anandamaya (sheath). Abrahmatva of Anandamaya is nowhere heard in scriptures. The reason given by the Advaitins as Brahmatva, since speciFied in terms with Puccha, is not there in Anandamaya; gives chance to fabricate counter reason as Brahmatva, since not referred to Anandamaya cannot be there in Puccha as it being the part of Anandamaya or sheath. Thus mere reason leads to misinterpretation. Sometimes it also spoils the contextual purport. Therefore, that reason alone which has the support of either perception or right scriptures is valid. The has reason, given by the Dvaitins,/the support of both scriptures and Brahmasutras. Hence, Anandamaya is not a sheath. Brahmatva 622 is to be referred to both Anandamaya and Puccha. However, the reason advanced by the Advaitins may be appealing, if it is against the sutra, then it will be futile. The Advaitins contend that the Kartrtva, in respect of creation etc., of the world though a characteristic is a 622 A contingent in pure Brahman, It is a contingent characteristic and not a constituent characteristic. The above definition may be seen in the Sabala Brahman who is Avidyasrita. And it is this Sabala Brahman who is the Karta of the creation etc., of the world.

203 While interpreting the second Sutra Janmadyasya yatah, the Advaitins hold that this Laksana or definition is a contingent characteristic of Brahman. They say that Sabala Brahman, a product of Maya, is the creator etc., of this 622 B world. Hence, the above definition of the Sutra applies CINE The second sutra to this Sabala Brahman. It is as good as attributing Jagatkaranatva or world-creatorship to Maya. But the contention of the Sutrakara is different. expresses the fact of Brahman being the efficient cause (Nimittakarana) like a potter in making a pot. And this Sutra does not state the Tatastha laksana as the Advaitins believe. Because, after mentioning Brahman in the first Sutra, the Sutrakara is giving the definition of Brahman in the second Sutra. There is no necessity to define Avidya or Sabalabrahman in the second Sutra which is out of context. 623 cases. According to innumerable usages and also other aphorisms, a word having the suffix 'Tasi' conveys the sense of all 623 A In view of this Yatah in the Sutra is to be meant as 'Yena' (instrumental case). Then the sruti conveys that the Lord is the creator of this world, He is the efficient cause. He need not get modified Himself and need not appear in the form of the world as the Advaitins contend. If the definition of Kartrtva is attributed to Maya,

} 204 then the entire creation and the like of the world, would 624 It is not sound and tenable to And if, become without a Karta, hold that without a Karta, effects get originated. along with Maya, Brahman is taken to be a cause of creation, then the purpose of ascribing Tatsasthya to Brahmalaksana stands unserved, And further, neither the sruti nor the Sutra promises two types of origination of an effect with Karta and without Karta. t In the first Sutra, Brahman is described as an object of inquiry and in the second sutra as a reason to have inquiry, His constituent characteristic of creation etc., is explained. In the same way, the sruti passages Tadvijijnasasva tadbrahmeti 624 A and the like, state Brahman as an object of inquiry. And other passages Yato va imani bhutani jayante 624 B and so on, deal with constituent characteristics of Brahman, as the cause of inquiry. If the definition of Kartrtva is not referred to aim at Brahman then why the mention of Brahman, as an object of inquiry in the first Sutra, is made? And if it is held that the definition aims at Maya, then one has to pursue the inquiry of Maya to attain the same. By this, the very concept of Brahman and the inquiry of Him stand dismissed. 62'5 Hence, taking into account Brahman as the primary object of inquiry, definitions are to be explained.

} 205 The Advaitins' contention of attributing Tatasthatva to the definition of Brahman does serve the purpose of overcoming the contradiction with other passages like Niskriyam niskalam Santam, is baseless. Really speaking there is no contradiction. The passage Niskrivam niskalah Santam does not negate the Kartrtva of Brahman but negates secular effects such as birth, death and the like. So there is no contradiction among scriptural passages and hence there is no scope to attribute Tatasthatva to the definition of Brahman. Like Time, Brahman is also an efficient cause. But He is the primary efficient cause unlike Time and the like. So there is no possibility to describe Brahman as 626 the material cause by any means. 625 A The Dharma or the characteristic feature that is present only in all the defined objects and not in others, is called Laksana or definition. That is the Asadharanadharma or the unique feature of that entity. When this is what is meant by Laksana, then how can the Laksana of Jagatkaranatva, aiming at Maya, the Upadanakarana of the world, be the Laksana of Brahman? And if its application or presence is admitted in both Brahman and the Maya, then Laksana becomes Ativyapta 626 A (too-wide). Further, Laksana of Jagatkaranatva, aiming at Maya as said above, cannot be the Laksana of Brahman. Thus, the attributing Tatasthya to the definition of

1 206 Jagatkaranatva makes the very definition as the definition of Maya and not of Brahman. Thus, Tatasthalaksana spoils the very proposition of the context-inquiry of Brahman. 626 B , By disregarding the Tatasthalaksana, it is proved that Brahman cannot get associated with Maya and hence Upadanakaranatva or the fact being the material cause cannot be LACE BRZDA † ones conte attributed to Brahman. Further, Tatasthalaksana can also not be understood as Brahman is the substratum (Adhisthana) for the superimposition (Aropa) of Maya, the Upadana according to the Advaitins of Jagat. Because, neither in the Brahmasutra nor in the sruti, Aropa is described as an object of inquiry. Otherwise, the Sutrakara could have composed the second sutra as Aropasya Yatah instead of Janmadyasya yatah and the sruti would also have explained the Aropa deliberately. Therefore the term Yatah in the Sutra and the sruti, is to be meant as Brahman and to be construed Thus, there is no with Tad that literally denotes Brahman. reference to Maya by any means. 627 t is also untenable: The The contention of the Advaita that Laksana is Tatastha, 627 A 627 B since Brahman is Nirguna Laksana conveys the attributes of Brahman one or another. And if on the basis of Nirguna-sruti, Tatasthatva is attributed to the Laksana, then that leads to the defect of mutual i

207 dependence. 1 If Nirgunatva or attributelessness would be the primary import of the sruti then Laksana can be proved as Tatastha and if the Tatasthatva of Laksana is proved, Nirgunatva can be proved. Thus there is Anyonyasraya or defect of mutual dependence. So the Laksana cannot become .628 Tatastha with regard to Brahman. ! 1 Now Brahman cannot be the Upadanakarana or material cause of the world. Because, He is Nirvikari (not subject to modification). Hence He is described as the creator and so on in the Sutra as well as in the Sruti, Brahman not being subject to modification, is acclaimed as Niskriyah in the sruti. It also means that though He gets engaged in the creation and the like, He is not affected by the results and such as Punya, or merit,/Papa or demerit, In this sense, He is called Akarta or non-doer. There is no proper direction in the approach of the Advaitins since they, sometimes neglecting the Sruti, resort to the Sutra and sometimes disregarding the sutra, resort to the sruti. E.@. while explaining the sruti Asya Lokasya... the term Akasa is understood as Brahman with the help of the 629 B Sutra Akasastallingat; but while explaining Anandamaya, the determining sutra Anandamayobhyasat is given up, and it 629 A 6290 is explained as Kosa. Thus there is irrelevancy in the Advaita-interpretation.

208 cause. 629 D The Sruti sa idan sarvamsrjata clearly states that 630 Brahman is the creator of this world and not the material If Kartrtva is absolutely unseen in Brahman then this passage would have to aim at something else. But nowhere in the sruti and the sutra, Kartrtva of Brahman is negated. In the first Sutra instruction is given to engage in an inquiry of Brahman. Thus, having instructed in the first Sutra, there is no need and occasion to define Maya (Ainana) in the second sutra. So there is no scope to Upadanatva 631 attribute/an attribute of Maya, to Brahman. f 632 The Upadana or the material cause cannot itself modify into an effect. /So the Prakrti being Upadana cannot modify itself as the world. It requires a Karta or a creator to modify as the world. So the creator is needed for any creation. very argument goes in favour of Nirisvarasankhyas, who admit Prakrti as an independent cause Otherwise, the 632 A for the creation. Hence the Kartrtva, willingly or unwillingly is to be accepted without any alternative. 633 Further the Kartrtva is not seen in insentient matter. So Brahman, the supreme being, must be admitted as the Karta. Referring to the Niskriyatva passage if Kartrtva is negated then owing to Nirguna passage, Ajnana must be negated. As the soul is described a dependent Karta in the scriptures, 633 A Brahman is the sole Karta. there is no room for doubt whether 634 Brahman is the independent Karta. L

" 209 The passage stating Niskriyatva, denies the Vikriya or modification in Brahman and not the Kriya or action. If Laksana of Kartrtva, owing to Niskriya passage is Tatastha in Brahman, then Ajnana must also be taken to mean Tatastha 635 in Brahman owing to the sruti Ekamevadvitiyam brahma. Vadiraja interprets this passage in the most appealing manner. 1 In the Advaita, Brahman and Ajnana are since beginningless. So Ajnana is to be admitted as second, other than Brahman. The world, then, would be the third one. If the Advitiya sruti is taken for granted to refute the second one, then, by that, Ajnana, being second, stands negated and not 635 A the world which is the third.. Thus, the Advaita-interpretation of the Sutra and the Sruti gives scope to the defects Ativyapti (attributing 635 B 6350 (negating Katrtva Brahma Laksana to Avidya), Asambhava as Laksana) and the like. And hence it is not in accordance either with the sutra or with the sruti. By the Sutra, Janmadyasya yatah the Brahmalaksana is given. It is acclaimed that Brahman is Purna in respect of power, knowledge and the like. For the creation of this wonderful world unlimited knowledge, will, effort, power,

kindness and the like are essential, The Laksana of Srstyadikartrtva, referred to in the Sutra, is also a Guna. Thus 636 by the Laksanasutra, Gunapurnatva or perfectness in respect of the qualities of Brahman is proved, By this Laksanasutra itself, (His absolute distinction from the world of souls and matter is also proved. As Brahman is described the creator, the sustainer, the destroyer, the bestower of knowledge and the like, His Supreme Superiority is also proved. The same sutra, delineating the Laksana of Jagatkartrtva or creatorship of the world of Brahman (who is absolutely real) establishes reality of the world too. The Abheda or identity of Brahman with these qualities as 636 A explained in the ☐ passage Neha nanasti kincana is also suggested by the sutra. The fact of Abheda in His qualities is also a merit and is the very nature of Brahman, It means Brahmatva is the very nature of the qualities. is the possessor of all qualities. quality and their possessor. There is also the Gunagunibhava 637 Brahman There is identity between or the relation of the quality and the qualified. To effect These Visesas are these two, the Visesa is to be admitted. infinite in Brahman and help for Bhedavyavahara as 'knowledge hm of Brahman' and the like. These Visesas are also the very attributes of Brahman and are of the very nature of Brahman. Otherwise the very usage or expression would be meaningless. 638 All this has the sanction of the Sutras. When Brahman is

declared as the creator, He must have the defectless form. A formless one cannot act and create something, The blissful form of Brahman is glorified in both the sutras and Srutis. 638 A If the graceful and blissful form is not admitted, then Brahman would cease to get engaged in creation like a potter, lacking hands, cannot create a pot. Thus has been shown with relevant examples, irrelevancy of the Advaita-interpretation and relevancy of the Dvaita view.