Brahmasutra 1

¨
cknjk;.kfojfpre~
cz„lw=e~
fo|kuUno`fŸk;qre~
;LekTtkra txRlo±] ;fLeUuso foyh;rsA
;su izkf.kfr rn~czã] foKkukuUnfoxzge~ AA1AA
'kÄï j a 'kÄï j kpk;± ] ds ' koa cknjk;.ke~ A
lw=kHkk";ÑrkS oUns] HkxoUrkS iqu% iqu% AA2AA
bZ ' ojks xq # jkRes f r] ew f rZ H ks n foHkkfxus A
O;kseon~O;kIrnsgk;] nf{k.kkewÙkZ;s ue% AA3AA
;RÑikys ' kek=ks . k] efyuks fueZ y k;rs A
nSf'kda rega oUns] Jhu`flagfxjh'oje~ AA4AA
fuR;a foKkuekuUna] egs'ka ;frlsfore~A
iz.kkSfe f'kjlk nsoa] KkufoKkueks{kne~ AA5AA
foiz o a ' ks leq R iUuks ] xhokZ . khleq i kld%A
inokD;izek.kKks] ;frèkekZoyEcd% AA6AA
'kkÄïjaHkk";ekfJR;] czãlw=kkoyfEcuhe~A
fo|kuUnkfHkèkka o`fÙka] dqo¿Zs ga LokRerq"V;s AA7AA
vFk izFkekË;k;s izFke% ikn%
(v=kikns Li"VczãfyÄ~xksisrkuka JqfrokD;kuka fopkj%)
Chapter 1 Section 1
(This section contemplates on those Úruti texts that have explicit reference to
Brahman)
It is well known in the world and the Vedas that Lord Bâdarâyan+a, with the aim of
securing the welfare of the worlds, has contemplated on the Upanis+ads in four chapters
2 Brahmasûtra Vidyananda Vr+tti 1.1.1
bg [kyq fuf[kyfo'odY;k.kk; prqyZ{k.kheqÙkjehekalkekjHkek.kks Hkxoku~

cknjk;.k% iwo± ftKklkfèkdj.ksuSrPNkL=kL;kuqcUèkprq"V;a izs{kkoRizo`R;Ä~xHkwra n'kZ;frA
r=kkfèkdj.ka uke & fo"k;ks fo'k;'pSo iwoZi{kLrFkksÙkje~A laxfr'psfr i×pkÄ~xa
'kkL=ks¿fèkdj.ka ere~AA ,rPp i×pkÄ~xa losZ"ofèkdj.ks"kq ;kstuh;e~A
v=k 'kkL=ks leUo;ks] fojksèkifjgkj%] lkèkua] iQya psfr pRokjks¿è;k;k of.kZrk%A
r=kkfi izR;sdeè;k;% iknprq"V;su foHkDr%A r=k p izR;sda ikns¿usdkU;fèkdj.kkfu
lUrhfrA los"Z kka JqfrokD;kuka lk{kkRijEij;k ok izR;xkRekfHkÂs¿f}rh;s czãf.k rkRi;Zfefr
JqfrfHk% lgSrPNkL=kL; Jqfrlaxfr%A laxr;'pkusdèkk HkofUr] ;Fkk Jqfrlaxfr%]
. in
that are called ‘Brahmasûtra’ or ‘Chaturlakúnî’. The inaugural topic (jijñâsâ adhikarana)
in d
of Brahmasûtra pertains to the aspiration to inquire into Brahman. It also refers to the
.
four pre-requisites (anubandha chatus+t+aya) essential for such an enquiry, without which
st
e
no astute reader will proceed into the text. These four pre-requisites comprise the ‘eligible
u
(sambandha). t a q
person’ (adhikâri), the ‘topic’ (vis+aya), the ‘purpose’ (prayojana) and the ‘relation’
n
a of each section) has five essentials
e d
viz. ‘vis+aya’ (topic), ‘sanúaya’ (doubt), thev‘pûrva pakúa’ (first objection to the argument),
An ‘adhikarana’ (refers here to the sub-division
li@
tu
the ‘uttara pakúa’ (reply to the aforementioned objection) and ‘sangati’ (association,
relation).
d ra
r e
This scripture nnamed ‘Brahmasûtra’ comprises of four chapters namely –
n a
‘samanvaya’ (reconciliation), ‘virodha parihâra’ (rectification of incongruity), ‘sâdhana’
d
(means) andr. ‘phala’ (result). Each chapter (adhyâya) is further divided into four sections
(pâda) and each section comprises of various topics (adhikarana). All Úruti texts conclude
directly or circuitously in delineating the Supreme Non-dual Brahman, which is devoid
of all attributes and is identical to one’s inner Self, thereby establishing the association of
this scripture with the Úrutis (Úruti sangati).
‘Sangati’ (association) is a well-known characteristic of the scriptures. If, in a

script, the former half is unrelated to the latter one, then an astute reader verily discards
such despicable writing. That ‘sangati’ is of various types viz. ‘Úruti sangati’ (association
with the Vedas i.e. Úrutis), ‘Úastra sangati’ (association with the scriptures like Smr+tis
etc.), ‘adhyâya sangati’ (association with chapters), ‘pâda sangati’ (association with the
sections), ‘adhikarana sangati’ (association with the sub-divisions of each section) and
1.1.1 fo|kuUno`fŸk;qre~ cz„lw=e~ (foJke É) 3
'kkL=klaxfrjè;k;laxfr%] iknlaxfrjfèkdj.klaxfr% lw=klaxfr'psfrA rklq Jqfrlax&

fr#inf'kZrkA ijczãijk.kka okD;kuka rkRi;Zfu.kkZ;dU;k;lwpdRosu czãfopkj&
:iSrPNkL=kL; 'kkL=klaxfrjfHkerkA JqfrokD;kuka czãf.k rkRi;kZfnfr ^vFkkrks
czãftKklk* bR;kfnlw=kk.kkeè;k;lekfIra;koRleUo;kè;k;laxfr#P;rsA r=kkfi izFkeikns
Li"VczãfyÄ~xksirs kuka JqfrokD;kuka fopkjfo"k;Roknkikna iknlaxfr%A izkFkE;kÂkL;kfèk&
dj.klaxfr%A fo'ks"kk.kkeè;k;iknkfèkdj.kkfnlaxrhuka o.kZua ;Fkkle;a foèkkL;rs bfr
r=k r=k æ"VO;e~A
(É) (É ftKklkfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ É)
d .in
t .in
v=kiwoZi{ks eks{kkFk± osnkUrfopkjkjEHkL; fu"iQyRoflf¼%] fl¼kUrs eks{kL;
es
Kkulkè;Rosu rnFk± osnkUrfopkjkjEHkL; liQyRoflf¼fjfriQyHksn%A v=k osnkUrfopkjks
u
ta q
fo"k;%A l fda drZO;ks u osfr fo"k;iz;kstulEHkoklEHkokH;ka lfUnársA r=k ;nlfUnXèke&
a nThe ‘Úruti sangati’ of this scripture
d
the ‘sutra sangati’ (association with the aphorisms).
ve revelator
has already been demonstrated above. Being the of the logic behind the conclusive
exposition of the implication of texts @
entailing deliberation on Brahman,lisi thus known to possess the ‘Úastra sangati’. The
describing the Supreme Brahman, this scripture,
aphorisms (sûtra) of the first a tu because of their conclusion in the exposition of the
ther‘adhyâya sangati’ by the way of ‘samanvaya’ (reconciliation).
chapter,
Supreme Brahman, mark d
n
remarksconsisting
The first section (pâda), of the aphorisms containing explicit reference to the
n a
d r
the ‘jijñâsâ .
Supreme Brahman, the ‘pâda sangati’. The first sub-division (adhikarana), called
adhikarana’ (desire to know), has no ‘adhikarna sangati’.
Topic 1: Jijñâsâdhikarana
(Enquiry into Brahman)
The ‘topic’ (vis+aya) under consideration in this ‘adhikarana’ is the contemplation

over the necessity to deliberate on Vedânta. Here, in the opponent’s view, it is futile to
deliberate on the Vedânta texts for the purpose of attaining emancipation, but in the
Vedântic view such deliberation is absolutely indispensable, since emancipation can only
be attained through the faculty of Knowledge.
Doubt: In the face of the argument that deliberations on Vedânta are constructive
only if there exists an apposite ‘subject’ (vis+aya) and ‘purpose’ (prayojana), without which
iz;kstua pkfLr] u rf}pkjfo"k;ks Hkofr] ;Fkk LiQhrkyksdeè;orhZ ?kV% dkdnUrks

okA vr% lfUnXèks liz;kstus p oLrqfu fopkjfo"k;Roeki|rsA czã.kLrq LiqQVrjkgaizR;&
;kyEcuRosuklfUnXèkRokÙkTKkukUeks{k:iiz;kstukHkkokPp fopkjkugZRoe~A uákReU;ga
ukga osfr lUnsg%] ukgesosfrfoi;Z;ks okA ukI;srkn`XKkukUeks{k:ia iz;kstua flè;fr]
Jqrczã.kks¿fi ;Fkkiwol
Z l
a kjn'kZukr~A vr% la'k;kfniz;kstukHkkosuklEHkkforfo"k;kfneku~
osnkUrokD;fopkjks u drZO;% bfr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq & vkikrrks¿gaizR;;kyEc&
uRos¿I;kRefu JqfrxE;czãkRerÙoL;kgaiRz ;;kukyEcuRosu lfUnXèkRokr~] rRlk{kkRdkjkn&
such deliberations are futile; there arises a doubt whether contemplation on Vedânta is
obligatory or not?
.in
nd
Opponent: In response to such suspicion the opponent asserts that only a ‘doubtful’
i
st.
and ‘meaningful’ object is worthy of deliberations. The object about which there is no
ue
doubt, and which serves no purpose cannot be considered worthy of any deliberations.
aq
For instance nobody deliberates on a pot kept in bright light, since there isn’t any doubt
t
n
as regard its existence. Similarly nobody would deliberate on the number of teeth in a
a
ed
crow’s mouth, since such deliberation does not serve any purpose. Therefore only a
v
‘doubtful’ and ‘meaningful’ object is considered worthy of deliberations. No one has any
li@
qualms as regards ‘Brahman’, since the Úruti reveals ‘Brahman’ to be the Self of all. That
tu
Self, being the content of the knowledge ‘I’, is directly perceived by everyone, and hence
dra
is beyond the dominion of ‘doubt’. Nobody ever doubts as regards one’s own Self that
en
whether I exist or not. Therefore it is worthless to deliberate on ‘Brahman’, the Self of
ar
all, which is neither an object of doubt nor entails any contradiction. Moreover no
n
dr.
meaningful purpose is attained by the knowledge of Brahman - the Self of all, since it is
universally seen that even those who perceive Brahman as their own Self continue to be
tormented verily by the dualities and attributes of world of the form of happiness, sorrow,
hunger, thirst etc. Thus one cannot hope of attaining emancipation from the knowledge
of Brahman, and hence it is futile to deliberate on the Vedânta texts.
Vedântin: Apparently though the Self is perceived by everyone as the content of

the knowledge ‘I’, but being disparate to the Self, which is an embodiment of Brahman
as propounded by the scriptures, a doubt arises in this context. Moreover, by realizing the
identicalness of Brahman and the Self, one attains emancipation that entails the annihilation
of all sorrows and achievement of Supreme Bliss, thus serving a valid purpose. The Úruti
also declares, ‘The knower of Self transcends all sorrows’ and ‘The knower of Brahman
uFkZfuo`fÙkijekuUnkokfIry{k.keks{k:iiz;kstuoÙokPpA rFkk p ^rjfr'kksdekRefor~*]

^czãfon~czãSo Hkorh* fr Jqfr%A vr% lEHkkforfo"k;iz;kstukfneku~ osnkUrfopkj%
drZO;%A uuq Jqrczã.kks¿fi ;Fkkiwo± lalkfjRofeR;qDrfefrpsUu_ nsgk|kRekfHkekusu
nq%[kHk;kfneÙolEHkos osnizek.ktU;czãkReSD;Kkusu rnKkufuo`fÙkiwoZda nsgk|fHk&
ekufuo`rkS iwoZor~ rL; nq%[kkfneÙoa dYif;rqe'kD;Rokr~A rnqDre~ ^v'kjhja oko
lUra u fiz;kfiz;s Li`'kr%* (Nkñ 8@12@1) bfr JqR;kA ,oa p osnkUrfopkjeUrjs.k
LFkwylw{ensgfHkUua 'kq¼eikifo¼a czãLo:iekRerÙoa u dsukI;oxUrqa 'kD;rsA vrks
;FkksDrkReLo:ikoxek; osnkUrfopkjks furjkeko';d%A r=ksna czãehekalk;k vkfnea
lw=ke~ &
d .in
(1) vFkkrks czãftKklk AA1AA t.in
s .kkefuR;iQyrka]
e=kkfndeZ
vFk¾lkèkuprq"V;kuUrja_ ;LekRdkj.kk}sns ,okfXugks
q u
ta
purpose, it becomes obligatory to deliberatee
an of both - the topic as well as the
becomes Brahman only’. Therefore, due to the existence
ondthe Vedânta texts.
@ v
tu li and fear are seen even in those who listen to
As of your contention that sorrows
ronathe Self due to Ignorance. The knowledge, of the form of

Vedânta, then this is not correct, since these defects arise because of superimposition of
d
re n of Brahman and the Self, which flows from the authority
the non-Self like body etc.
realization of the identicalness
n a the Ignorance and its consequence viz. the superimposition of the
of Vedas, annihilates
d r
Self and the. non-Self. With this ends the erroneous perception of the body as the Self, as
well as the fears and sorrows that are associated with the body. The Úruti too declares,
‘The favorable and hostile do not affect one who is devoid of ego in the body’ (Ch. Up.
8.12.1). Thus none can realize that Absolute Brahman, which is entirely different from
the physical (sthûla), mental (sûkúma) and the causal (kârana) body and is free from all
vicious alliances, without resorting to deliberations on the Vedânta texts.
Athâto Brahmajijñâsâ (1)
Hence, subsequently, an enquiry into the nature of Brahman.
This is the first aphorism of this scripture. The word ‘atha’ (subsequently, thereafter)
in this aphorism implies that such an enquiry into Brahman is to be undertaken subsequent
^r|Fksg deZfprks yksd% {kh;rs] ,oesokeq=kiq.;fprks yksd% {kh;rs* (Nkñ 8@1@6)

bR;kfnuk] ^czãfonkIuksfr ijfe* (rSñ 2@1) frokD;su czãfoKkukRija iq#"kkFk± p
n'kZ;fr Jqfr%A vr% ¾ rLek|FkksDrlkèkulEiÙ;uUrja czãftKklk ^drZO;s* fr 'ks"k%A
lkèkuprq"V;a p fuR;kfuR;oLrqfoosd%] bgkeq=kkFkZiQyHkksxfojkx%] 'keneksijfrfrfr{kk&
J¼klekèkkufefr "kV~lEir~] eqeq{kqRoa psfrA ftKklkdeZHkwra czã ^tUek|L; ;r%*
bfr o{;ek.ky{k.kyf{kre~A r=k deZf.k "k"BhA ;|I;=k u dsoya czã.kks fopkj%]
fdUrq rnisf{krkuka losZ"kka inkFkkZuka fopkjks¿Lrhfr_ rFkkfi KkusukIrqfe"VreRokr~
to the fulfillment of the four essential pre-requisites. The actions like Agnihotra (Fire
sacrifice) etc. have been declared by the Vedas to bear transitory fruits. The heavenly
.in
worlds (swarga-loka) that are attained as a result of such actions are impermanent and are
in d
annihilated with time, akin to the time bound destruction of the agricultural produce. The
st .
Úruti also declares – ‘As various pleasurable things that are achieved through varied
u e
actions get exhausted in this world, similarly the other enjoyable worlds (heavens and
t a q
all) that are attained consequent to the execution of various Vedic sacrifices also get
a n
annihilated with time’ (Ch. Up. 8.1.6). Contrary to this, one attains the ultimate fulfillment
e d
through the knowledge of Brahman, as has been declared by the text – ‘The knower of
v
li@
Brahman attains Brahman’ (Tai. Up. 2.1). Hence one should aspire to know the Brahman
after fulfilling the four essential pre-requisites.
tu
d a
The four essentialrpre-requisites are – discrimination between the eternal and
r e
non-eternal, detachmentn
worlds beyond,aexcellence
from the enjoyment of fruits of actions in this world and the
in the six types of practices viz. control of mind (úama),
r . n
control of senses (dama), firm belief in the preaching of scriptures and the Guru (úraddha),
d
tolerance of dualities like cold and warm etc. (titikúâ), renunciation of the scripturally
prescribed actions like obligatory (nitya), occasional (naimittika) etc. for the purpose of
attainment of knowledge (uparati) and the attainment of mental state consequent to the
relinquishment of indolence, sleep etc. (samâdhâna), and finally the fourth viz. the desire
to attain emancipation (mumukúutâ). Deliberation on the Vedânta is possible only after
the fulfillment of the aforementioned criteria and not otherwise.
The form and nature of Brahman, that one aspires to know, would be detailed in
the next aphorism. The word ‘Brahmajijñâsâ’, having the sixth case ending, means ‘desire
to know the Brahman’. Although, in this scripture, not only Brahman has been deliberated
upon, but others viz. the embodied soul (jîva), the world with its causal factors, the
izèkkua czão
S A rfLeUifjx`ghrs rnisf{krk% inkFkkZ vFkkZnkf{kI;UrsA uuq KkrqfePNk ftKklsR;=k
izÑfrizR;;kFkZ;ksKkZusPN;ks% drZO;rk;k vuUo;kfnR;r% ^drZO;s* fr inkè;kgkjL;
oS;F;Zfefr psÂ_ Kkèkkrq:i;k izÑR;k¿tgYy{k.k;k czãkijks{kKkuL; yf{krRokr~]
lUizR;;su tgYy{k.k;k bPNklkè;L; fopkjL; yf{krRokPpA vrks czãkijks{kKkuL;
eks{klkèkuRoa JqfrokD;kuka p fopkjfo"k;RoeFkkZYyH;rsA czãkijks{kKkueso
means of attaining Brahman as also the fruit of such accompliúment have also been
discussed, but Brahman alone has to be attained through knowledge; hence Brahman is
the principal factor and the others are secondary. Comprehension of the principal verily
.in
includes the realization of the secondary also. For example on saying – ‘there goes the
in d
King’, the comprehension of all accessories like the army, the ministers etc. along with
.
the King occurs naturally. Hence the knowledge of Brahman, which is the primary subject,
t
es
verily leads to the acquisition of the knowledge of the secondary also. Accordingly, the
u
ta q
sixth case ending is used in the accusative sense, and not in the sense of mere relation.
a
The word ‘jijñâsâ’ is derived from the root n(dhâtu) ‘jñâ’ with ‘san’ as the suffix
(pratyaya). The root ‘jñâ’ means ‘knowledge’
v e d
and the suffix ‘san’ means ‘wish’. Hence
u li@means direct knowledge of Brahman. The word

the literal meaning of the word ‘Brahmajijñâsâ’ is – ‘a wish to know the Brahman’. The
t means the ‘deliberation resulting from the wish’. Hence

root ‘jñâ’ by the way of ‘ajahallakúnâ’
a
rhas to be supplied. It may be noted that in ‘jahallakúnâ’ the
‘wish’ by the way of ‘jahallakúnâ’
d
r
word loses its primary n
the verb ‘to be undertaken’
e sense, but is used in one which is in some way connected with the
n a in the ‘ajahallakúnâ’ the primary or original sense of the word
primary sense, whereas
dr .
does not disappear.
Neither of these two, i.e. ‘knowledge’ or ‘wish’ are entities that can be created,
but these two arise robotically from their causal materials. Hence both of these cannot be
deemed to have any association with the verb ‘to be undertaken’ (kartavyâ), and
consequently it is futile to designate any sense of obligation on the part of an aspirant in
undertaking these two. Negating this assertion of the opponent, the vedântin clarifies that
the root ‘jñâ’ does not imply ordinary knowledge, but refers to the direct knowledge of
Brahman that leads to emancipation. The annihilation of the directly perceived delusion
viz. the world, manifesting as name and form, is only possible with the direct knowledge
of Brahman and not otherwise, for only the direct knowledge of Brahman can destroy the
‘Ignorance’ (avidyâ) that is the seed of all worldly sorrows. Therefore a deliberation on
fu%'ks"klalkjchtkfo|k|uFkZtkyfuorZda u ijks{kKkue~ rL;kijks{kHkzeL;kfuorZd&

RokfnR;FkZ%A rLekRlkèkuprq"V;lEiUuL;kfèkdkfj.kks eks{klkèkuczãkijks{kKkuk;
osnkUrfopkj% drZO; bfr lUizR;;su yf{krs fopkjs drZO;rk;k vUo;lEHkokfnfrAA1AA
(Ñ) (Ñ tUek|fËkdj.ke~A lwÒ Ñ)
uuq ftKkflrO;L; czã.kks y{k.kkHkkosu Lo:iL;Sokfl¼s% dFka rL;
fopkjfo"k;RoeqDrfeR;k{ksilaxR;snekg&
Brahman, with a view to attain Its direct knowledge, is to be undertaken by an aspirant
who fulfills all four essential pre-requisites. Therefore the verb ‘to be undertaken’ is to be
supplied in view of the allegorical implication of the word ‘wish’. (1)
.in
i n d
Topic 2: Janmâdyadhikarana
st .
(The origin etc. of the Universe)
u e
a q
The Brahman, which has been introduced as tan entity worthy of deliberations in
a n as no definitive configuration
v d
the first aphorism, cannot be taken up for contemplation
e
can be ascribed to It in absence of any characteristics. In the face of such protestation the
aphorist characterizes that Brahman iin@
from which occurs the birth etc. l the current aphorism – ‘Janmâdyasya yatah+’ (That
tuaforementioned
of this Universe). The current adhikarna (sub-division)
commences in response to
d r athe objection, and hence is related to the
e
previous adhikarna by
emancipation thatrcan
nresult
the way of protestation. Here the opponent negates the state of
a from deliberations on Brahman in the absence of any definitive
nthat can be ascribed to It, as It lacks any characteristics. On the contrary the
r.
configuration
d affirms the state of emancipation, as there are definitive characteristics that can
vedântin
be attributed to Brahman. These attributes establish the configuration of Brahman, and
thus makes It worthy of deliberations.
Doubt: The text from Taittirîya Upanis+ad - ‘That from which all beings take
birth, That by which they continue and That into which they dissolve; aspire to know
That only, That is Brahman’ (Tai. Up. 3.1) – forms the topic of deliberation of this
adhikarna. Here arises a doubt whether the states of birth, continuance and dissolution
characterize Brahman or not?
Opponent: A characteristic (lakúana) is defined as a special attribute that remains

in the object it characterizes. For example the dewlap of a cow represents a characteristic
(2) tUek|L; ;r% AA2AA

v=k iwoiZ {ks y{k.kkHkkosu czãLo:ikfl¼Ôk eks{kkflf¼%] fl¼kUrs y{k.klÙokr~
rfRlf¼fjfr iQyHksn%A v=k ^;rks ok bekfu Hkwrkfu tk;Urs---rf}ftKklLoA rn~czãsfr*
(rSñ 3@1) bR;kfn okD;a fo"k;%A r=k fda Jw;ek.ka tUekfnda czãy{k.ka lEHkofr
u osfr la'k;s_ y{k.kL; y{;o`R;lkèkkj.kèkeZRosu tUeknstxZ fUu"Br;k czãfu"BRokHkkokUu
rn~czã.kks y{k.ka lEHkorhfr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq & vL; uke:ikH;ka O;kÑrL;
izR;{kk|qiLFkkfirL; eulkI;fpUR;jpuk:iL; txrks tUefLFkfrHkÄ~xa ;r%
.in
of that species. When the origin, continuance and dissolution concerns the world and not
in d
the Brahman, then how can they be labeled as the characteristics of Brahman?
t.
Vedântin: To this we say,
u es
Janmâdyasya yatah+t(2) a q
a n
d
That (Brahman) from which occursethe birth etc. of this (Universe).
v
@
li originates, continues and into which dissolves
t
Brahman is that cause fromu which
ra
this world of unimaginable diversity,
d
manifesting as name and form, and which apparently
n
is being directly perceived. This is an ephemeral characteristic of Brahman. The attribute
ein the object permanently is called its ‘ephemeral’ characteristic.
rFor
a
that does not remain
n
.
(tat+astha lakúana). example – ‘the house with a crow perched on its top belongs to
Devdatta’;rin this instance the crow constitutes an ephemeral sign since it will not remain
d
perched on the top of the house forever, but still it serves as a characteristic that
distinguishes Devdatta’s house from others’. Similarly the characteristic of origin etc. of
the Universe does not remain in Brahman at the time of emancipation or in Its bonafide
form, but only exists during the times of manifestation of the world. Hence it is an
ephemeral characteristic of Brahman that exists in It temporarily, but nevertheless leads
to Its comprehension.
The word ‘etc.’ used along with ‘birth’ in this aphorism implies ‘continuation’
and ‘dissolution’, i.e. the birth, continuation and dissolution of the Universe. Against this
the opponent argues that the word ‘etc.’ can also be construed to imply the remaining of
the six modifications of birth, continuance, growth, transformation, decay and death, as
loZKkRloZ'kDrs% dkj.kkn~Hkofr] rn~czãsfrA ,rPp czã.kLrVLFka y{k.ka ^;rks ok

bekfu Hkwrkfu tk;Urs] ;su tkrkfu thofUr] ;Riz;UR;fHklafo'kkUrh* (rSñ 3@1)
R;kfnJqR;uqxesu izksDre~] uk=k ^tk;rs* bR;kfn "kM~fodkjk.kke~ ;kLdifjifBrkuka
xzg.keqfpre~A ^lR;a KkueuUra czãs (rSñ 2@1) R;kfnJqfrfuxfnra p lR;kfnda rL;
Lo:iy{k.ke~A u p lR;kfninkuka yksdfl¼fHkUukFkZdkukesdL; czã.kks y{k.kRok&
izflf¼fjfr okP;e~_ rs"kke[k.MkFkZRosuSdczãi;Zolkf;r;k rYy{k.kRolEHkokr~A vr%
Lo:irVLFkksHk;y{k.kyf{krL; czã.k% Lo:ifln~è;k rTKkukUeks{kfl¼fjfr ftKkL;a
czãsfr Hkko%AA2AA
(Ö) (Ö 'kkL=;ksfuRokfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ Ö)
.in
declared in the scripture Yâska’s Nirukta. The vedântin negates this n
i d by saying
s . assertion
t as – ‘That from which
e
that the word ‘etc.’ derives its meaning from such Upanis+adic texts
u into
ta
(Tai. Up. 3.1), for the Brahmasûtras have essentially been q
these beings take birth, That by which they continue and That
written to sum
which they dissolve’
up the implications
a n meaning as declared in the Yâska’s
of the Upanis+ads. Hence it is inappropriate to take the
Nirukta.
v e d
l i@and Infinite’ (Tai. Up. 2.1) - this declaration of the
tuof Brahman, and hence constitutes Its ‘configurative’
‘Brahman is Truth, Knowledge
a
rlakúana). If the opponent argues that the words ‘Truth’,
Upanis+ads defines the structure
d
characteristic (swarûpa
r e n are seen to have different implications, and hence cannot
‘Knowledge’ and ‘Infinite’
n a Brahman, the vedântin replies that this is possible, for these three
characterize a single
Brahmandr.has uninterrupted
words, being in their implication, conclude in single Brahman. Thus
been demonstrated to possess both – ephemeral and configurative –
characteristics, and Its direct realization leads to emancipation. Hence Brahman is proved
to be worthy of deliberations. (2)
Topic 3: Úâstrayonitvâdhikarana
(Brahman being the source of Scriptures)
Explanation 1
By attributing the causality of the universe to Brahman and thus establishing the
omniscience of the latter, one is lead to the objectionable acceptance of attribution of
uuq fuf[kytxRdkj.kRosu czã.k% loZKRoa ;nqDra_ rnlaxra] txnUr%ikfruks

osnL; fuR;Rosu r=k fuf[kytxRdkj.kRok;ksxkfnR;k{ksilaxR;snekg&
(3) 'kkL=k;ksfuRokr~ AA3AA
v=k iwoZi{ks czã.k% loZKRokfuèkkZj.ka] fl¼kUrs rfÂèkkZj.kfefr iQyHksn%A
^vL; egrks HkwrL; fu%'oflresrn`Xosnks ;tqosZn% lkeosn%* (c`ñ 2@4@10)
bR;kfnokD;e=k fopkjfo"k;%A ,r}kD;a czã.kks osndr`ZRosu loZKRoa lkèk;fr u osfr
causality to the Vedas also, which negates their eternality. Hence it is improper to attribute
.in
the causality of the Universe to Brahman. The present adhikarana commences in response
i n d
to this objection only, and hence is related to the preceding adhikarana by the way of
.
protestation. Here, in this adhikarana, the opponent negates the omniscience of Brahman
t
es
whereas the vedântin affirms it; this alone is the difference between the results of the
u
two.
ta q
Doubt: ‘The R+gveda etc. manifest from then
Up. 2.4.10) – this Upanis+adic text forms the e
a exhalation of this Supreme Self’ (Br.
d of deliberation of this adhikarna. Here
v topic
@ text or not?
the Vedas as is declared in the aboveliÚruti
arises a doubt whether the omniscience of Brahman is proved by It being the source of
t u
Opponent: Brahmand a
r cannot be the creator of the Vedas as the latter have been
n
declared to be eternaleby the Úrutis. Hence the quality of omniscience cannot be attributed
to Brahman, andaItrcannot be the cause of Universe.
r . n
dVedântin: To this we say,
Úâstrayonitvât (3)
Brahman is omniscient since It is the source of scriptures.
Brahman alone is the cause of the Vedas (R+gveda etc.) that themselves are an
ocean of knowledge bringing to light all that is past, present and the future. Though the
Úruti has proclaimed eternality of the Vedas, yet in the face of the abovementioned text
that declares the Vedas to have emerged from the exhalation of the Supreme Self, it is
concluded that the Úruti proclaiming the eternality of the Vedas is merely eulogistic. If
objected that ascribing causality to the Vedas would lead to the defect of their being
la'k;s_ ôkpk fo:ifuR;;k* bR;kfnokD;s osnL; fuR;RoJo.ksu rRdrZ`Rosu r=k

loZKRoefl¼fefr iwo%Z i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq & egr ÍXosnkns% 'kkL=kL;kusdfo|kLFkkuksi&
càfgrL; iznhioRlokZFkkZo|ksfru% loZKdYiL; ;ksfu% dkj.ka czã] rL; HkkoLrÙoa]
rLekr~ & 'kkL=k;ksfuRokr~ osndrZ`RokÙk=k loZKRoflf¼fjfrA u p ôkpk fo:ifuR;;k*
bR;usu osnL; fuR;Roa Jw;rs bfr okP;e_ ^vL; egrks HkwrL;* bR;kfnJqrkS
iq#"kfu%'okloYyhy;k osnksRifÙkJqR;uqjksèksu rfUuR;RoJqrjs FkZoknijRokr~A u pSoa osnL;
drZ`tU;Ros ikS#"ks;RokifÙkfjfr okP;e~_ iwoZlxZfl¼osnkuqiwohZdRosu ijes'oj&
jfprRokH;qixekfnfr izFkea o.kZde~A
vFkok iwoZlw=kksDrsu fuf[kytxRdkj.kRosu yf{krs czãf.k izek.kkUrj&
xE;Roek'kÄïÔkg & 'kkL=k;ksfuRokr~A y{k.kizek.kkH;ka oLrqflf¼fjfr r;ksczZã& . in
in d
.
fu.kZ;kFkZRoknsdiQyRoa laxfr%A v=kiwoZi{ks dsoyeuqekuL;So fopkjfo"k;Roa]
st
e
fl¼kUrsJqfrokD;kukfefr iQyHksn%A ^ra RokSifu"kna iq#"ka i`PNkeh* R;kfn okD;e=k
u
a q
t that emerge from the Supreme
n
created by somebody, then it is not correct, since the Vedas
a respect to the alphabets, words, verses
v
etc., as they were during the previous creation.
d
Lord as His out-breath are precisely the same, with
e If the Vedas contained something new-
li @ in the previous creation, then only one could
fangled, as compared to their manifestation
u
have suspected some external thand in their creation. But such is not the case. Hence,
even though manifesting r
d a the Supreme Lord, the Vedas do not carry the defect of
from
e n
being created by somebody. (3)
nar Topic 3: Úâstrayonitvâdhikarana

.
dr(Scriptures are the valid means of knowledge of Brahman)
Explanation 2
That Brahman, which has been declared to be the cause of the universe in the
previous aphorism, would also become the object of other means of knowledge; the
current aphorism commences after taking into account such presumption. The
establishment of the existence of any entity requires two factors – characteristics of such
entity (lakúana) and its substantiation through means of valid knowledge (pramâna). The
previous aphorism described the characteristics of Brahman, whereas the current aphorism
focuses on the means of Its validation.
fo"k;%] r¯Rd czã.k% 'kkL=kSdlefèkxE;Roa leiZ;fr u osfr lUnsgs_ czã.kks

?kVkfnofRl¼oLrqRosu u dsoya 'kCnxE;Roe~] vfirq ekukUrjxE;RoefiA vrLr}kD;a
u cz ã .k% 'kkL=kS d lefèkxE;Roa leiZ ; rhfr iw o Z % i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq ' kkL=ka
;FkksDre`Xosnkfny{k.ka ;ksfu%dkj.ka izek.keL; czã.kks ;FkkoRLo:ikfèkxes] rL;
HkkoLrÙoe~] rLek}snSdizek.kdRoarnsdkfèkxE;Roa leiZ;frA u pfl¼oLrqRosu czã.kks
ekukUrjxE;RoeihR;qDrfefr okP;e~_ rL; :ik|Hkkosu rFkkRoklEHkokr~A :ik|Hkko'p
Here, in the opponents view, only ‘inference’, as a means of valid knowledge,

merits deliberations. In the vedântin’s view, ‘Vedic texts’ are also means of valid knowledge
and hence merit deliberations.
d .in
Doubt: ‘I enquire as regards this Being who is known fromt.thei nUpanis+ads’ – this
u esarises a doubt whether
Úruti text forms the topic of deliberation of this adhikarana. Here
ta
Brahman can be known only through the means of scriptures, q or there exist other means
of knowing It?
a n
v d
ejust as established objects like pot etc. can
i@
Opponent: The opponent opines that
u
be known, not only through the means
t l of speech, but also through other means like direct
raHence from the above Úruti text one cannot conclude that
perception etc., similarly Brahman can also be known through other means of knowledge,
d
apart from merely scriptures.
nthrough scriptures only.
r
Brahman can be known
e
a To this we say,
. n
dr
Vedântin:
Úâstrayonitvât (3)
The scriptures being the valid means of Its knowledge.
The vedântin asserts that the real nature of Brahman can only be known through
the means of the Vedas, as has been declared in the aforementioned Úruti text. Though an
established entity, the Brahman cannot be known by any other means of knowledge as
one knows a pot etc., since Brahman, which sans all adjuncts and attributes, is not an
object of senses that can be perceived directly. The Brahman lacks in form and shape, as
declared by the Kat+ha Úruti, ‘The Supreme Self lacks in form, sound, smell, touch, taste
^v'kCneLi'kZfe* R;kfnJqfrfl¼%A bfr f}ñ o.kZde~AA3AA

(Ü) (Ü leUo;kfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ Ü)
uuq dFka czã.k% 'kkL=kizek.kdRoeqP;rs] ;kork ^vkEuk;L; fØ;kFkZRok&
nkuFkZD;ernFkkZuke~* (tSñ 1@2@1) bfr fØ;kijRoa 'kkL=kL; nf'kZrfeR;kf{kI;kg&
etc.’. Hence, even though Brahman is an established entity, It cannot be known through
any other means except the scriptures as It lacks in form etc. (3)
Topic 4: Samanvyâdhikarana
(Brahman is known from the scriptures alone because of It being the object
of their fullest import) .in
in d
Explanation 1
st.
u e
How can you (vedântin) affirm that Brahman a is q
t known through scriptures? The
great seer Jaimini has declared the Vedas to be thenpromulgators
Vedic pronouncements that do not promulgated
a of ‘action’ only. Those
e of an already established entity - ‘The
any action are considered futile. The Vedas
v
@ to the previous one by the way of protestation.
cannot be construed to be the promulgators
Brahman’. The present adhikarana islirelated
a tu for an aspirant, desirous of emancipation, to pursue
In the opponent’s view it is futile
d rthe vedântin asserts the contrary. All Vedânta texts (Upanis+ads)
Vedânta scriptures, whereas
r en of this adhikarana.
form the topic of deliberation
n aHere arises a doubt that whether the Upanis+ads serve as an ancillary to

.
drtexts
Doubt:
the Vedic proclaiming actions by way of revealing the agent, deity etc. of various
actions, or do they propound an entity viz. Brahman that is already in existence perpetually?
Opponent: Brahman is not an entity that can be abandoned or accepted. Hence if

Vedânta is presumed to propound such an entity, then it (Vedânta) would become worthless.
On the contrary, since ‘an action’ requires an agent, a deity etc., Vedânta, being the revelator
of these, may be presumed to form a part of an injunction about action. Or, Vedânta may
be presumed to enjoin some other kind of action like ‘meditation’ (upâsana), since both
– meditation and Brahman – have been revealed in the same context in the Upanis+ads.

(4) rÙkq leUo;kr~ AA4AA

vL; iwokZfèkdj.ksuk{ksilaxfr%A v=k iwoiZ {ks eqe{q kksonZs kUrs"kq izoR` ;flf¼%] fl¼kUrs
rfRlf¼fjfr iQyHksn%A v=k losZ osnkUrk fopkjfo"k;k%A rs fda drZn` o s rkfnizdk'kukFkZRosu
fØ;k'ks"kk] mr fuR;fl¼czãizfrikndRosu rkn`x~czãijk bfr lUnsgs_ gs;ksik&
ns;'kwU;fl¼oLrqczãijRos fu"iz;kstuRoizR;{kkfnizek.klkis{kRoizlÄ~xkr~ dekZisf{kr&
drZ`Lo:insorkfnizdk'kusu fØ;kfofèk'ks"kRoa] lekuizdj.kkr~ LookD;xrksik&
lukfofèk'ks"kRoa ok osnkUrkukeH;qis;fefr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq lkS=kLrq'kCn%
iwoZi{kO;ko`R;FkZ%A rr~ czã loZKa fuf[kytxnqRifÙkfLFkfry;dkj.ka osnkUr&
Tattu Samanvyât (4)
d .in
t .i n
But that Brahman is known from the Upanis+ads since s
u e they all conclude in the
exposition of the same.
ta q
a n the opponent’s point of view. The
d
The word ‘tu’ (but) in the aphorism is negating
omniscient Brahman, which is the cause ofeorigin, continuance and dissolution of the
v texts alone, since It is the object of their
@
li become fully reconciled on acceptance of this
entire creation, is known through the Vedântic
t
fullest import, and hence all these u texts
r a
truth. For instance, in the Chândogya Upanis+ads it is declared, ‘O amiable one! This
d as name and form, was, before origin, but Brahman alone,
re n
entire creation manifesting
a
one without a second’ (Ch. Up. 6.2.1). Similarly the Aitareya Upanis+ad also asserts, ‘Before
manifestation,nthis entire creation of the nature of name and form was but the Self alone’
d r. The Br+hadâran+yaka also states, ‘The Self, which experiences everything,
(Ai. Up. 2.1.1).
is but Brahman only’ (Br. Up. 2.5.19). Thus all aforementioned texts reconcile in the
revelation of Brahman. Hence it can be indubitably acknowledged that all Vedântic texts
have, for certain, Brahman as their definitive objective. Consequently, when such
reconciliation has been attained, it becomes inappropriate to conclude that the Vedânta
texts enjoin some kind of action or form a part of an injunction about action, for admitting
such conclusion will amount to accepting ‘unheard of’ implications and rejecting the
established ones.
If asserted that Vedânta is all about the exposition of dispositions of agent, deity
etc., which are essential for the execution of any action; then such proclamation is incorrect,
for the Úruti text, ‘but wherein everything becomes the Self, then who will see whom and
'kkL=ks.kSokoxE;rsA dqr%\ leUo;kr~ & lE;DrkRi;sZ.k r=k czã.;sokUo;kr~ & lEcUèkkr~A

fuf[kyosnkUrokD;kfu rkRi;sZ.kSrL;SokFkZL; izfrikndRosu leuqxrkfuA rFkkfg
^lnsolksE;snexz vklhr~ ,desokf}rh;e~* (Nkñ 6@2@1) ^vkRek ok bnesd ,okxz
vklhr~* (,sñ 2@1@1) ^v;ekRek czã lokZuqHkw%* (c`ñ 2@5@19)bR;knhfuA u p
osnkUrokD;kuka fuf'prs¿fi czãLo:ifo"k;s leUo;s¿FkkZUrjdYiuk ;qDrk_
JqrgkU;JqrdYiukizlÄ~xkr~A u pk=kdrZ`Lo:iizfriknuijRofefr okP;e~] ^rRdsu
da i';sr~* bR;=k fØ;kdkjdiQyfujkdj.kJo.kkr~A u p rs"kka fl¼oLrqLo:iijRos
izR;{kkfnfo"k;Rofefr okP;e~] ^rRoefl* bR;kfn egkokD;eUrjs.k czãkReRo&
L;koxUrqe'kD;Rokr~A u p gs;ksikns;'kwU;fl¼oLrqLo:iksins'ks fu"iz;kstuRofefr
okP;e~] ^jTtqfj;a uk;a liZ%* bR;kfnor~ czãkReSD;koxesu ^r=k dks eksg% d% 'kksd%*
.in
with what’ (Br. Up. 2.4.14), absolutely negates any action, agent tor .i nd whatsoever in
e s since the Vedânta
result
u
the Self. The assertion that Brahman too is an object of direct perception
q
ta
proclaims It as an established positive entity is erroneous, for Brahman cannot be known
n adic maxim – ‘That thou art’ (Ch.
through any means other than from the great Upanis+
Up. 6.8.7).
ed a
v
@ nothing can be gained by instructing as regard
l
It is also incorrect to declareithat
u nor rejected. As the instruction that ‘this is a rope
a t
an entity that can neither be accepted
and not a snake’ is seen to
delusive perception ofn
r annihilate
dsnake the ignorance regarding the rope as well as the
re realization of the Self - of the nature of Brahman, also results

the and also the fear arising out of such erroneous perception,
a
similarly the unambiguous
nof all cataclysm as is declared by the Úruti, ‘how can there be any grief and
r .
in annihilation
d for the one who has realized the Self to be one with the absolute non-dual
delusion
Brahman’ (Iúa. Up. 7).
Hence it is concluded that the Vedânta texts principally promulgate the nature of
an established entity – the Brahman. It is reprehensible to hold these texts to be primarily
delineating the nature of agent, deity etc., or forming a part of an injunction about action
by way of revealing them. Brahman is devoid of any adjunct and attribute and hence It
cannot be known through any other means of valid knowledge except the Úruti texts that
are entirely autonomous and not dependent on any other means. Thus on ascertaining the
implication through the six tests viz. the beginning-end (upakrama-upasanghâra),
distinctiveness (apûrvatâ), result (phala), reiteration (abhyâsa), reason (upapatti) and eulogy
(bZ'kkñ 7) bR;=k lokZuFkZfuo`fÙkiz;kstuL; Jo.kkr~A vrks osnkUrk% fl¼czãijk%] u

rq d=kkZfnijk%] izdj.kkUrjLFkRokr~A ,oa :ikfnghuL; czã.k% JqfrfHkUuizek.kkUrjkxE;Rosu
rRizfrikndJqfrokD;kuka lkis{kRoeI;lEHkoe~A rLeknqiØekfn"kfM~HkfyZÄ~xSosZnkUrkuka
fl¼czãijRoesosfr fl¼e~A bfr izFkea o.kZde~A
vLrq ok 'kkL=kizek.kda czã] rFkkfi ;wikfnon~ fofèk'ks"kr;So czã 'kkL=ks.k
leI;Zrs bR;sdnsf'kera izlÄ~xknkf{kI;kg & rÙkqleUo;kr~A iwokZfèkdj.ksukL;
izlÄ~xlaxfr%A v=k iwoZi{ks czãksiklu;k eks{k%] fl¼kUrs rTKkukfnfr iQyHksn%A r=k
osnkUrk% izfrifÙkfofèkfo"k;Rosu czã izfrikn;fUr] mr LokrU=;s.ksfr la'k;s_
izo`R;kfnfyÄ~xkHkkosu fl¼oLrqfu 'kfDrxzgk;ksxkr~ iq#"ka dq=kfpf}"k;fo'ks"ks
d .in
t .in
(arthavâda), it can be declared that the Vedânta texts conclude
e s unequivocally in the
delineation of Brahman, and not otherwise. (4)
q u
n ta
e d a as an independent entity)
Topic 4: Samanvyâdhikarana
(The scriptures promulgate Brahman
@ v
i
ulExplanation
t 2
d rathat Brahman can be known through the scriptures alone,

still It is presented r e nas a contingent entity involved in the injunction about meditation,
“Even if it is accepted
n athe ‘wooden sacrificial stake’ (yûpa) and ‘sacrificial fire’ (âhavanîya

there
d .
as are presented
r in injunctions about action” – the aphorist addresses this ‘theme’ in this
agni) as factors
adhikarna, which also constitutes the basis of its relation with the previous adhikarna.The
entire Vedânta constitutes the topic under deliberation here.
Here in the opponent’s view emancipation is attained through meditation on

Brahman, whereas the vedântin holds that attainment of emancipation is possible only
through the knowledge of Brahman. This alone is the difference between their results.
Doubt: The doubt that arises is whether the Vedânta promulgates Brahman as an
independent entity, or as a contingent entity in association with the injunction about
meditation?
izorZ;Rdqrf'pfUuorZ;Pp 'kkL=keFkZon~Hkorhfr izo`R;kfnijL;So 'kkL=kRosu rs"kka

fl¼ijRokH;qixes 'kkL=kRok;ksxkPp fofèkfo"k;r;So 'kkL=ka czãleiZdfefr iwoZ%
i{k%_ fl¼kUrLrq rn~ czã LokrU=;s.k osnkUrk% leiZ;fUrA dqr%\ leUo;kr~ rkRi;ZoÙosu
rs"kka rn~czã.;sokUo;kr~A u p izo`R;kfnfyÄ~xkHkkosu fl¼s oLrqfu u 'kfDrxzg bfr
okP;e~] izo`Ùks% 'kfDrxzgs fyÄ~xRos fucZUèkkHkkokr~A ;rks fg iq=kLrs tkr% bR;knkS
Opponent: Persuasion or dissuasion from activity is considered to be the indicator

of comprehension of the inherent power of any word, and hence such comprehension of
the word power cannot be acknowledged if it neither persuades nor dissuades but only
illustrates an existing reality. The relevance of scriptures lies in their aptitude to persuade
.i n
or dissuade a person from activities, which is their primary function. Scriptures are nothing
n d
but a collection of these persuasive or dissuasive pronouncements. Hence if one assumes
i
st .
Vedânta to be primarily concerned with the portrayal of a perpetually existent entity viz.
e
Brahman, then such Vedânta text would lose all scriptural relevance. Therefore Vedânta
u
a q
promulgates Brahman only as a contingent entity in association with the injunction about
t
meditation, and not independently.
a n
Vedântin: To this we say, ve d
l @
i Samanvyât (4)
t uTattu
ra
dpresented as an independent entity by the scriptures since all
That Brahman
r e n is
n a
Úruti texts are seen to reach their fullest import in the explicit delineation of the Absolute
r .
Non-dual Brahman.
dThe scriptures promulgate that Brahman as an independent entity only, since all
Úrutis unambiguously conclude in propounding the Absolute Non-dual Brahman that is
devoid of all adjuncts and attributes. Your assertion that comprehension of the power of
a word is not possible in absence of signs of persuasion or dissuasion from activity is not
correct, for such signs are not mandatory to comprehension. On informing one Chaitra,
in Sanskrit, that a son has been born to him, another man standing nearby, though oblivious
of the language, readily comprehends the same on seeing the joy on Chaitra’s face as well
as the relevant clothes etc. presented to him. Thus it is seen here that comprehension of
the word power, stating a factual incident not entailing any persuasion or dissuasion,
occurs even to one ignorant of the language.
g"kkZfnfyÄ~xsu fl¼kFksZ¿fi 'kfDrxzglEHkokr~A uuq izo`Ù;kfnijL;So 'kkL=kRoeqDrfefr

psUu fgra 'kkLrhfr 'kkL=kfeR;usu fgr'kkluk}snkUrkukefi 'kkL=kRoksiiÙks%A vrks¿fo|k&
dfYirlalkfjRofuorZusu fuR;eqDrkRelafLFkfr:ieks{kleiZ.ksu p fgr'kkldRokr~
'kkL=kRoa osnkUrkukfefrfl¼a] rLekr~ osnkUrk% fl¼czãijk bfr f}ñ o.kZde~AA4AA
(á) (á bZ{kR;fËkdj.ke~A lwÒ á&ÉÉ)
bRFka prqfHkZ% lw=kS% lkèkuprq"V;lEiUuftKklqfHkftZKkL;a czã loZtxTtUefLFkfr&
Your other declaration that Scriptures (úâstra) are nothing but the assimilation of persuasive
.in
and dissuasive injunctions is also incorrect, for Scripture is that which subscribes to
d
t. n
one’s welfare. Accordingly the Vedânta, which leads to one’s emancipation by annihilating
i
the delusion caused by Nescience and subsequent realization of the identicalness of Self
u es
and Brahman, is indubitably the crown of all scriptures. Hence it is clear that Vedânta
a q
promulgates Brahman, a perpetually existent entity, independently, and not as a contingent
t
n
entity in association with the injunction about meditation. (4)
a
v e d
Topic 5: Îkúatyadhikarana
(The primary causal
u l i@entity of the world is sentient)
a t to the previous one by way of protestation. Here, in the

r of meditation, is of the form of unification with Pradhâna,
dborn
This adhikarana is related
n
re view the fruit, born of knowledge, is of the form of unification
opponent’s view, the fruit,
a
whereas in the vedântin’s
n“O affable one, before its creation, this world, of the nature of name and
r .
with Brahman.
d but Existence (sat) only, one without a second, devoid of all differentiations.
form, was
That (Sat) envisaged, ‘I shall be many and I shall be born’, and That created Fire”, (Ch.
Up. 6.2.1-3) – the implication of the word ‘Existence’ (Sat), occurring in this text of
Chândogya Upanis+ad, forms the topic of deliberation of this adhikarana, for after
ascertaining that the Universe, referred to by the word ‘it’, before its creation was identified
with this ‘Existence’ only, it is now desired to proclaim the sequential creation of Fire
etc. from this ‘Existence’.
Doubt: The previous four aphorisms describe Brahman, which an aspirant

endowed with the four essential prerequisites aspires to know, to be the cause of origin,
continuation and dissolution of the world, to be omniscient, and one that is being
continually propounded as the essence of all Vedânta texts. Herein the followers of Sânkhya
y;dkj.ka loZKa loZosnkUrizfrik|fefr izfrikfnre~A r=k lka[;k% eUors] ;fRdy

dwVLFkRosu fØ;k'kDR;HkkokÂ czã txr% dkj.ka] fda rfgZ\ f=kxq.kkRedRosu fØ;k'kfDr&
;ksxkr~ f=kxq.kkRedepsrua izèkkueso txr% dkj.kfefr era fujkdrqZfenekg &
(5) bZ{krsukZ'kCne~ AA5AA
iwosZ.kkL;k{ksilaxfr%A v=k izèkkuSD;lEinqiklua iwoZi{ks iQya] fl¼kUrs
czãkReSD;Kkufefr Ks;e~A ^lnso lksE;snexz vklhnsdesokf}rh;fe* R;qiØE; ^rnS{kr
cgqL;ka iztk;s;sfr rÙkstks¿l`tr* (Nkñ 6@2@1&3) bR;=ksna'kCnokP;a uke:iO;kÑra
txRizkxqRiÙks% lnkReuk¿oèkk;Z rL;So izÑrL; lPNCnokP;L;s{k.kiwoZda rst%izHk`rs%
lz"V`Roa Jw;rsA rfRdatxRdkj.ka lPNCnokP;a izèkkueqr czãfs r la'k;s_ f=kxq.kkRedRokTtxr%
. in
i n d
dkj.ka izèkkueso HkforqegZfr_ r=k fg jtksxq.kkRedRosu fØ;k'kfDreÙoa fujfr'k;&
st .
lÙoksRd"kZRosu loZKRoefi izfl¼feR;r% izèkkueso fuf[kytxRdkj.kfefr iwoZ% i{k%A
e
u is devoid of all action and
school of thought object as to how can the Brahman, which
a q
t insentient,
a n
activity, become the cause of the world? They declare the modifiable ‘Primordial
cause of the universe. v e d

Nature’ (Pradhâna), constituted by the three traits viz. Sattva, Raja and Tama, to be the
Opponent: The world isu

i@
ofl the nature of the three traits (sattva, raja and tama),
a t only. The triple-featured (tr+gunâtmaka) Pradhâna,
r
and hence its cause can be Pradhâna
dthe quality of ‘raja’, gets endowed with the power to create
e n
on the intensification of
through actions, r
a and on the escalation of the ‘sattva’, becomes omniscient. Hence the
n by the Sânkhya School, alone is the cause of entire creation.
r .
Pradhâna, endorsed
dVedântin: The aphorist, with a view to refute such contention of the Sânkhya’s,
proceeds with the next aphorisms.
Îkúaternâúabdam (5)
The Pradhâna is not the cause of the Universe, for the Upanis+ads do not mention
it; the first Cause being characterized by the act of visualization.
It is not correct to attribute the causality of the Universe to Pradhâna as there is no

Úruti text to support this assertion. The Úrutis declare the causal entity to have resorted to
fl¼kUrLrq bZ{krsukZ'kCne~A u [kyq lka[;'kkL=kifjdfYirepsrua izèkkua txr% dkj.ka

osnkUrs"okJf;rqa 'kD;e~A dqr%\ v'kCne~A gsrqxHkZfo'ks"k.kRosu Hkkoizèkkur;k
pk'kCnRoknizek.kdRokr~A dFke'kCnRoe~\ bZ{krs% & txRdkj.kL;sf{kr`RoJo.kkr~A
uápsruL; izèkkuL;sf{kr`Roa lEHkofr] rL; psruèkeZRokr~A uuq dwVLFkRosu czã.kks¿fi
KkufØ;k'kDR;Hkkosu txRdkj.kRoa u lEHkorhfr psUu_ r=k ek;kefgEuk loZL;kfi
lEHkokr~A ;ÙkwDra lÙoxq.kksRd"ksZ.k izèkkuL; loZKRofefr] rUuksii|rs_ izèkkukoLFkk;ka
xq.klkE;s¿fi lÙoxq.kO;ikJ;ka Kku'kfDrekfJR; loZKRoeqP;sr] rfgZ jtLreksO;ikJ;ka
KkuizfrcUèkd'kfDrekfJR; r=k fdf×pTKRoeI;qP;rke~A vr% lPNCnokP;ehf{kr`
psrua czãSo txnqiknkufefrAA5AA
d .in
. in
uuq ek Hkorq izèkkus¿psrur;k eq[;ehf{kr`Roe~ ^rÙkst ,s{kr* ^rk vki ,s{kUr*
t
es
(Nkñ 6@2@3&4) bR;psrus xkS.kehf{kr`Roa ;Fkk] rFkk¿=kkfi xkS.kehf{kr`Roa
u
dYI;rkfeR;k'kÄïÔkg&
taq
a n AA6AA
v e d
(6) xkS.k'psUukRe'kCnkr~
l i
visualization (îkúana) prior to creation,@which is only possible in a sentient (cetana) entity
t
(Brahman), and not in the insentientu (jad+a) Pradhâna. Visualization is a feature of sentience
and not insentience.
d ra
r e nthe unchangeable (kût+astha) Brahman lacks in the power of creation
a then it is not correct, for the association of Mâyâ makes all that
If asserted that
n
.
r Brahman. It is also incorrect to attribute omniscience to Pradhâna on the
and all-knowingness,
possibledfor
intensification of the quality of Sattva, for Pradhâna is a state where all the three traits
exist in equilibrium. If one attributes omniscience to Pradhâna on the intensification of
Sattva, then, on the escalation of Raja and Tama, it would robotically get endowed with
ignorance, making it impossible to act as the creator. Hence the sentient Brahman alone
is the cause of the Universe, and not the insentient Pradhâna. (5)
Since the act of primary visualization is not possible in Pradhâna due to its
insentient nature, therefore one should figuratively accredit this action to Pradhâna, as
has been done in the case of ‘water’ and ‘fire’ in the Chândogya Úruti. To dispel such
belief of the opponent is pronounced the next aphorism:
Gaun+aúcaennâtmaúabdât (6)
vIrstlksfjo izèkkus bZf{kr`'kCnks xkS.k bfr psUu_ vkRe'kCnkr~A ^lnso* bR;qiØE;

^rnS{kr* (Nk% 6@2@1]3) bfr p rstks¿cUukuka l`f"VeqDRok rnso izÑra lnhf{kr`
^ls;a nsork* bfr nsork'kCnsu ijke`'; ^vusu thosukReukuqifz o'; uke:is O;kdjokf.k*
(Nkñ 6@3@2) bR;=k lPNCnokP;s txRdkj.ks vkRe'kCnJo.kkr~A r=kkpsrua izèkkua
xq.ko`R;sf{kr` dYI;rs psr~\ rnso izÑrRokr~ ^ls;a nsors* fr ijke`';srA ijke`';rs fg
thokReuk lk nsorkA thoks uke psru% izk.kèkkjf;rk 'kjhjkè;{k%] rFkkfoèk&
izfl¼RokfUuoZpukPpA l dFkepsruL; izèkkuL;kRek Hkosr~A rLekTtxRdkj.ks
lPNCnokP;s vkRe'kCnJo.kkn~ r=k u xkS.kehf{kr`RofefrAA6AA
If asserted that the scriptures mention the act of visualization in the secondary
sense, we say it is not so, for the word Self is used there.
. in
in d
.
st to ‘water’ and
‘Just as the act of visualization has been figuratively accredited
‘fire’, similarly should be understood with regard to Pradhânaealso’, this assertion of the
quis seen in reference to the first
ta
opponent is incorrect, for the use of the word ‘Self’ (âtma)
n
Cause of creation.
e d a
@ v its creation, this world, of the nature of
Beginning with ‘O amiable one, before
name and form, was but Existence
u l i (Sat) only, one without a second, devoid of all
differentiations’, and then goingt further to state – “That (Sat) visualized, ‘I shall be many
d raThat created Fire”, (Ch. Up. 6.2.1-3); until here whatever
and I shall be born’, and then
has been designated
r e n the word ‘Sat’, qualified with the feature of ‘visualization’, the
by
same is referredato by the word ‘Deity’ in the text – “That Deity, that is as such, visualized
n these three (fire, earth and water) as the ‘jîvâtmâ’ (individual Self), I,
- ‘entering. into
r
Myselfdwould evolve names and forms’” (Ch. Up. 6.3.2). In this text the first cause of the
universe, referred to by the word ‘Sat’ at first, has been declared later by the word ‘Self’.
Now, if the insentient Pradhâna is accepted, figuratively, to indulge in the process of
visualization, then Pradhâna being the entity under consideration, the word ‘Deity’ in the
latter text would also be implied to be referring to it (Pradhâna) only. But in the latter text
the word ‘Deity’ has been characterized as the ‘jîvâtmâ’. The word ‘jîva’ (individual
Self), by its usage and derivation, refers to an entity which is sentient, which controls the
body and holds the vital-airs (prâna). The insentient Pradhâna can never be referred to by
the word ‘jîva’, and hence Pradhâna cannot be accredited with the act of visualization
even in the secondary sense. (6)
uuq jkK% lokZFkZdkfjf.k Hk`R;s eekRek Hkælsu bfriz;ksxonpsrusfi izèkkus

HkoRokRe'kCniz;ksx%] iq#"kHkksxkioxZlEikndL; rL; lokZFkZdkfjRokfnR;k'kÄïÔkg&
(7) rfUu"BL; eks{kksins'kkr~ AA7AA
iwoZlw=kkr~ usR;uqorZrs] u izèkkuekRe'kCnkyEcua HkforqegZfr] ^l vkRek* bfr
izÑra lnf.kekueknk; ^rÙoefl* (Nkñ 6@8@7) bfr psruL; 'osrdsrkseks{Z kf;rO;L;
rfUu"Bkeqifn'; ^vkpk;Zoku~ iq#"kks osn rL; rkonso fpja ;koUu foeks{;s¿Fk
lEiRL;s* (Nkñ 6@14@2) bfr izkjCèk{k;kuUrja & eks{kksins'kkr~A vr'psruL;
eqe{q kksLrfUu"BRokuqiiÙks% rFkkfoèkksins'kd'kkL=kL;kizkek.;kiÙks'p ukRe'kCnokP;a izèkkue~A
fd×p dFkf×pr~ 'kkL=kizkek.;euqfJR;J¼;k¿UèkykÄ~xwyU;k;su rnkRen`f"Va ifjR;T;
d.in
t. inBhadrasena, who
s the word ‘Self’
esimilarly
Just as a King utters appreciatively for his committed minister
u
q individual Self (jîvâtmâ) by
serves him wholeheartedly, ‘Bhadarsen is verily my own Self’;
t a
n such assertion of the opponent is
can also be used for the insentient Pradhâna, for it serves the
arranging emancipation and enjoyment for it. Toa
pronounced the next aphorism:
v ed refute
i@mokúopadeúât (7)
Tannis+t+hlasya
u
a t
d rnot refer to Pradhâna, for the attainment of liberation is
n
The word Self does
re gets established in That.
spoken of for one who
n a
r .
d construed to imply Pradhâna, for starting from the text, ‘This is the Self’ (Ch.
The word ‘na’ (not so) is carried forward from the last ahporism. The word ‘Self’
cannot be
Up. 6.7.8), and concluding with the declaration, ‘Thou art That’ (ibid.), the reposition of
oneself in the Self that is subtler than the subtle is being preached to Úvetaketu – the
aspirant desirous of emancipation. Moreover, to one who is firmly established in the
Self, the scriptures preach of the attainment of emancipation by the texts, ‘one who has a
teacher knows that Self. For such knower, liberation is but as far as the exhaustion of the
‘prârabdha karmas’ (actions responsible for the present body), after which the enlightened
verily attains emancipation (Ch. Up. 6.14.2). If the word ‘Self’ is construed to imply the
insentient Pradhâna, then establishing oneself in the latter will not lead to emancipation
of the sentient aspirant, but on the contrary, the aspirant would rather lose his sentience
too. Moreover, the scriptures too, that preach so, would lose all validity. If anyone,
following others blindly (andhalângûlanyâya; logic of the blind man holding the tail of
rfn~HkUuekRekua u izfri|sr] rFkk lfr eks{kklEHkoks¿uFkZizkfIr'p L;krke~A rLeknkRe&

'kCn'psruij bfr fl¼e~AA7AA
uuqLFkwyk#UèkfrU;k;sukLrqizèkkuksins'k}kjk¿;ekReksins'kbR;k'kÄïÔkg&
(8) gs;RokopukPp AA8AA
usR;uqorZrsA ;|ukReSo izèkkua lPNCnokP;a] rfgZ rnso ^l vkRek rÙoefl*
(Nkñ 6@8@7) bR;=kksifn"Va L;kr~] l rnqins'ka JqRok¿ukReKr;k rfUu"Bks ek Hkwfnfr
eq[;ekRekueqifnfn{kq 'kkL=ka LFkwyk#UèkrhU;k;sukRer;ksifn"VL; izèkkuL; gs;Roa czw;kr~A
an ox), fails to comprehend the Self as distinct from Pradhâna, then such one will not
.in
only lose the chance of attaining emancipation, but will incur sin also. Hence the word
i n d
‘Self’ is indicative of a sentient entity, and not the insentient Pradhâna. (7)
.
st as regards a grosser
u e
To make one comprehend a subtle entity, one first preaches
t
entity, and then steers ingeniously to the subtle one. Thisa q
is called ‘sthûlârundhatî’ logic.
Keeping this in mind is said:
a n
v e d
i@
Heyatvâvacanâcca (8)
The Pradhâna has not tbeen ul referred to even indirectly, for the scriptures do not
d ra subsequently.
instruct as regards its desertion
r e n
n aof ‘na’
The word (not so) is carried forward from the last ahporism. If Pradhâna be
r.
d Up. 6.7.8) and ‘That thou art’ (ibid.), would be inferred as preaching that
the implication the word ‘Existence’ (sat), then in that case the Úruti texts, ‘That is the
Self’ (Ch.
(Pradhâna) only. Hearing such pronouncements an aspirant, desirous of emancipation,
may not establish himself in the insentient Pradhâna mistaking it to be the real Self, the
Úruti, seeking to reveal the primary Self, should have preached, on the basis of
‘sthûlârundhatî’ logic, the rejection of aforesaid Pradhâna. But such pronouncements by
the Úruti are nowhere to be found. On the other hand the sixth chapter of Chândogya
Upanis+ad is seen to conclude after preaching the knowledge of ‘Existence’. There is no
topic discussed ahead. Hence, due to absence of any Úruti text preaching the rejection of
Pradhâna, the word ‘Existence’ cannot be inferred to mean Pradhâna.
upSoeokspr~] lUek=kkRekoxfrfu"BSo "k"BizikdifjlekfIrn`Z';rsA vrks gs;Rokopukr~

gs;RokdFkukUu izèkkua lPNCnokP;e~A fd×p dkj.kfoKkukr~ lo± dk;± foKkra Hkorhfr
izfrKkre~] rPp fo#è;sr lR;fi gs;Roopus izèkkuL;A vr ,o lw=kksDrpdkj&
'kCnsuSdfoKkusu loZfoKkuksiØefojksèkknfi u izèkkua lPNCnokP;fefrAA8AA
bRFka prqfHkZ% lw=kS% izèkkuL;sf{kr`Rokfnfujklsu txRdkj.kRoa fujLre~] laizfr
LorU=kgsrqfHkLrfUujflrqa lw=k=k;ekg&
(9) LokI;;kr~ AA9AA
usR;uqorZrsA u izèkkua txRdkj.ka HkforqegZfrA dqr%\ LokI;;kr~] LofLeu~
izÑrlPNCnokP;s fpnkRefu vI;;kr~ ^lrk lksE; rnk lEiUuks Hkofr Loeihrks d .in
t.in
es
Hkofr* (Nkñ 6@8@1) bR;=k y;Jo.kkr~A izÑr% lPNCnokP;% vkReSo Lo'kCnsugs ksP;rsA
u
Moreover, in the beginning of the context, it hasqbeen asserted that everything
n taa lump of clay, everything made
becomes known on knowing the cause; as on knowing
of clay becomes known. Hence even if one would
e d ahave found any scriptural text preaching
@
the rejection of Pradhâna, one would be facedv with the contingency of contradicting the
i occurring in this aphorism, precisely denotes
initial assertion. The word ‘ca’ (as lalso),
uimplication
a
this contingency alone. Hence thet of the word ‘Existence’ (sat) is Brahman
only, and not Pradhâna. (8)r
nd
a e
rnegating the attribute of ‘visualization’, and consequently the ability
n in Pradhâna in the first four aphorisms, now, with a view to negate
Hence after
to create the. Universe
r
d of Universe in Pradhâna citing other independent causes, commence the
the causality
next three aphorisms.
Svâpyayât (9)
The Pradhâna is not the implication of the word Self, for the scriptures mention
the merger of the individual soul into its own Self.
Pradhâna cannot be the cause of Universe, for this context concerns the sentient
Self that is implied by the word ‘Existence’ (sat). As in the text – ‘O amiable one, when,
in the state of deep sleep the embodied soul gets suffused with ‘Existence’ (sat), then, at
that period of time it merges into its own Self’ (Ch. Up. 6.8.1). Here, the same Self that is
reihrksHkoR;fixrks HkofrA vfiiwoLZ ;sry s ;

Z kFkZRokr~A vrks ;fLeu~ LFkwylw{eksikfèk};ksijes
rnqikfèkÑrfo'ks"kkHkkokRlq"kqIrkS los"Z kka izkf.kukeI;;ks y;ks Hkofr] rnso psrua lPNCnokP;a
txr% dkj.ka] u izèkkue~AA9AA
(10) xfrlkekU;kr~ AA10AA
usR;uqorZrAs ukpsrua izèkkua txr% dkj.kaA dqr%\ xfrlkekU;kr~ ^vkReu vkdk'k%
lEHkwr%* (rSñ 2@1) ^vkReu ,osna loZe~*] ^vkReu ,"k izk.kks tk;rs* (izñ 3@3)
bR;kfn"kq losZ"kq osnkUrs"kq xrs% psrudkj.kRokoxrs% lkekU;kr~ lekuRokr~A vrks
xfrlkekU;kr~ loZKa czãSo txr% dkj.kfeR;ols;e~AA10AA
(11) JqrRokPp AA11AA
.i n
usR;uqoR;ZA u lka[;ifjdfYirepsrua izèkkua txnqiknkuanlEHkofr]
i d dqr%\
s t.
the implication of the word ‘Existence’, is being denoted u e
t
also, and it is into this own Self only that the mergencea qof
by the word ‘sva’ (own Self)
the individual soul has been
a nprefix ‘api’, implies ‘merger’. When,
declared. The root ‘in+’ (to go), when preceded by the
v
in the deep sleep (sus+upti), the soul loses all d
e attributive distinctness, then, that sentient
i@
Self, which is denoted by the word ‘Existence’,
of Universe, and not the Pradhâna.l(9)
into which all beings merge, is the cause
a tu
d r Gatisâmânyât (10)
r e n
n
Because aall Vedânta texts unanimously refer to a sentient entity (Brahman) as
dr. of the Universe.
the first Cause
The insentient Pradhâna is not the cause of Universe, for all Úruti texts are seen to
conclude unanimously in attributing the causality of the Universe to a sentient entity.
The texts like, ‘From the Self originated the space’ (Tai. Up. 2.1), ‘From the Self emerges
this vital force’ (Pr. Up. 3.3), clearly point to a sentient Self from which originated the
entire Universe. Hence the omniscient Brahman indeed is the cause of the Universe. (10)
Úrutatvâcca (11)
And because the Upanis+ads propound Brahman as such.

JqrRokPpA Jw;rs fg 'osrk'orjk.kka eU=kksifu"kfn loZKeh'oja izÑR; ^l dkj.ka

dj.kkfèkikfèkiks u pkL; df'pTtfurk u pkfèki%* ('osñ 6@9) bR;=k dj.kkfèkikuka
thokukefèki% loZK% ijes'oj% l'kCnsu txr% dkj.kfeR;qDre~A rLekRloZKa czãSo
txr% dkj.ka] u izèkkueU;}sfr fl¼e~AA11AA
(à) (à vkuUne;kfËkdj.ke~ A lwÒ ÉÑ&Éã)
The insentient Pradhâna, as imagined by the Sânkhya School, cannot be the cause
of Universe because of the declaration in the Úvetâúvatara Upanis+ad, wherein, in the
.in
context of the omniscient Lord, is declared, ‘That Lord is the ordainer of even the master
d
t.i n
of organs, and He alone is the cause of Universe. He Himself is without any cause, and
es
there is no other ruler over Him’ (Úv. Up. 6.9). Hence it is proved that the omniscient
u
Lord alone is the cause of Universe, and not the Pradhâna or anything else. (11)
q
n t
Topic 6: Ânandamayâdhikarana a
e d
(The Blissful a
One)
v
@ (non-Úankar’s) viewpoint
Explanation 1: The
u liother
a t ‘That from which the birth etc. of this occurs’ (1.1.2),
drrevealed in the Upanis+ads’ (1.1.11), it has been demonstrated
Starting from the aphorism,
n
re – describing either the Qualified or the Unqualified Brahman –
and ending with, ‘Because
that all Vedântaatexts
r. n in the Unqualified Brahman only. They accomplish this either directly
ultimately rejoice
throughdthe principle of knowledge or circuitously through various meditations. The
Upanis+ads describe Brahman in Its twin forms – the Qualified and the Unqualified. The
former, being associated with Mâyâ and its effects, is possessed of the limiting adjuncts
and attributes that manifests as varied modifications of name and form, whereas the
latter is devoid of Mâyâ and all limiting adjuncts and attributes. The Úruti texts that
enlighten the Unqualified Brahman do so by the principle of direct knowledge, whereas
those texts that propound the Qualified one will also ultimately conclude in the Unqualified
Brahman only though indirectly through the principle of meditation.
Now, with a view to promulgate that these twin forms of Brahman are in reality
one only since the Vedânta texts sermonizes the path of ‘meditation’ (upâsana) for the
Qualified Brahman and the path of ‘knowledge’ (jñâna) for the Unqualified one,
bRFka ^tUek|L; ;r%* bR;kjH; ^JqrRokPp* bR;UrS% lw=kS% lfo'ks"kfufoZ'ks"k&

czãijk.kka losZ"kka osnkUrkukeqiklukfofèk}kjk lk{kkPp fufoZ'ks"kczãijRoa O;oLFkkfire~A
vèkquk lksikfèkdfu:ikfèkdHksnsu f}:ia fg czãkoxE;ekueI;sdeso] rnisf{krks&
ikfèkfof'k"Va fujLrksikfèkda pksikL;Rosu Ks;Rosu p osnkUrs"kwifn';rs] bR;srRizn'kZuk;
ijks xzUFk vkjH;rsA r=k fufoZ'ks"kokD;fopkjkRedefèkdj.kfenekjH;rs&
(12) vkuUne;ks¿H;klkr~ AA12AA
bZ{kR;fèkdj.ks ^rÙkst ,s{kr* bR;=k izk;ks¿eq[;eh{k.keqDre~] r|Fkk u
commences the subsequent scripture. Firstly, with a view to deliberate upon those texts
that highlight the Unqualified Brahman, commences the Ânandamayâdhikarana.
. in
As in the previous adhikarana the act of ‘visualization’ .has in d
st been figuratively
accredited to ‘fire’ (Ch. Up. 6.2.3) etc., and hence it could noteconclusively
u establish the
q in the Úruti text, ‘The Self
is Blissful (âtmânandamayah+)’ (Tai. Up. 2.5), owing a
causality of Brahman as the creator of the Universe; similarly
t
n cannot be construed to be definitive
to the use of the suffix ‘mayat’
d a
e is related to the previous one by the way
denoting ‘modification’, the word ‘âtmânandamayah’
v
in its implications. Thus the current adhikarana
@
of counter-illustration.
li
a tisuTruth, Knowledge and Infinite’ (Tai. Up. 2.1) – in this
d
Doubt: ‘The Brahman r sequentially the Self as being constituted by ‘food’,
e
context the Úruti, after
r n describing
intelligence,n
a
‘vital force’, ‘mind’ and ‘intelligence’, goes on to declare, ‘within the Self constituted by
r. the ‘blissful one’ being referred to by the Úruti is the same Brahman that
a doubtdwhether
there is another inner Self constituted by ‘bliss’ (Tai. Up. 2.5.2). Here arises
is being referred to as ‘Truth, Knowledge and Infinite’, or is it some other entity?
Opponent: The opponent asserts that the ‘blissful one’ refers to some secondary
self other than Brahman since it occurs in the context wherein the Úruti is describing a
series of secondary Selves constituted by ‘food’ etc.
Vedântin: The vedântin, on the contrary, asserts that the ‘blissful one’ refers to
none other than the ‘Supreme Self’ only since:
Ânandamayoabhyâsât (12)
txRdkj.kRofu'pk;da] u rFkk ^vkRek¿uUne;* bR;=k e;Vks fodkjkFkZRos

rnUr%ikfrifBrRoknfu'pk;d bfr iwoZs.kkL; izR;qnkgj.klaxfr%A v=k thoL;kuUn&
e;Rosuksiklufefr iwoZi{kiQye~] fufoZ'ks"kczãSD;izfefrfjfr fl¼kUriQye~] fdUrq
,dnsf'kers mHk;=kksiklufefr foosd%A rSfÙkjh;ds¿Uue;a] izk.ke;a] eukse;a] foKkue;a
pkuqØE; ^vU;ks¿Urj vkRek¿uUne;%* bfr Jw;rsA r=k fda ^lR;a KkueuUra czã* (rSñ
2@1) bR;srr~ izÑra ija czãoS kuUne;'kCnsuksP;rs¿FkkZUrja osfr la'k;s_ czã.kks¿FkkZUrjeeq[;
vkuUne;inokP;%A dqr%\ vUue;k|eq[;kReizokgifBrRokfnfr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq
vkuUne;ks¿H;klkr~A ijekReSokuUne;ks HkforqegZfrA dqr%\ ijekReU;sokuUn'kCnL;
cgqÑRoks¿H;klkr~A vkuUne;a izÑR; ^jla ások;a yCèok¿¿uUnh Hkfor* ^;ns"k vkdk'k
d .in
vkuUnks u L;kr~* ^,"k ásokuUn;kfr* (rSñ 2@7) ^lS"kkuUnL; ehekalk* ^,rekuUn&
t. in
es
e;ekRekueqilaØkefr* (rSñ 2@8) bR;soekuUn'kCnL; cgqÑRoksczã.;H;klknkuUne;
u
t a q
vkRek czãfs r xE;rsA uUoeq[;kReizokgifBrRokneq[; vkuUne; bfr psUu_ vkuUne;L;
a n
lokZUrjRokr~A LFkwyk#UèkrhU;k;su 'kkL=kL;kUue;k|kUrjRosu lokZUrjL; ijekReu%
v e d
The Blissful One is Brahman
u li@
on account of repetition.
t
d rabeen repetitively used in the scriptures to denote ‘Brahman’.
The term ‘Blissful’ has
r en one’ the Úruti declares, ‘This embodied soul attains happiness

In the context of the ‘Blissful
n a
by coming in contact with Bliss. How could it ever attain happiness if this Bliss was not
dr.Up. 2.8.1), ‘The embodied soul attains this Self full of Bliss’ (Tai. Up. 2.8.5).
present in the supreme space within the heart’ (Tai. Up. 2.7), ‘This is an evaluation of
Bliss’ (Tai.
Thus the word ‘Bliss’ has been repetitively used by the Úruti to refer to ‘Brahman’. Hence
the term ‘blissful one’ refers to none other than the ‘Supreme Self’ only. Your assertion
that the ‘blissful one’ refers to some secondary self other than Brahman as it occurs in
context of sequential enumeration of secondary selves is erroneous, since the ‘Blissful
one’ exists as the innermost self of all the secondary selves enumerated here. The Úruti
has sermonized the primary Self i.e. the ‘blissful one’ in the aforementioned manner
keeping in mind the commonly prevalent logic of enumerating the grosser entity first and
then serially moving on to describe the most subtle one so that even a person of
compromised intellect can also comprehend the same. This is also called as description
by ‘arundhatî logic’, wherein one initially points to a much grosser star as the ‘arundhatî
rkRi;ZoRosu izfriknuijRokr~A rLeknkuUne;% ijekReSoAA12AA

uUokuUne;L; fodkjkFkZRokfnR;k'kÄïÔkg&
(13) fodkj'kCnkUusfr psUu_ izkpq;kZr~ AA13AA
ukuUne;% ijekRek HkforqegZfrA dqr%\ fodkj'kCnkr~A fodkjkFkZde;V~izR;;&
Jo.kkr~ cz ã .k'pkuUnfodkjRokuq i iÙks % A rLeknUue;kfn'kCnof}dkjfo"k;
,okuUne;'kCn bfr psÂ_ izkpq;kZr~A ^rRizÑropus e;V~* (ikñ 5@2@21) bR;=k
izpjq rk;ka e;V~iRz ;;or~ vkuUne; bR;=kkfi izpjq rk;keso e;V% Lej.kkr~A vkuUnizpjq Roa
star’, and then steers the observer to the real ‘arundhatî star’ which is much subtler.
Hence the ‘blissful one’ is none other than the primary Supreme Self. (12)
. i n
in d
Vikâraúabdânneti caenna; prâcuryât (13)
st .
e
ubut denotes abundance.
t
The suffix ‘mayat’ does not denote modification,a q
n
a to here is not the primary Self due to
ed
Opponent: The ‘blissful one’ being referred
v
i@
the use of a suffix (mayat) in the word ‘ânandamaya’
the Supreme Self is an entity that is lbeyond
in the ‘modification’ sense, whereas
tu with reference to the gross body (sthoola úarîra), i.e.

any modifications. Like the word ‘annamaya’
d a
conveys the sense of modification
r of the food (anna), similarly the word ‘ânandamaya’ also
the gross body is a modification
r e
refers to the innermostncasing, in line with the casings of food, vital-air etc., that has as its
limbs ‘joy’ etc.a
n as is declared in the Úruti, ‘Of Him joy is verily the head’ (Tai. Up. 2.5).
r. This is not correct since the suffix ‘mayat’ has also been used in the
dVedântin:
sense of ‘abundance’ as per the instructions of Pân+inî’s aphorism (Pân+inî’s grammar sutra
5.4.21). For example in the phrase ‘annamayo yajñah+’ (this sacrifice has an abundance of
food) the suffix ‘mayat’ has been used in the sense of ‘plenty’, and not in the sense of
‘modification’. Similarly in the word ‘ânandamaya’ the suffix is used to indicate the
abundance of ‘bliss’, which ultimately concludes in the Supreme Brahman only. In this
world if a healthy, wealthy, wise and a young adult attains the rulership of the entire earth
with all its seven isles, then that would be counted as the supreme pleasure for the humans.
If such pleasure be multiplied hundred times, then that constitutes the supreme pleasure
of ‘gandharavas’ (a class of divine beings), hundred times that is the pleasure for ‘pitaras’
(manes), and so on till one concludes in the supreme Bliss attained by the one established
p r=k ekuq"kkuUnknkjH;ksÙkj=k'krxq.kkuUnkfèkD;su czãkuUnL; fujfr'k;Rokoèkkj.kkr~A

vr% izkpq;kZFksZ¿=ke;V~izR;;%AA13AA
e;V% izkpq;kZFksZ gsRoUrjekg&
(14) r¼srqO;ins'kkPp AA14AA
rekuUna izfr ^,"k ásokuUn;kfr* (rSñ 2@7) bR;=k czã.kks gsrqRoO;ins'kkr~
izkpq;kZFksZ¿fi e;V% lEHkoknkuUne;% ijekReSoAA14AA
br'pkuUne;% ijekReSosR;kg&
(15) ekU=kof.kZdeso p xh;rs AA15AA
d .in
^czãfonkIuksfr ije~* bR;qiØE; ^lR;a KkueuUra czãs* .(rS
t inñ 2@1) freU=ks
u es and hence the Úruti
ta q
in the Supreme Brahman. Thus the Bliss of the Brahman is supreme,
is referring to It by the word ‘ânandamaya’. (13)
a n
ve d
Taddhetuvyapadeúâcca (14)
l @Brahman is mentioned as the source of all

ithat
And for the further reason
tu
Bliss.
dr a
r n
esuffix in the word ‘ânandamaya’ is in the sense of abundance only
a
The ‘mayat’
ntext - ‘This Blissful One indeed is making the entire world happy’ (Tai.
Up. 2.7.1),ris. pointing to the Supreme Brahman only as the cause of all empirical happiness.
since the Úruti
d
Hence wherever one perceives happiness, be it clear that it is indeed a spark of the abundant
Bliss of Brahman. Hence due to the meaning of the suffix ‘mayat’ as ‘abundance’, the
word ‘ânandamaya’ refers to Supreme Brahman alone. (14)
Mântravarn+ikameva ca gîyate (15)
The very Brahman that has been mentioned in the Mantra portion is spoken of
in the Brâhmana text as well.
In the Tai. Up., beginning with the text, ‘The knower of Brahman attains the
Highest’ (Tai. Up. 2.1.1), and continuing with the sermon, ‘Brahman is the Truth that is
impervious to time. It is the illuminator of all and is Itself self-illumined. It is beyond the
;RizÑra czã lR;kfnfo'ks"k.kSfuZèkkZfjre~]rr~ ekU=kof.kZdeso czã ^vU;ks¿Urj vkRekuUne;*

bR;=k xh;rsA eU=kczkã.k;ksjsdkFkZRoa ;qDre~] vU;Fkk izÑrgkukizÑrizfØ;kizlÄ~x%
L;kr~AA15AA
(16) usrjks¿uqiiÙks AA16AA
br'pkuUne;% ijekReSo] usrj% & bZ'ojknU;ks thoks ukuUne;inokP;%A dqr%\
vuqiiÙks%A vkuUne;a izÑR; ^lks¿dke;r cgqL;ka iztk;s;s* (rSñ 2@6) fr Jw;ek.kL;
l`"Vs% iwo± l`T;ekukuka fodkjk.kka lz"VqjfHkUuRodkef;r`RoknsjuqiiÙks%A vr% loZfodkjk&
fnlz"V`Rokfnda u ijekReuks¿U;=kksii|rsAA16AA
(17) HksnO;ins'kkPp AA17AA
.i n
br'p ukuUne;kstho%A r=kkuUne;izdj.ks ^jlks oS l%A jlanásdok;a yCèokuUnh
s t.i
u e and Infinity’ (ibid.); the
realm of space, time and matter. Brahman is Truth, Knowledge
very Brahman that has been ascertained here as, ‘Brahman
ta qis Truth, Knowledge, Infinite’
(ibid.), is spoken of in the Brâhman+a portion as, a n‘Inside this there exists another self
d
called the blissful one’ (Tai. Up. 2.5.2), for iteis appropriate only to acknowledge that the
v same meaning, otherwise it will amount to
@
rejecting the meaning of Brahmanliderived from the current context and accepting an
mantra and the Brâhman+a portions bear the
a tu one refers to the Supreme Self only. (15)

unrelated meaning. Hence the
d r blissful
r en Netaroanupapatteh+ (16)
n a
r. other (individual soul) is not implied here, for that is illogical.
dThe
Moreover the term ‘blissful one’ means the Supreme Self only, for in the context
of this ‘Blissful one’ is heard that – ‘He desired that let me be many and let me be born as
the populace. He deliberated and then created all this that is perceived’ (Tai. Up. 2.6.1).
Here, before creation, the entire created modifications have been declared to be inseparable
from the creator. All these declarations are fulfilled in the Supreme Self only, and not in
the embodied soul. Hence the ‘Blissful one’ is none other then the Supreme Self alone.
(16)
Bhedavyapadeúâcca (17)
And because of the mention of difference between the two.

Hkorh* (rSñ 2@7) fr thokuUne;;ksyZCèk`yCèkO;RoHksnsu O;ins'kkr~A ufg Dokfi

yCèkSo yCèkO;ks n`"V%A r=kkfi thoczã.kksjkSikfèkda HksnekfJR; ^HksnO;ins'kkPps*
R;qDre~A vrks u r=k ikjekfFkZda fHkUuRoek'kÄïuh;e~AA17AA
uuq rákZuUne;'kCnsu izèkkueqP;rkfeR;k'kÄïÔkg&
(18) dkekPp ukuqekukis{kk AA18AA
vkuUne;izdj.ks ^lks¿dke;r* (rSñ 2@6) bfr dkef;r`RoJo.kkUukuqek&
uSdxE;L; izèkkuL;kis{kk¿uUne;Rosu Lohdkj%A u psne~ ^bZ{krsukZ'kCnfe* R;=k
.in
Moreover the term ‘Blissful one’ cannot imply the embodied soul, since in the
d
in
context of the ‘Blissful one’ the Tai. Up. declares, ‘That Supreme Self is of the nature of
t .
es
Bliss indeed. Attaining Him only this embodied soul attains happiness’ (Tai. Up. 2.7.1).
u
Here the embodied soul is declared as an aspirant and the Supreme Self as the entity
q
t a
aspired for. The distinct difference amongst the two implies that the term ‘Blissful one’ is
n
e d a
used for the Supreme Self and not for the embodied soul. An aspirant is always seen to
attain something that is different from him. The attainer and the attained cannot be same.
v
@ scriptures which promulgate the attainment
u
Opponent: Then, in that case, l ivarious
of Self would stand nullified, astthere can be no attainer of one’s own Self as such, as per
your own admission above.ra
n d
a e
rThis is not correct, for all scriptures promulgate as above taking into
r.
consideration nthe superimposition that occurs between the Self and non-Self, which indeed
Vedântin:
isolatesdthe embodied soul from Brahman empirically. (17)
Kâmâcca nânumânâpeks+â (18)
Pradhâna cannot be inferred here, for the mention of wishfulness.
Opponent: If the meaning of the word ‘the Blissful one’ cannot be taken as the
‘embodied soul’, then why not it be construed to imply the ‘Pradhâna’ – the entity
acknowledged by the school of Sânkhyas, since ‘Pradhâna’ can also be termed as ‘the
Blissful one’ due to the preponderance of the quality of ‘sattva’?
Vedântin: This is not correct since in the context of the ‘Blissful one’ it is heard,
‘He wished, let me manifest as many, let me be born’ (Tai. Up. 2.6.1). The attribute of
fujkÑrfefr okP;e~_ dkef;r`RoJo.ksu iqu% rfUujkdj.kizlÄ~xL;knks"kkfnfrAA18AA

(19) vfLeUuL; p r|ksxa 'kkfLr AA19AA
br'p ukuUne;'kCn% izèkkus thos ok iz;qT;rsA ;rks áfLeu~ izÑrs vkuUne;s
vkRefu izfrcq¼L;kL; thoL; r|ksxa 'kkfLr ^;nk ásoS"k ,rfLeUun`';s¿uk&
RE;s¿fu#Drs¿fuy;us¿Hk;a izfr"Bka foUnrs* (rSñ 2@7) bfr 'kkL=ke~A rnkReuk ;ksx%
r|ksxLrn~HkkokifÙkeqZfDrfjR;FkZ%A lk p eqfDr% ijekReifjxzgs ?kVrs] u izèkkuifjxzgs]
thoifjxzgs okA rLeknkuUne;% ijekReSosfr fLFkre~AA19AA
b;a rkonsdnsf'kersusrnfèkdj.kLFklw=kk.kka o`fÙkjfHkfgrkA HkxoRiknh;ers
.in
Rosoalw=kk.kka ;kstuk cksè;kA iwokZfèkdj.ks eq[;s{k.kkuqjksèksu czãfu.kZ;s xkS.kizokg&
ikBL;kfu'pk;dRoa ;Fkk] uSofegkèkkjRoko;oRo;ks% iqPN'kCny{kdRolkE;kno;oizk;&
in d
s .
t only in a sentient
e
‘wishfulness’ that is heard in context of the ‘Blissful one’ is possible
u school. This has already
ta q
entity, and not in the insentient Pradhâna inferred by the Sânkhya
been dealt in the aphorism 1.1.5 wherein Pradhâna was
n refuted
a úâsti (19)
on similar logic. (18)
v e d
Asminnasya ca tadyogam
Moreover the scripturesu l @

i the absolute identicalness of the two.
a t declare
r
d one’ cannot be construed to imply either the embodied soul or
e n
The word ‘Blissful
Pradhâna, for therscripture promulgates the union of the ‘enlightened soul’ with the
n aThe Úruti (in context of the Blissful one) declares, ‘When the embodied
.
‘Blissful one’.
soul getsrfearlessly
d established in this invisible, detached, ineffable, eternal Self, i.e. it
does not perceive any difference between itself and the Supreme Self, then it gets liberated
from the fear of this transmigratory world’ (Tai. Up. 2.7). Such declaration by the Úruti
can only be possible when the word ‘the Blissful one’ be construed to imply the Supreme
Self, since its implication as the embodied soul or Pradhâna will never lead to the
emancipation of the embodied soul, as is being preached by the above Úruti. (19)
The various aphorisms of this adhikarana have been explained above on the basis
of other (non-Shânker’s) view-point. Now the same would be dealt in accordance with
the Shânker’s view-point.
ifBrL;kfu'pk;dRofefr iwosZ.kkL; izR;qnkgj.klaxfr%A ^czã iqPNa izfr"Bk* bR;=k

fdekuUne;ko;oRosu czã foo{;rs] mr LoizèkkuRosufs r la'k;s_ iqPN'kCnkno;oRosufs r
iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq vkuUne;ks¿H;lkr~A vkRekuUne; bR;=k ^czã iqPNa izfr"Bk*
Topic 6: Ânandamayâdhikarana
Explanation 2 – Úankar’s view-point
The suffix ‘mayat’ has been used in the sense of ‘modification’ during the sequential
description of the self constituted by the essence of food (annamaya), vital force
.in
(prân+amaya), mind (manomaya) and knowledge (vijñânamaya). In the same sequence is
d
i n
described the Self constituted by the essence of bliss (ânandamaya) (Tai. Up. 2.5.2). That
t.
es
being so, one cannot abruptly and arbitrarily conclude that the suffix ‘mayat’ in the
u
‘ânandamaya’ is not used in the ‘modification’ sense but is used in the sense of ‘abundance’
q
and implies the Supreme Brahman.
n t a
Doubt: The Úruti concerning the blissful d a
eside, bliss is the trunk and Brahman is the
one says, ‘Of him joy is verily the head,
v
i@
enjoyment is the right side, hilarity is the left
u l
tail (pucha) that forms the basis’ (Tai.
t
Up. 2.5.2). Here arises a doubt that whether the
independent entity?
dr a
Úruti intends to promulgate Brahman as an accessory of the ‘blissful one’, or as an
n
reTaking into consideration the commonly prevalent meaning of the
a
n(tail), the Úruti intends to describe Brahman as a limb of the ‘blissful one’.
Opponent:
r.
word ‘pucha’
d
This being the position the vedântin says,
Ânandamayoabhyâsât (12)
In the text concerning the blissful one, Brahman is spoken of independently,

on account of repetition.
The aforementioned Úruti intends to describe Brahman as an independent entity

by saying, ‘Brahman is the tail that stabilizes’. This is concluded from the repetition; for
in the same Upanis+ad, Supreme Brahman again is referred to in the text, ‘One himself
becomes non-existing the moment one denies the existence of Brahman’ (Tai. Up. 2.6.1).
bfr Loizèkkueso czãksifn';rsA dqr%\ vH;klkr~A ^vlUuso l Hkorh* R;=k fuxeu'yksds

dsoyL; czã.kks¿H;L;ekuRokr~AA HkxoRiknh;ers&12AA
uuq iqPN'kCnL;ko;oijRosu u czã.k% LoizèkkuRofefr r=kkg & ^fodkj'kCnkUusfr
psUu_ izkpq;kZr~*A fodkjokpdko;o'kCnkr~ rRlekukfèkdj.kczã'kCnks u Loizèkkuij
bfr psUu_ izkpq;kZr~ & vo;oizokgifBrRosfi iqPN'kCnL;ko;ofoof{krRokHkkokr~A
vr% ^czã iqPNa izfr"Bk* bR;=k izfr"Bk'kCnlefHkO;kgkjkr~ iqPN'kCnL;kèkkjr;k
LoizèkkuRosu czãksifn"VfeR;FkZ%AAHkñ 13AA
br'p iqPN'kCnL; uko;oks¿FkZ% fdURokèkkj bR;kg & r¼srqO;ins'kkPpA rL;
.in
Even if one takes the implication of the word ‘Blissful’ to be the ‘blissful sheath’
n d
(ânandamaya koúa), then also Brahman cannot be a limb of that sheath, as It is the source
i
st .
of the reflected bliss that constitutes this sheath. Hence by the verse, ‘Brahman is the tail
u e
that stabilizes’, the absolute Brahman alone has been promulgated. (12)
a q
Opponent: When the word ‘tail’ obviouslyt means a limb, then how can one
a n
assume it to be indicative of Supreme Brahman
used in the ‘modification’, sense. To this vthe
d
evedântin clarifies,
independently, since the word ‘tail’ is
l i@
tu caenna; prâcuryât (13)
Vikâraúabdânneti
a
d rnot used in the sense of modifcation, but is used on account
en denoting parts.
The word ‘tail’
of abundance of r
is
n a terms
d r. word ‘tail’, though read in context of a limb here, is not intended to imply a
The
limb due to its usage with the word ‘pratis+tha’ (base, foundation). Such usage confers
upon the word ‘tail’ an implication as ‘basis/foundation’, and not a limb. If only the word
‘tail’ would have been used alone one could have taken it to imply a ‘limb’, but the use of
the word ‘pratis+tha’ alongside conveys a meaning in the sense of ‘foundation’ rather than
a ‘limb’. Hence in this context the Supreme Brahman has been promulgated independently,
and not as the limb of the blissful one. (13)
Taddhetuvyapadeúâcca (14)
And because Brahman is declared to be the cause of all modifications

czã.k% ^bna loZel`tr* (rSñ 2@6) bfr okD;s Lofodkjk.kka gsrqRosu O;ins'kkr~AAHkñ
14AA
br'p iqPNokD;s czã Loizèkkuija] uRokuUne;ko;oijfeR;kg & ekU=kof.kZdeso
p xh;rsA ^lR;a KkueuUra czãs* R;=k eU=kokD;s ;n~czã izfrikfnra] rnso ^czã iqPN*
fefr czkã.kokD;s Loizèkkur;k xh;rs_ eU=kczkã.k;ksjsdkFkZRokfHkèkkukfnfr Hkko%AAHkñ
15AA
uuq iqPNokD;s LoizèkkuRosukuUne;L;Soizfrik|Roa fda u LohfØ;rs bR;k'kÄïÔkg
& usrjks¿uqiirs%A brj vkuUne;ks uk=k izfrik|%A dqr%\ ^rL; fiz;eso f'kj%* bR;=k
d.in
t.in
More so, the word ‘pucha’ cannot mean a limb, but can only imply ‘basis/
es
foundation’, since the text, ‘He created all that is there to be’ (Tai. Up. 2.6), shows Brahman
u
to be the creator of all modifications. ‘Ânandamaya’ is a ‘modification’ in itself. If Brahman
q
nta
is assumed to be a limb of this ‘blissful one’, then it would not have been possible for the
Úruti to preach Brahman to be the creator of all in the aforementioned text. One does not
eda
see, in the common parlance, the creation of a whole body from its limb alone. Hence the
v
Úruti desires to promulgate Brahman as an independent entity that is the creator of all
li@
modifications, including the ‘blissful one’, and not as a limb of the ‘blissful one’. (14)
u
t
d ra ikameva ca gîyate (15)
Mântravarn+
Moreover r e nsame Brahman that has been spoken of in the Mantra portion is
n aBrâhmana text as the tail.
the
described in .
dIt isr perfectly logical to assume that the very Brahman that has been expounded in
the
the mantra portion, ‘Brahman is Truth, Knowledge, Infinite, (Tai. Up. 2.1.1), the same
has been described in the Brâhman+a section by the verse, ‘and Brahman is the tail that
forms the basis’ (Tai. Up. 2.5.2). Hence in the latter verse the absolute Brahman has been
preached independently, and not as a limb of the ‘blissful one’. (15)
Netaroanupapatteh+ (16)
The other (individual soul) is not implied here, for that is illogical.
Opponent: Why can’t it be assumed that in the verse referring to the ‘tail’, the
‘blissful one’ (individual soul) has been independently promulgated?
fiz;kfneÙoL; lz"V`Rokuqiirs%AAHkñ 16AA

brks¿fi ukuUne;ks¿=k izfrik|% bR;kg & HksnO;ins'kkPpA ^jla ások;a yCèok¿uUnh
Hkofr* bR;=kkuUne;L; yCèk`Roa czã.kks yCèkO;Roa psfr :is.k HksnO;ins'kkr~AAHkñ
17AA
uuq ^vkuUnks czãsfr O;tkukr~* (rSñ 3@6) bR;=k ;FkkuUnL; czãRoa
rFkk¿uUne;L;kfi czãRoeuqeh;rkfeR;r vkg & dkekPp ukuqekukis{kkA dkE;rs bfr
dke% vkuUnLrL; e;MJo.kkr~ fiz;f'kjLRok|Jo.kkPp czãRos¿fi ukuUne;&
Vedântin: It cannot be so. How can that ‘blissful one’ who has limbs of joy,
.in
enjoyment, hilarity etc. become the creator of the world? Hence it cannot be assumed
in d
that the ‘blissful one’ has been independently promulgated in the aforementioned verse.
(16)
st .
u e
Bhedavyapadeúâcca (17)
ta q
n
a between the two.
And because of the mention of difference
v e d
l @
i by getting that Bliss’ (Tai. Up. 2.7.1), the ‘blissful
u
In the text, ‘For it becomes happy
t Brahman (of the nature of Bliss) as one to be attained.
Hence the verse referring to
d a
one’ is talked of as the attainer and
r the ‘tail’ cannot be assumed to be concluding in the ‘blissful
one’, but expoundingn
ar e Brahman as an independent entity. (17)
n
dr. Kâmâcca nânumânâpeks+â (18)
And owing to the use of the term ‘kâma’ (Bliss) in the sense of Brahman, the
blissful one cannot be inferred as Brahman, for the suffix ‘mayat’is used in the sense
of modification.
If asserted that as in the text, ‘Bliss is Brahman’ (Tai. Up. 3.6), Bliss has been
called as Brahman, similarly one can infer the Brahman-hood in the ‘blissful one’ also,
then it is not correct. It must be noted that one does not hear of the suffix ‘mayat’ in
relation to the ‘Bliss’ referred to in the above Úruti, and neither one hears of its various
L;kI;uqekusu czãRoeisf{krO;e~] fodkjkFkZdL; e;V~izR;;L; foèkkukfnR;FkZ%AAHkñ

18AA
brks¿fi ukuUne;L; czãRofeR;kg µ ^vfLeUuL; p r|ksxa 'kkfLr* vfLeu~
iqPNokD;kfHkfgrs czãf.k izfrcq¼L;kL;kuUne;L; ^;nkáoS"k* (rSñ 2@7) bfr
'kkL=ka r|ksxa rnkReuk czãHkkokifÙka 'kkfLrA vrks¿=kkuUne;L;kizfrik|Rokr~ iqPNa
czãSo fufoZ'ks"ka Loizèkkua Ks;fefrAAHkñ 19AA
AA foJke%1AA
d .in
(â) (â vUrjfËkdj.ke~ A lwÒ Ñå&ÑÉ)
t .in
es
,oa iwoZ=k fufoZ'ks"ks czãf.k leUo;% fl¼LrL;kiokndRokfnnekg&
u
ta q ‘Bliss’ to be Brahman, one
n the latter has the suffix ‘mayat’
limbs of joy, enjoyment etc. Hence even on acknowledging
cannot infer Brahman-hood in the ‘blissful one’asince
v e d
attached with it. Hence one cannot infer Brahman-hood in the mutable ‘blissful one’.
(18)
u li@
a t ca tadyogam úâsti (19)
r
Asminnasya
d
n
rescriptures declare the absolute identity of the individual soul and
Moreover the
this Brahman. a
r. n
dMore so one cannot call the ‘blissful one’ as Brahman since the scriptures declare
the attainment of Brahman-hood by this ‘blissful one’ on awakening in the Brahman that
has been propounded in the verse referring to the ‘tail’. Hence one concludes that the
‘blissful one’ is not implied here, but what is independently expounded is the absolute
Brahman, of the nature of Bliss, as the basis of this ‘blissful one’. Hence Brahman is not
the limb of the ‘blissful one’. (19)
Topic 7: Antaradhikarana
(The Being Inside)
The previous adhikarana concludes in the Unqualified Brahman. Such conclusion

was reached after analyzing various words like ‘Brahman’, ‘Blissful One’ and its repetition.
(20) vUrLr¼eksZins'kkr~ AA20AA

iwoZ=k czãine~] vkuUne;ine~] vkuUnkH;kl'psfr cgqizek.ko'kkr~ ;Fkk
fufoZ'ks"kL; czã.kks fu.kZ;ks tkr%] rFkk¿=k:ioÙokfncgqfHk%izek.kS% df'pr~ lalkjh
fgj.e;% iq#"kks¿fLRofr iwoksZDr;qDR;k iwoZi{kksRFkkukr~ rsukL;kfèkdj.kL; n`"VkUrlaxfr%A
iwoiZ {kfl¼kUri{k;ksjijijczãksiklueso iQya cksè;e~A ^vFk ; ,"kks¿UrjkfnR;s fgj.e;%
iq#"kks n`';rs* (Nkñ 1@6@6) bR;kfnokD;a fopkjfo"k;%A r=k la'k;%_ fda
fo|kdekZfr'k;o'kkRizkIrksRd"kZ% lw;Ze.Mys p{kqf"k pksikL;Rosu df'pRlalkjh Jw;rs]
fdaok fuR;fl¼% ijes'oj%\ r=kiwoZi{ks lk{kknfrns'ksu pksHk;=k :ioRoJo.kk&
i n
Similarly on analyzing various words suggesting shape and form, the opponent suggests
.
in d
that in the current adhikarana it is the ‘transmigrating soul’ that is being referred to as the
st .
‘golden person’ (Hiranmaya Purus+a). Thus this adhikarana is related to the previous one
e
by the way of illustration. Here, in the opponent’s view, it is the meditation on the ‘Qualified
u
t a q
Brahman’ (apara Brahman) that is being preached here whereas in the vedântin’s view
n
the meditation on the ‘Unqualified Brahman’ is preached here.
aÚruti, ‘The golden Purus+a that is visible
d
Doubt: As regard the declaration byethe
v as to this ‘Purus+a’, being referred to by the
l @
i soul who has attained excellence in knowledge
in the sun’ (Ch. Up. 1.6.6-8), doubt arises
tu
Úruti, is some transmigrating embodied
and action and is hence to beameditated upon in the sun and the eye? Or it is the eternally
r
dwho is being referred to by the Úruti?
n
true Supreme Lord alone
e
n ar It is the transmigrating embodied soul that is being referred to here as
d . about its form and abode.
Opponent:
the Úrutirtalks
Vedântin: Such being the position, we say:
Antastaddharmupadeúât (20)
The Being inside is Brahman, for Its attributes having been mentioned.
The Being talked about by the Úruti, both in the Sun and the Eye, is none other
than the Supreme Lord only and not a transmigrating worldly soul since the Úruti describes
various characteristics of this Being that are consistent with God only. For instance the
1.1.21 fo|kuUno`fŸk;qre~ cz„lw=e~ (foJke 2) 41
nkèkkjJo.kkPp df'pRlalkjh xzká%A fl¼kUrLrq ^; ,"kks¿UrjkfnR;s* ^; ,"kks¿Urjf{kf.k*

bfr p Jw;ek.kks¿Ur%iq#"k% ijes'oj% ,o] u lalkjhA dqr%\ r¼eksZins'kkr~A rL; fg
ijes'ojL; èkekZ% loZikIejkfgR;kn;ks¿=kksifn"Vk%A r|Fkk ^rL;ksfnfr uke* bfr
Jo.kkuUrja ^l ,"k losHZ ;% ikIeH; mfnr%* bR;=kkfnR;iq#"kL; loZikIejkfgR;Jo.kkr~A
u p fgj.;'eJqRokfn:iJo.ka ijes'ojs uksii|rs bfr okP;e~_ LosPN;k ek;kefgEuk
yksdkuqxzgkFk± rL; :ioÙoksiiÙks%A vkèkkjksins'k'pksiklukFkZ% ijes'ojL;kfo#¼%A
rLekn{;kfnR;;ksjUr%iq#"k% ijes'oj bfrAA20AA
(21) HksnO;ins'kkPpkU;% AA21AA
vUrfjfr 'kCnks¿uqorZrsA v{;kfnR;;ksjUr% Jw;ek.k% iq#"k% vkfnR;kfn&
d .in
.i n
'kjhjkfHkekfuH;ks thosH;ks¿U;ks¿Ur;kZeh'oj%A dqr%\ HksnO;ins'kkr~ µ ^; vkfnR;s
t
es
fr"BUukfnR;knUrjks ;ekfnR;ks u osn* (c` 3@7@9) bfr JqR;Urjs osfnròsfnr&
u
t a q
a
Úruti declares as regard this Being, “His name is ‘ut’ n (the elevated)” (Ch. Up. 1.6.7), as
e d
He is free from all sins. Such attributes can only fit into the Supreme Lord and not in any
v about the golden beard, golden nails and
l @
worldly soul. If asserted that there one hears
i Brahman, then such assertion is incorrect.
hair which is not possible in the Unqualified
u
That Supreme Lord, by His owntwill and His infinitely powerful Mâyâ, can attain various
forms to bless the worlds. r
d a attainment of form is possible in the Lord. His abode
Hence
e
also has been specified
r n for the convenience of meditation. He is omnipresent, but still
a possible in a specified one only. As such there is no contradiction in
meditation is only
mentioning.ofn
dr(20)
His abode. Hence the Being described in the Sun and the Eye is the Supreme
Lord only.
Bhedavyapadeúâccânyah+ (21)
The Being inside is different from the embodied soul owing to the mention of
the difference between the two.
The Being said to be residing in the Sun and the Eye is none other than the Supreme
Lord only, since in the Br+hdâranyaka Upaniúad also the difference between the sun and
the internal-ruler residing in the sun is clearly brought out. The Úruti there says, ‘He who
resides in the Sun, is within it, whom the sun doesn’t know, whose body is the sun, and
who controls the sun from within, is the internal Ruler, your own immortal Self’ (Br. Up.
O;;ksHksZnO;ins'kkr~A ,oe=kkfi vUrj'kCnJqR;k rr~izR;fHkKkusu JqfrlkekU;kr~ ijes'oj

,o r;ksjUr#ikL; bfr Hkko%AA21AA
(ä) (ä vkdk'kkfËkdj.ke~ lwÒ ÑÑ)
uuq iwoZfLeUufèkdj.ks¿O;fHkpfjrloZikIejkfgR;kfnfyÄ~xsu:ioRoknsjU;Fkku;ua
;Fkk] u rFkk=k fyÄ~xknkdk'kJqfrjU;Fkk usrqa 'kD;rs] fyÄ~xkr~ JqrscZyh;LRok&
fnR;k'kÄïÔkg&
3.7.9). Here the Úruti clearly mentions the difference between the internal Ruler and the
embodied soul identifying itself with the sun. Hence the golden Being, referred to by the
.in
Úruti above, is none other than the Supreme Lord Himself. Moreover, even in the
n d
Chândogya Úruti one hear the word ‘internal’ which refers to that very Internal Being
i
st .
only. Hence it is but reasonable, from the similarity of the Úruti declarations, to conclude
u e
that the internal being referred to in the Sun and Eye is none other than the Supreme
Lord. (21)
ta q
a n
e d
Topic 8: Âkâúâdhikarana
vSpace)
l i@
(The
u
t due to the presence of special indicatory signs like
a
In the previous adhikarana,
‘devoid of all sins’ etc., itrbecame
d possible to conclude that form and abode becomes
r e n Brahman, but in the present adhikarana the opposition states

feasible in the Qualified
n a Space only.
that the Úruti concerning the Space cannot be interpreted in any other way except in the
way ofd
r .
sense of material
counter illustration.
Thus this adhikarana is related to the previous one by the
Here in the opponent’s view the ‘Udgitha’ is to be meditated upon as ‘material

space’ whereas in the vedântin’s view it should be meditated upon as ‘Brahman’. This
alone is the difference between their conclusions.
Doubt: The Chândogya Upanis+ad states, ‘What is the destiny of this observable
world’? The Úruti answers, ‘Space alone is the eventual goal of all things’ (Ch. Up.
1.9.1). Here arises a doubt whether the word ‘Space’ refers to ‘material space’ or to the
‘Supreme Brahman’.
(22) vkdk'kLrfYyÄ~xkr~ AA22AA

iwokZfèkdj.ksu lgkL; izR;qnkgj.klaxfr%A iwoZi{ks Hkwrkdk'kn`"VÔk] fl¼kUrs
czãn`"VÔk pksn~xhFkksiklua iQyfefrHksn%A ^vL; yksdL; dk xfrfjR;kdk'k bfr
gksokp* (Nkñ 1@9@1) bR;kfnokD;e=k fopkjfo"k;%A r=kkdk'k'kCnsu fda ija
czãksifn';rs_ mr Hkwrkdk'kfefr la'k;s_ yksdizfl¼Ôk vkdk'k'kCnsu Hkwrkdk'keso
xzkáa] ^;ns"k vkdk'k vkuUnks u L;kfn* (rSñ 2@7) R;=k O;kidRokfnlkèkE;sZ.kkfi
rPNCnL; czãf.k iz;ksxksiiÙksjusdkFkZL;kU;k;Rokr~ okÕokfnØes.kkdk'kL;kf[ky&
txRdkj.kRoksiiÙksfjfr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq & vkdk'k'kCnsu czãSo x`ársA dqr%\
rfYyÄ~xkr~rL; czã.kks ;fYyÄ~xa leLregkHkwrkfnl`"VÔkfnda] rL; ^lokZf.k gok
d .in
. in
bekfu HkwrkU;kdk'kknso leqRi|Urs vkd'ka izR;Lra ;UR;kdk'kks ásoSH;ks T;k;kfu*
t
es
Opponent: Taking the widely prevalent meaning ofuSpace the Úruti is referring
ta q
then who could ever inhale and exhale’ (Tai. Up.a2.7),n announces the usage of the word
to ‘material space’. Though another Úruti, ‘If it hadn’t been for this Space that is Bliss,
d
‘Space’ in the meaning of Brahman also, butethat usage is in secondary sense taking into
v shared both by Brahman and the material
@
li space’ in the primary sense, and moreover when a
account similar attributes like pervasiveness
t u
space. But the word refers to ‘material
primary meaning is admissibleait is inadvisable to accept a secondary meaning. It is possible
ofrthe entire world to Space through the sequence of air, fire,
to attribute the causalityd
water and earth. re
n
n a
.
r Such being the case, we say:
dVedântin:
Âkâúastallingât (22)
Space is Brahman on account of the presence of the indicatory mark of the

latter.
The word ‘Space’ is to be interpreted as ‘Brahman’ only since an indicatory mark

to that implication is heard of here. The Úruti here declares, ‘All elements, certainly,
originate from space indeed. Hence space is certainly greater than all these elements’
(Ch. Up. 1.9.1). Here the phrase ‘all elements’ invariably include ‘material space’ also
for appropriate reconciliation. It is not apposite to accept the origin of self from self
(space from space in this case). Also the phrase ‘certainly ….. from space’ can also be
(Nkñ 2@9@1) fr okD;s n`"VRokr~A uuq fyÄ~xkPN~#rscZyh;LRoeqDrfefr psUu_

Hkw;ksczãfyÄ~xJqR;uqjksèksuSdL;k vkdk'kJqrsckZèkL;knks"kRokr~A Hkwrkdk'kkFkZifjxzgs
^vkdk'kknso*s R;oèkkj.kkuqiiÙks% ^lokZ.kh* R;=kkdk'kL;kfi lokZUr%ikfrr;k Hkwrkdk'kL;
LoLeknsoksRiR;;ksxkPpA lokZis{k;k T;k;LRoijk;.kRoknsczZã.;so lEHkokr~A ,oa p
fLFkrs Hkwrkdk'ks izflf¼ek=kefdf×pRdje~_ czã.;fi rL; iz;ksxckgqY;n'kZukr~A
vrks¿=kkdk'kinokP;a czãSoksn~xhFks mikL;fefr fl¼e~AA22AA
(ã) (ã izk.kkfËkdj.ke~ A lwÒ ÑÖ)
vkd'kU;k;ks¿U;=kkfrfn';rsµ
.in
in d
aptly reconciled only when ‘space’ is interpreted as Brahman. Hence the word ‘space’
.
should be interpreted as Brahman only since Brahman alone can be designated as the
st
e
greatest of all and the abode of all. Hence when the word ‘space’ is concluded as above
u
ta q
then its popularity in the sense of ‘material space’ is inconsequential. Moreover the word
Space has been frequently used to imply Brahman also. Hence in this Udgita Úruti the
a n
v ed
word ‘space’ is indicative of Brahman only as an entity to be meditated upon. (22)
Topic 9:
l @
i is Brahman)
Prânâdhikarana
t u
(Prâna
r a
dabove in connection with the ‘Space’ Úruti, here we consider
e n
As was discussed
r illustration.
n a
the Úruti concerning the Prâna (vital force). This adhikarana is related to the previous one
.
by way of counter In the context of ‘Udgita’ meditation, the question by
dr occurs, ‘Which is that Deity’? To this Uúasti replies, ‘It is Prâna. It is in
Chakrâyana
Prâna that all these things merge into, and from Prâna indeed they emerge’ (Ch. Up.
1.11.4).
Doubt: Here arises a doubt whether the word ‘prâna’ is used here to imply Brahman
or it is used in the sense of more familiar ‘vital force’?
Opponent: It is appropriate only to accept the more familiar implication of the

word ‘Prâna’, i.e. its usage in the sense of vital-force (modification of air). In the Vedas it
is declared, ‘When a person goes into deep sleep then speech and all other senses enter
into Prâna and on his waking up they emerge from it’ (Ú. B. 10.3.3.6). Based on this
scriptural text only it has been concluded that elements merge into and emerge from the
(23) vr ,o izk.k% AA23AA

vfrns'kRokn=kkfi iwoksZDrk laxfrKsZ;kA ;}k iwoZeO;fHkpfjrfyÄ~xkRle&
LrHkwrkfnl`"VÔkfn:ik|Fkk¿dk'kJqrsckZèk%] u rFkk=k izk.kJqrsckZèkks ;qDr%_ laos'k&
ukfnfyÄ~xL; izk.ks¿fi lEHkosu czãf.k O;fHkpfjrRokfnfr izR;qnkgj.klaxfr%A iwoZi{ks
izk.kn`"VÔk fl¼kUrs czãn`"VÔk p izLrkoksiklua iQye~A îzLrksr;kZ nsork* (Nkñ
1@10@9) bfr izLrqR; ^drek lk nsorsfr izk.k bfr gksokp* (Nkñ 1@11@4)
bR;kfnokD;e=k fo"k;%A r=k fda izk.k'kCnsu czãksifn';rs] mr ok;qfodkj bfr
la'k;s_ ^;nk oS iq#"k% Lofifr izk.ka rfgZ okxI;sfr* ('kñ czkñ 10@3@3@6)
bR;kfnJqR;k HkwrlkjHkwrsfUæ;izfoy;L; izR;{kfl¼L;kuqoknsu izk.ks loZHkwrfoy;&
d .in
.in
ukfHkèkkukr~] mÙkj=kkfnR;knhukeczã.kkeqn~xhFkkfnnsorkRokfHkèkkusu rRlkgp;kZPp izk.kks
t
es
ok;qfodkj ,o xzká bfr iwoZi{k%A fl¼kUrLrq & izk.k'kCnks czãij%A dqr%\
u
iwol
ta q
Z =w kkfHkfgrfyÄ~xknsoA dsoyfefUæ;k.kka izk.ks izfoy;L; JqR;k izR;{ks.k p fl¼Ros¿fi
a n
ve
vital force i.e. Prâna. Furthermore Sun etc., whod are the deities of Udgita, are mentioned
u l i@
after Prâna, and these deities are separate from Brahman. Hence Prâna too is not Brahman
but the vital force.
a t
n dr the case, we say:
Vedântin: This being
a re
. n Ata eva prân+ah+ (23)
dForr the very same reason the word Prâna too refers to Brahman.
The word ‘Prâna’ is indicative of Brahman only due to the occurrence of the
indicatory sign of the latter, as was in the previous adhikarana. Though the mergence of
various senses in the Prâna is acknowledged as it is a matter of direct perception and is
also endorsed by the Úrutis, but still the basis of the mergence of all things is Brahman
alone. Hence in presence of this exceptional indicatory sign it is apposite only to infer the
implication of Prâna as Brahman. Moreover even in the Úruti that declares, ‘When a
sleeping man does not see any dream whatsoever, then at that moment he becomes one
with the Prâna’ (Kau. Up. 3.3), the word ‘Prâna’ is suggestive of Brahman only, as it is
the Brahman indeed which is the abode of dissolution of all. As for the assertion that
Prâna is not Brahman because of its occurrence in proximity to Sun etc., then such assertion
loZHkwrfoy;L;kO;fHkpfjrkn~czãfyÄ~xkRizk.k'kCnsu czãSokfHkèkh;rsA ^;nk lqIr% u

d×pu LoIua i';frA vFkkfLeu~ izk.ks ,oSdèkkHkofr* (dkSñ 3@3) bR;kfnJqR;kfi
czãSo rfYyÄ~xknoxE;rsA lkfUuè;L; okD;kn~ nqcZyRokr~ yksdizfl¼sjfdf×pRdj&
RokPpsfr izk.k'kfCnra czãSoA îzk.kL; izk.kfe* (c` 4@4@18) R;=kk|izk.k'kCnks
ok;qijLrrks¿U;L; czãijRos¿fi la'k;kHkkokr~ izk.k'kCnks czãij bfr fl¼e~AA23AA
(Éå) (Éå T;ksfr'pj.kkfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ ÑÜ&Ñâ)
bRFka czãfyÄ~xln~Hkkosu izk.k'kCnL; czãijRofeok=k rnHkkokUu czãijRofefr
izR;qnkgj.klaxR;snekg&
. in
i n d
is useless, as mere immediacy becomes insignificant when the obvious meaning of ‘Prâna’
.
is known to be Brahman from the proclivity of the complementary text. Moreover in the
st
e
Úruti text, ‘Vital force of vital force (prânasya prânam)’ (Br. Up. 4.4.18), even though the
u
t a q
first word ‘prâna’ is indicative of the vital force, there is no objection in accepting the
meaning of the second word as Brahman. Hence the word ‘prâna’ means Brahman and
a n
not vital force. (23)
v e d
l @
iJyotiúcaranâdhikarana
u
t (Light)
Topic 10:
d r a
e n
r is related to the previous one by the way of counter example.
a
This adhikarana
n The Úruti text declares, ‘That ‘Jyoti’ (Light) which shines in the worlds
d r .
Doubt:
above this heaven, above all beings and above all worlds is the same as that is within a
human being’ (Ch. Up. 3.13.7). Here arises a doubt whether the word ‘Jyoti’ represents
the light of sun etc. or it implies ‘Brahman’?
Opponent: The word ‘Light’ is used for the light of sun etc. as the concerned
Úruti text refers to heaven as a limit, whereas such limit cannot apply to all pervasive
Brahman. The Brâhmana portion of the Upaniúad also declares, ‘There is Light above
this heaven’. Moreover the usage of the word ‘shine’ is more in tune with the shining of
sun etc., and not Brahman. Hence the word ‘Light’ refers to the physical light of sun etc.
for the purpose of meditation and not Brahman. In the previous adhikarana the implication
of the word ‘Prâna’ as ‘Brahman’ could only be agreed due to the presence of indicatory
(24) T;ksfr'pj.kkfHkèkkukr~ AA24AA

v=k iwoZi{ks vUrT;ksZfrf"k dkS{ks;s vkfnR;kfnn`"VÔksiklua] fl¼kUrs czãn`"V~;sfr
iQyHksn%A ^vFk ;nr% ijks fnoks T;ksfrnhZI;rs] fo'or% i`"Bs"kq* (Nkñ 3@13@7)
bR;kfnokD;e=kfopkj.kh;aA r=k T;ksfr% 'kCn% vkfnR;rstksokpd%] mr czãij bfrla'k;s_
^nhI;rs* bfr izfl¼Jqrs% ^vr% ijks fno%* bfr e;kZnkJo.kkr~ *fo'or% i`"Bs"kq*
bR;fèkdj.kfuns'Z kksiiÙks'psfr dkS{ks;s T;ksfrf"k lekuèkeZr;ksiklukFkZRoekfnR;rstksokpdks
T;ksfr%'kCn bfr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq & ^fnoksT;ksfrfj* R;=k T;ksfr% 'kCnks czãij%A
dqr%\ pj.kkfHkèkkukr~ & ^rkokuL; efgesfr* ^f=kiknL;ke`ra fnfo* (Nkñ 3@12@6)
bR;=k iwoZfLeu~okD;s prq"ikÙokfHkèkkukr~A voHkkldek=ks¿ficgqya T;ksfr%'kCnL;
d .in
.in
iz;ksxn'kZusu czãf.k rRiz;ksxks¿fo#¼%A vkSikfèkdizns'kfo'ks"kksfi czãf.k lqyHk%A
t
es
vfèkdj.kfuns'Z k'pksiklukFkZRosuksi;qT;rsA dkS{ks;izrhdRoefi ukekfnizrhdRoonfo#¼e~A
u
ta q
a n
signs of the latter, but since the current adhikarana exhibits no such indicatory signs, then
e d
it is not possible to interpret the word ‘Jyoti’ (Light)
v
as ‘Brahman’.
Vedântin: To this we say, li@

tu
d raJyotiúcaranâbhidhânât (24)
r e n
Light is a
Brahman on account of the mention of feet.
n
dTher.word ‘Light’ in the Úruti text refers to Brahman since the Úruti, in the previous
text, also declares, ‘This whole creation, announcing His glory, is situated just within one
foot of that Supreme Purus+a, but His other three feet that are immortal and untainted are
in heaven’ (Ch. Up. 3.12.6). These very three feet are being spoken of in the text (3.13.7)
in association of heaven. Thus the word ‘Light’ has to be interpreted in the context of
Brahman only otherwise it would amount to discarding something under discussion and
taking up something unconnected. Hence the word Light means Brahman here. As for
the objection about the limit being set for all pervasive Brahman, then we say that such
limit may well be spoken of taking into consideration the adjuncts of the Qualified
Brahman. The same Brahman, which in its Unqualified form is all-pervasive and without
any attributes, becomes associated with specific place and form on association with limiting
adjunct in its Qualified form. Moreover the word ‘Light’ is also used in the sense for
whatever reveals others, and not merely in the sense of physical light necessary for seeing
vrks czãSo T;ksfr%'kfCnre~AA24AA

uuq iwoZfLeu~ okD;s ^xk;=kh ok bna loZfe* (Nkñ 3@12@1) R;kfnuk NUn
,o fufnZ"Va] u czãsR;k'kÄïÔkg&
(25) NUnks¿fHkèkkukUusfr psUu_ rFkk psrks¿iZ.kfuxnkÙkFkkfg

n'kZue~ AA25AA
NUnks¿fHkèkkukr~ & xk;=khukeNUnl% iwoZfLeu~ okD;s¿fHkèkkukr~ u czã.k%
izÑrRofefr psUu_ dqr%\ v{kjlafuos'kfo'ks"k:ik;k xk;=;k% lokZRedRoklEHkosu
rFkk & NUnks}kjs.k rn~xrs czãf.k psrks¿iZ.kL; & fpÙklekèkkuL; fuxnknfHkèkkukr~A
.i n
n d
rFkkfg n'kZua & n`"VkUr%A vU;=kkfi fodkj}kjs.k ^,ra áso cg~o`pk egR;qDFks ehekalUrs*
i
st .
(,sñvkñ 3@2@3@12) bfr iwoZfLeu~ okD;s czãSoksikL;Rosu fufnZ"Va] u NUn bfr
u e
fl¼e~AA25AA
a q
t must be the physical light because
a n
v
of its superimposition upon the natural fire in d
objects. As for the assertion that the light above heaven
e stomach, then it is not correct since the fire
in the stomach can be as good a symbol@
u l itext means Brahman only. (24)
of Qualified Brahman for the purpose of meditation.
t
Hence the word ‘Light’ in the Úruti
a
r
dChandoabhidhânânneti cenna tatha
e n
r cetoarpan+anigadâttathâhi darúnam (25)
a
n that Brahman is not spoken of on account of mention of the metre
d .
Ifrasserted
(Gâyatrî), we say, not so, for the concentration of mind is preached thus.
If it be asserted that even in the earlier text it is not the Brahman but the metre
(chanda) Gâyatrî that has been talked about, as the Úruti there declares, ‘All this is Gâyatrî
indeed’ (Ch. Up. 3.12.1); then it is not correct, since the metre Gâyatrî is nothing but a
collection of certain words only. How could that be the self of all? Moreover the metre
itself preaches the concentration of mind in Brahman. The Úruti, elsewhere also, sermonizes
meditation of Brahman with the help of natural mediums as in, ‘The followers of Rig-
Veda meditate on this very Supreme Self as inhering in the hymn called the great Uktha’
(Ai. Â. 3.2.3.12). Here, in this text, it is the Brahman that is instructed as the entity to be
meditated upon, and not the metre. (25)
(26) HkwrkfniknO;ins'kksiiÙks'pSoe~ AA26AA

br'p xk;=khokD;s czãSo izÑrfefrA ^lS"kk prq"ink xk;=kh* bfr JqR;k
Hkwri`fFkoh'kjhjân;SO;Zins'kL; czã.;soksiiÙks% v{kjlafuos'k:ik;k xk;=;k
HkwrkfniknO;ins'kkuqiiÙks'pA vrks xk;=khokD;s czão
S izfrikfnra] rnso czã T;ksfrokZD;s
|qlEcUèkkRizR;fHkKk;ekua ijke`';rs bfr fLFkre~A rLekn~ Hkwrknhuka iknRofunsZ'k%]
^rkokuL; efges* R;kfnJqr;%] ^fo"VH;kgfene~* (xhñ 10@42) bfr Le`fr%] ^;}S
rn~czã* (Nkñ 3@12@7) bfr eq[;funsZ'k'p T;ksfr%'kCnsu czãksiknkus la?kVUrs bfr
Hkko%AA26AA
n
d.i
(27) mins'kHksnkUusfr psUuksHk;fLeUuI;fojksèkkr~ AA27AA
i n
s t.
u e(26)
Bhûtâdipâdavyapadeúopapatteúcaivam
ta q
Brahman alone has been referred to in then
a Gâyatrî verse, for it is then only that
ed possible.
v
the representation of all beings as a foot becomes
u li@about in the Gâyatrî verse since therein only it is

t (Ch. Up. 3.12.5). Here, in this verse, after describing
Brahman alone has been talked
a
r and the heart, it has been declared that such Gâyatrî has
declared, ‘That Gâyatrî has four feet’
the things, the earth, thed
r en body
four feet. It is not possible for a mere metre to have the aforementioned things etc. as its
na andalone
feet. Thus Brahman
and not ther.metre;
has been referred to here in this verse by the word ‘Gâyatrî’,
referreddto in the verse regarding ‘Light’. Moreover the Úruti, ‘That much is His glory’
that very Brahman, reminded of by Its relationship with heaven, is
(Ch. Up. 3.12.6), becomes absurd if Brahman is not taken up as its subject-matter. Also
the Smriti, ‘O Arjuna, I exist supporting this entire creation by a portion of Myself’ (Gita.
10.42), supports the form of Brahman that has been spoken of in the Úruti, ‘All things are
but one of His feet’ (Ch. Up. 3.12.6). Hence the word ‘Light’ is indicative of Brahman
only. (26)
Upadeúabhedânneti cennobhayasminnapyavirodhât (27)
If asserted that Brahman of the Gâyatrî passage is not referred to here in the
Light passage due to difference in instructions, we say, not so, for there being no
contradiction in either.
uuq iwo± ^fno% ijfe* fr i×pE;k |kSjofèkRosu] ^f=kiknL;ke`ra fnoh* fr

lIrE;k |kSjkèkkjRosuksifn"VkA rLekf}HkfDrHksnus ksins'kHksnkUu rL;sg izR;fHkKkua lEHkorhfr
psUu_ mHk;fLeUuI;fojksèkkr~A mHk;fLeUufi lIrE;Urs i×pE;Urs pksins'ks izèkku&
izkfrifndkFkZsu izR;fHkKk;k vfojksèkkr~A ;Fkk yksds o`{kkxzlEc¼ks¿fi ';suks o`{kkxzs
';suks] o`{kkxzijr% ';su bR;qHk;Fkksifn';ekus¿fojksèk%A ,oa p fno% ijefi ln~czã
fnohR;qins'ks u fojksèk%A vr% iwo± fufnZ"VL;So czã.kks¿=k izR;fHkKkukTT;ksfr%'kfCnra
ija czãSosfr fl¼e~AA27AA
(ÉÉ) (ÉÉ izrnZukfËkdj.ke~ A lwÒ Ñä&ÖÉ)
uUosoa iwoZfLeUufèkdj.ks izÑrL; f=kiknks czã.k% ijke'kZdsu ;PNCnsu&
.in
in d
Opponent: In the text, ‘His three feet that are immortal are .
st vibhakti)
in heaven’ (Ch. Up.
u
3.12.6), the word ‘heaven’ is used in the locative case (saptamî e indicating
habitation whereas in the text, ‘That Light which shines
ta q above this heaven’ (Ch. Up.
3.13.7), the word ‘heaven’ is used in the ablative
a ncase (pancamî vibhakti) indicating
e
limitation. Hence, consequent to this difference d in the usage of the word it is logical to
say that the Brahman of the previous text v
li @that has been sermonized.
is not recalled here. Hence in the ‘Light’ verse,
tu
it is the natural light and not Brahman
Vedântin: This isd a

r correct since, even with the usage of the word in the locative
not
r e
or ablative case, there nis no contradiction in the recognition of Brahman in both places.
As in commonaparlance it is observed that a hawk in relation to the top of the tree is
r.asneither, ‘The hawk on the top of the tree’ or ‘The hawk above the top of the
d Brahman can also be talked of as either ‘in the heaven’ or ‘above the
referred to
tree’, similarly
heaven’. Hence the Brahman that has been detailed before is being recalled in the ‘Light’
verse and therefore the word ‘Light’ refers to Brahman alone and not anything else. (27)
Topic 11: Pratardanâdhikarana

(The dialogue between Pratardana and Indra)
Though the previous adhikarana was devoted to the context of Brahman and Its
three feet and it was proved therein that the word ‘Light’ was referring to none other than
Brahman only, but due to the absence of definitive indicatory signs of Brahman the word
lkekukfèkdj.;kTT;ksfr%'kCnL; czãijRos¿fi îzk.kks¿Leh* R;=kklkèkkj.kczã&

fyÄ~xkHkkokUu izk.k'kCnL; czãijRofefr izR;qnkgj.klaxR;snekg&
(28) izk.kLrFkk¿uqxekr~AA28AA
v=k iwoZi{ks izk.ksUænsorkthokukeU;reksiklue~A fl¼kUrs czãèkhfjfr iQyHksn%A
vfLr dkS"khrfdczkã.kksifu"knhUæizrnZuk[;kf;dk;ka ^l gksokp izk.kks¿fLe izKkRek ra
ekek;qje`reqikLo* (dkSñ 3@2) brhna okD;e=k fopkjfo"k;%A r=k fda izk.k'kCnsu
‘Prâna’, here, is indicative of the well-known vital force and not Brahman. Hence this
in
adhikarana is related to the previous one by the way of counter-illustration.
d .
Doubt: In the Kaus+îtaki Upanis+ad there occurs a dialogue ibetween
t . n Pratardana
and Indra wherein Indra pronounces, ‘I am the Prâna identified with
e s Consciousness. You
meditate on me who is of the nature of life and immortality’
q uwhether
(Kau. Up. 3.2). This Úruti
t a
orn
text is the point of deliberation here. Here arises a doubt the word ‘Prâna’ is
indicative of the commonly known ‘vital-force’,a
d is referring to the deity ‘Indra’, or to
the ‘jîva’ (embodied soul) or is it indicativeeof the Supreme Brahman? Though in the
v for that very reason)’ (1.1.23), it has already
@
li of Brahman only, and in the current context
aphorism, ‘Ateva prânah (Prâna is Brahman
t u
been shown that the word ‘Prâna’ is indicative
also there are indicatory signsaof Brahman, viz. ‘Bliss, ageless and immortal etc.’, but the
r of certain indicatory marks of others also. For instance
doubt has arisen due to thedpresence
the statement of Indra n
re declaring, ‘Know me alone’ is indicative of a divine being. Also
n a
r.
the statements, ‘Taking hold of this body, it raises it up’, ‘Know the speaker and not the
doubt isdnatural.
speech’, are indicative of ‘vital-force’ and the ‘embodied soul’ respectively. Hence the
Opponent: The word ‘Prâna’ is to be interpreted as the ‘vital-force’ only as is

clear from the aforementioned Úruti texts.
Prân+astathânugamât (28)
Prâna is Brahman, it being comprehended thus.

ok;qek=keqP;rs] bUænsork] thoks] ija czã osfr la'k;%A ^vr ,o izk.k%* bR;=k
izk.k'kCnL; czãijRofu.kkZ;dfyÄ~xfeo ^vkuUnks¿tjks¿e`r%* bR;kfnczãfyÄ~xlÙos¿fi
êkeso fotkuhfg* ^bna 'kjhja ifjx`áksÙFkki;fr* ôDrkja fo|kr~* (dkSñ 3@1]2]8)
bR;k|usdfyÄ~xn'kZusu la'k;%A r=k ^vFk [kyq izk.k ,o* bR;kfnfyÄ~xkn~ok;qek=kfefr
iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq izk.k% ¾ izk.k'kfCnra czãSo foKs;e~A dqr%\ rFkkuqxekr~A rFkk
czãijRos ikSokZi;sZ.k i;kZyksP;ekus okD;s inkFkZleUo;L; czãizfriknuijRokr~A rFkkfg
^Roeso es oja o`.kh"o] ;a Roa euq";k; fgrrea eU;ls* bfr izkfFkZra fgrrea
czãfoKkueUrjs.k u lEHkofrA vrks czãSo izk.k'kCne~A ^;ks eka osn u g oS rL;
dsupu deZ.ks* fr deZ.kk¿uoysiJqfr% ^vtjks¿e`r%* bfr Jqfr% ^l u lkèkquk
i
deZ.kk Hkw;ku~ Hkorh* R;kfnJqr;'p czãifjxzgs la?kVUrsA vrks¿=k izk.k'kfCnra
. n
czãSosR;FkZ%AA28AA
in d
.
st bR;gadkjoknfyÄ~&
uuq êkeso fotkuhfg* bR;qiØE; îzk.kks¿fLe izKekRek*
q u
xsusUænsorkfHkèkkuesokLrhR;k'kÄïÔkg&
n ta
a
(29) u] oDrqjkReksins'kkfnfr psendè;kRelEcUèkHkw ek áfLeu~ AA29AA
v
@ alone, since such is validly concluded after
i
The word ‘Prâna’ indicateslBrahman
a tu
d r
contemplating on all the abovementioned texts. There in the context of the dialogue
n
between Indra and Pratardana, the latter asks the former, ‘You, on your own, bless me
re is the best for humans’ (Kau. Up. 3.1). Here the most beneficial
with that boon which
thing for men a
n has been asked for, which can be nothing other than the knowledge of
Brahman.r.Hence the word ‘Prâna’ means Brahman only. Similarly the Úruti texts, ‘The
one whod knows me as such, is certainly not affected by any action. He neither loses nor
gains anything through actions (Kau. Up. 3.1)’, ‘That one is ageless and immortal’ (Kau.
Up. 3.8), etc. are properly reconciled only when the word ‘Prâna’ is interpreted as Brahman
and not otherwise. (28)
Na, vaktturâtmopadeúâditi
cedadhyâtmasambandhabhûmâ hyasmin (29)
If asserted that Prâna is not Brahman on account of instruction about the

speaker’s own self; we say, not so, for the chapter contains plenty of references to the
innermost Self.
u ija czã izk.k'kCna] dqr%\ oDrqjkReksins'kkr~A oDrqfjUæL; nsorkfo'ks"kL;

êkeso fotkuhfg* bfrJqR;kReRosuksifn';ekuRokr~] ^vokxeuk* (c`ñ 3@8@8) bR;kfn
JqR;k czã.kks oDr`Rok;ksxkPpA
îzk.kks oS cyfe* frJqrs% izk.kL; cy:ir;k cynsorsUæL; izk.k'kCns&
uk¿fHkèkkus¿fojksèkkr~A izKkReRoeI;izfrgrKkukÙk=k lEHkoR;sofs r psr\~ vè;kRelEcUèkHkwek
áfLeu~A fg & ;LeknfLeUuè;k;s ^;ko¼ÔfLeu~ 'kjhjs izk.kks olfr rkonk;q%] l ,"k
izk.k ,o izKkRek¿¿uUnks¿tjks¿e`r%* bR;è;kRelEcUèkL; izR;xkRelEcUèkL; Hkwek
ckgqY;eqiyH;rsA rLeknè;kRelEcUèkckgqY;kRizk.kkRedczãksins'k ,ok;a] usUænso&
rkReksins'k% bfrAA29AA
d .in
dFka rfgZ oDrqjkReksins'k bfr r=kkgµ
t.in
(30) 'kkL=kn`"VÔk rwins'kks okensoor~ u esAA30AA
ta q
a n of Brahman as has been declared
above. The Úruti text commencing with, ‘Know
v d
Opponent: The word ‘Prâna’ is not indicative
e me alone’ (Kau. Up. 3.1) and concluding
l i @
with, ‘I am Prâna identified with Consciousness’ (Kau. Up. 3.2), refers to the dialogue
tu
spoken egoistically by the divine being Indra to Pratardana. How can the aforementioned
ra for Brahman cannot be a speaker since the Úrutis
‘Prâna’ be accepted as Brahman,
themselves deny such byddeclaring It to be, ‘without speech and mind’ (Br. Up. 3.8.8).
r e n
of a
Moreover, the Úruti text, ‘The Prâna is strength’ (Br. Up. 5.14.4), describes ‘Prâna’ to be
of the nature n
d r.
contradiction
‘strength’, and since Indra is the presiding deity of strength there is no
in accepting the fact that the word ‘Prâna’ refers to Indra and not Brahman.
The knowledge of Indra is unobstructed and hence his oneness with Consciousness too
becomes possible because of his unhindered knowledge.
Vedântin: This is not correct since this chapter (of Kau. Up.) contains
abundance of references to the innermost Self. The texts, ‘As long as the Prâna remains
in this body that life exists’ (Kau. Up. 3.2), ‘This Prâna is the innermost Self and is
Bliss, ageless and immortal’ (Kau. Up. 3.8), repeatedly refers the relation of the word
‘Prâna’ to the innermost Self. Hence the word ‘Prâna’ refers to Brahman, and not to
the divine being Indra. (29)
Úâstradr+s+tyâ tûpdeúo vâmadevavat (30)

oDrqfjUæL; êkeso fotkuhgh*R;kReRosuksins'kLrq ^vgeso ija czãfs r 'kkL=kn`"VÔk

czãkRekua i';UusoksDre~A ;Fkk ^vga euqjHkoa lw;'Z p* (c`ñ 1@4@10) bfr 'kkL=kn`"V~;k
lokZRekua i';Uu`f"kokZensoks¿okspr~] r}fnR;FkZ%A rLekn~cã
z ijesorS }kD;fefr fl¼e~A30A
uUoè;kRelEcUèkn'kZukRijkphunsorkReksins'kkHkkos¿fi uSr}kD;a czãijfeR;k&
'kÄïÔkgµ
(31) thoeq[;izk.kfyÄ~xkUusfr psUuksiklk=kSfoè;knkfJrRokfng
r|ksxkr~ AA31AA
ôDrkja fo|kr~* bR;kfnthofyÄ~xkr~ ^bna 'kjhja ifjx`áksRFkki;fr* bfreq[;&
in
izk.kfyÄ~xkPpsgksHk;ksjU;rjks oksHkkS ok xzkákS] u czãsfr psUu_ dqr%\ miklk=kSfoè;kr~A
.
in d
,oa lfr f=kfoèkeqiklua izlT;sr & thoksiklua] eq[;izk.kksiklua] czãksiklua psfrA u
s t .
But the instruction to Prataradana is justified onu e
account of the realization of
ta q
the scriptural Truth by Indra, as in the case of Vâmadeva.
n
a ‘Know me alone’ (Kau. Up. 3.1) etc.,
ed
v of the ultimate Truth - ‘Thou art That’,
The pronouncements of the speaker (Indra),
@
is justified by taking into account his realization
i identifying himself with the Supreme Brahman.
as proclaimed by the scriptures andlthus
u
This is similar to the utterancest of the seer Vâmadeva wherein the seer, having realized
the Supreme Brahman, d ra ‘I alone was the Manu, and the sun’ (Br. Up. 1.4.10).
declares,
Moreover the Úrutie
r n declares, ‘And whosoever of the gods knew the Brahman verily
itself
n
became That’ (Br.a Up. 1.4.10). Hence Indra’s utterance here is to be understood as a
dr. the Supreme Brahman. (30)

sermon regarding
Jîvamukhyaprân+alinghânneti
cennopâsâtraividhyâdâúritatvâdiha tadyogât (31)
If asserted that Brahman is not spoken of here on account of the occurence of

indicatory signs of the ‘individual soul’ and the ‘prâna’ (vital force); we say, not so, for
this will then lead to a threefold meditation. Besides Prâna is admitted as implying
Brahman elsewhere; and the indicatory signs of Brahman are present here also.
Opponent: The presence of the indicatory signs of the individual soul viz., ‘Know
the speaker’ (Kau. Up. 3.8) etc., and also those of the vital-force viz., ‘Taking hold of this
pSrfn"Va_ êkeso fotkuhfg* bR;qiØE; îzk.kksfLe* bR;qDRok¿Urs ^l ,"k izk.k ,o

izKkRek¿¿uUnks¿tjks¿e`r%* bR;kfnJqR;ksiØeksilagkjkH;kesdokD;Roa czãkFkZifjxzgs la?kVrsA
fda pkU;=k czãfyÄ~xkuqjksèkkr~ izk.k'kCnL; ;Fkk czãf.k o`ÙksjkfJrRoa] rFksgkfi
r|ksxkr~ fgrreRok|lkèkkj.kkO;fHkpfjrczãfyÄ~x;ksxkn~czãSok=kksifn"Vfefr loZe&
onkre~AA31AA
bfr czãlw=k'kkÄïjHkk";koyfEcU;ka
;rhUædqyfryddSyklihBkèkh'ojLokfefo|kuUnfxfjfojfprk;ka fo|kuUno`ÙkkS
izFkekè;k;L; izFke% ikn%AA1&1AA
d .in
t. in
e sthat the passage under
body, the Prâna lifts it up’ (ibid. 3.3), one can verily conclude
consideration might as well refer to the ‘individual soul’ q u
the Supreme Brahman.
nt a and the ‘vital-force’, and not to
d a
Vedântin: This is not correct sincev itewill then involve a threefold meditation viz.
l i@tenetsandof meditation
that on the individual soul, on the vital-force
u
on the Brahman, which is
not admissible, for it goes against
consideration the beginningra
t the scriptural interpretation. Taking into
3.1), and then movingnon dtoofthethedeclaration,

passage wherein is said, ‘Know me alone’ (Kau. Up.
a
concluding with the e ‘I am the Prâna’ (Kau. Up. 3.2) and then
r text, ‘And that very Prâna indeed is Bliss, ageless, deathless and one
and thed r. ofnthe passage(Kau.
with the Consciousness’
end
Up. 3.8), it is clear that the coherence of the beginning
can only be maintained when Brahman is accepted as the
entity discussed about. Moreover since the word ‘Prâna’ is admitted elsewhere to imply
Brahman (BS. 1.1.23) because of the presence there of the characteristics of Brahman,
similarly, in the current context also, occur signs of such exceptional characteristics like
‘the most beneficent’ etc., that make it amply clear that the reference is to the Supreme
Brahman alone. (31)
Thus ends the English translation of Chapter 1 Section 1 of

Vidyânanda Vr+tti on Brahmasûtra
¨
izFkekË;k;s f}rh;% ikn%
(v=kkLi"VczãfyÄ~x;qDrJqfrokD;kukeqikL;czãfo"k;k.kka fopkj%)
(12) (1 loZ= izflºÓfËkdj.ke~ A lwÒ 1&8)
bRFka izFkesikns¿FkkZUrjizfl¼kuka ds"kkf×pPNCnkuka czãfo"k;Rogsrqizfriknusu
dkfufp}kD;kfu Li"Vcz ã fyÄ~ x kfu lfUnáekukfu cz ã ijRos u fu.khZ r kfuA
vèkquk¿Li"VczãfyÄ~xkuka leUo;a lkèkf;rqa f}rh;r`rh;iknkokjH;srsA r=k leLr&
Chapter 1 Section 2
(This section deliberates on those Úruti texts wherein distinct indications of

Brahman, the entity to be meditated upon, do not occur)
In the first section of the present chapter it was demonstrated that certain Úruti
texts of doubtful implications, though have distinct references to Brahman but are yet
familiar for other things, meant Brahman only. Now, with a view to prove that all those
Úruti texts wherein the distinct indications of Brahman do not occur also ultimately rejoice
in the Supreme Brahman, commence the second and third sections.
Topic 1: Sarvatra prasiddhyadhikarana

(The entity that is universally renowned)
This adhikarana deliberates on the Úruti text that declares, ‘All that is seen is but
Brahman only; because it originates from That, dissolves in That and is sustained by
That. Knowing thus one should, with a tranquil mind, meditate on Brahman everywhere.
One becomes what one resolves. Hence one should meditate on Him, who consists of the
mind, whose body is Prâna and who is of the nature of Space’ (Ch. Up. 3.14.1-2).
Doubt: Here arises a doubt whether the entity to be meditated upon is the embodied
soul or is it the Supreme Brahman?
Opponent: It is the embodied soul that has been sermonized here, since the relation
with mind etc. is justified only with respect to the embodied soul and not the Supreme
Brahman.
txRdkj.kL; czã.kks O;kidRokfnda izfl¼e~A rnqithO;ksÙkjikn};L;ksRFkkukn~&

gsrqgsrqen~Hkko% laxfrjL; iwosZ.k cksè;kA iwoZfLeUufèkdj.ks thokfnfyÄ~xkuka ckfèkrRosu
czãijRoeqDra ;Fkk] u rFkk=k eukse;kfnokD;s¿O;fHkpfjra czãfyÄ~xeLrhfr izR;qnkgj.k&
laxR;snekgµ
(32) loZ=k izfl¼ksins'kkr~ AA1AA
iwoZi{ks thoL;] fl¼kUrs & czã.k'pksiklua iQyfefrA NkUnksX;ksifu"kfn
'kkf.MY;fo|k;kfenekEuk;rs µ ^lo± [kfYona czã------l Ørqa dqohZr* êukse;%
izk.k'kjhjks Hkk:i%* (Nkñ 3@14@1&2) bR;kfnA r=k fda eukse;RokfnèkeSZ%'kkjhj
d .in
vkReksikL;Rosuksifn';rs \ fdaok ija czãsfr la'k;s_ 'kkjhj bfr iwoZ% iw{k%A fl¼kUrLrq
t.i n
ijeso czã eukse;RokfnèkeSZ#ikL;e~A dqr%\ loZ=k izfl¼ksins'kkr~A losZ"kq osnkUrs"kq
u es
izfl¼L; czã'kfCnrL; txRdkj.kL;sg ^lo± [kfYona czãs* fr okD;ksiØes JqrL;
t a q
eukse;RokfnèkeSZ#ifn';ekuRokr~A ,oa p izd`rgkukizÑrizfØ;kizlfDruZ L;kr~A
a n
v e d
okD;ksiØes 'kefofèkfoo{k;k fufnZ"VL;kfi czã.k% lfUufgrRoknqikL;Roa yH;rsA
Vedântin: To this we say, li@

tu
d a prasiddhopadeúât (1)
rSarvatra
r e n
n a
The Brahman Itself, consisting of mind etc., is to be meditated upon, for that
r. is well known everywhere as the cause of the Universe is being taught
Brahman which
here. d
The Supreme Brahman Itself, consisting of mind etc., is to be meditated upon

since it is the context of Supreme Brahman only. The Úruti text begins with, ‘All this is
but Brahman only’, wherein that Brahman which is celebrated ubiquitously in the scriptures
as the cause of the creation, sustenance and the dissolution of the universe is described.
Since the beginning refers to Supreme Brahman, it is but logical to conclude that the
latter instruction to meditate upon that One as consisting of mind etc. should also refer to
the same Supreme Brahman, otherwise it would amount to giving up the topic under
discussion and taking up something unrelated. Though Brahman has been presented in
the beginning of the Úruti text for the purpose of enjoining tranquility, still It is the entity
to be meditated upon because of Its proximity. Contrary to this, the embodied soul is
rf}ijhrRosu thoks u lfUufgrks] ukfi Lo'kCnsuksikÙk bfrAA1AA

(33) foof{krxq.kksiiÙks'pAA2AA
br'p czãSok=kksifn';rsA ;s foof{krk xq.kk ^Hkk:i% lR;ladYi%* bR;kfn&
uksikluk;keqikns;Rosuksifn"Vk%_ rs"kka lR;ladYiRoknhuka l`"V~;kfn"oizfrc¼'kfDr&
RokRijekReU;soksiiÙks%A u p êukse;% izk.k'kjhj%* bR;kfnthofyÄ~xa czãf.k uksii|rs
bfr okP;e~_ thoklkèkkj.kL;kfi eukse;Rokns% lR;ladYiRokfnczãfyÄ~xkuq&
jksèkkRlokZReRokPp r=kksiiÙks%A lokZReRoa p ^Roa L=kh Roa iqekufl* ('osñ 4@3) bfr
JqrkS ^loZr% ikf.kiknfe* (xhñ 13@13) frLe`rkS p izfl¼e~A vrLrn~xq.kda
czãSoksikL;fefr fl¼e~AA2AA
.i n
in dHence Brahman
st.
neither in proximity nor has it been presented through any of its own traits.
only is to be meditated here as consisting of mind etc. (1)
u e
t a q
a n
Vivaks+itagun+opapatteúca (2)
Moreover the proposed attributes are

v e d possible in the case of Brahman only.
l @
i expressed in the aforementioned Úruti text (Ch.
u
t topics of meditation are possible in the case of Brahman
Moreover the proposed attributes
Up. 3.14.1-2) to be considered
r a as
d with true-resolve (satya-sankalpa), ‘one of the form of light’
r e n
only. The qualities like ‘one
n a
etc. are possible only in Brahman and not in the embodied soul since the former is possessed
.
of absolute power in the matter of creation, sustenance and the dissolution of the universe.
dIfrasserted that the attributes like ‘mind’ and ‘prâna’ are indicators of the embodied
soul and not Brahman and hence the aforementioned Úruti cannot be applied to Brahman,
then such assertion is wrong, since these attributes can readily be related to Brahman also
for Brahman is the Self of all. The Úruti also declares about Brahman, ‘You are a woman,
You are a man, You are a youth and also that old man walking with the support of a stick’
(Úv. Up. 4.3). The Smriti also says, ‘He possesses hands and feet everywhere. Having
eyes, heads, and mouths everywhere He exists pervading everything’ (Bg. 13.13). Hence
the intended attributes are vindicated if applied to ‘conditioned Brahman’ (Qualified
Brahman), and so it is the Brahman that is spoken of here and not the individual soul. (2)
uuq foijhra fda u L;kfnfr psUusR;kgµ

(34) vuqiiÙksLrq u 'kkjhj% AA3AA
lkS=kLrq 'kCnks¿oèkkj.kkFkZ%A czãSoksDrU;k;su eukse;Rokfnxq.kda] u rq 'kkjhjks
tho%A dqr%\ ^lR;ladYi%] vkdk'kkRek] vokdh] vuknj%] T;k;kUi`fFkO;k%* bR;soa
tkrh;dkuka xq.kkuka thos lke×tL;sukuqiiÙks%AA3AA
(35) deZdr`ZO;ins'kkPp AA4AA
br'p u 'kkjhjks eukse;kfnxq.k%] ^,rfer% iszR;kfHklEHkforkfLe* (Nkñ
3@14@4) bR;usu ,rfefr izÑrL; eukse;Rokfnxq.kdL; czã.k% deZRosu izkI;Rosu]
d .in
Opponent: Why can’t it be accepted that the individual .soul,
t in which is being
suggested here by indicatory signs like ‘mind’ and ‘prâna’ etc.,eissendowed with qualities
q u
ta
of Brahman like ‘true-resolve’ etc.?
a n
e d
v na úârîrah+ (3)
@
uli
Anupapattestu
On the other handrthe

t
a individual soul is not implied here, for these attributes
do not apply to it. nd
a re
r. n
The aforementioned attributes are inapplicable to the individual soul; the word
d
‘tu’ is to convey this fact categorically. The attributes like ‘mind’ and ‘prâna’ etc. are
applicable here to Brahman alone as other qualities mentioned along are unquestionably
inapplicable to the embodied soul. Qualities like ‘true-resolve, without speech, pervasive
like space, greater than the earth, not eager for any honors, etc.’, are applicable only to
Brahman and not to the individual soul, since the latter exists only in the body that forms
the seat for its experiences. Hence Brahman is the principle discussed above. (3)
Karmakritr+vyapadeúâcca (4)
And because of the mention of the object and subject.
Moreover the individual soul cannot be accepted as the principle discussed above
(Ch. Up. 3.14.1-2) since the Úruti mentions about the ‘object’ attained and the ‘subject’
^vfHklEHkforkfLe* bR;usu 'kkjhjL; drZ`Rosu izkidRosu O;ifn';ekuRokr~AA4AA

(36) 'kCnfo'ks"kkr~ AA5AA
br'p 'kkjhjknU;ks eukse;Rokfnxq.k%A lekuizdj.ks JqR;Urjs ^vUrjkReUiq#"kks
fgj.e;%* bfr 'kkjhL;kReuks okpdknUrjkRefUufrlIrE;Urkr~ 'kCnknU;% izFkekUr%
iq#"k'kCnks eukse;Rokfnfof'k"VkReokpd%A rLekÙk;ksHksZnknU;% 'kkjhjknqikL; bR;FkZ%
AA5AA
(37) Le`rs'p AA6AA
fda p ^bZ'oj% loZHkwrkuka âís'ks¿tZqu fr"Brh* (xhñ 18@61) R;knkS
.in
who attains it in its text, ‘Departing from here I shall attain Him’ (Ch.
i n d 3.14.4). Here
Up.
.
the word ‘Him’ refers to the object of meditation, qualified earliertby ‘mind’ and ‘prâna’,
which is to be attained, and the pronoun ‘I’ refers to the subject
u es i.e. the embodied soul,
who aspires to attain that object. (4)
ta q
âa
n
e
Úabdaviúes+
v d t (5)
li@
Because of the difference in
t u the case-endings of the two words.
The individual soul r a

dthathasinnota similar
been referred to in the Úruti (Ch. Up. 3.14.1-2) above
r e
for an additional reasonn context in another Vedic text there occurs a
n acase-endings
difference in the of the words denoting the embodied soul and Brahman. In
r.
d soul (antarâtman)’ (Ú. Br. 10.6.3.2), wherein the Self endowed with mind
Úatapatha Brâhmana it is declared, ‘That golden Being (Hiranmaya purus+a) dwells inside
the embodied
and prâna etc., denoted by word ‘purus+a’ in the nominative case (first case-ending) is
described as dwelling inside the embodied Self denoted by the word ‘antarâtman’, which
is in the locative case i.e. seventh case-ending. (5)
Smr+teúca (6)
The Smritis too propound the difference between the two.
The Smriti too reminds of the difference between the embodied soul and the
supreme Self. The Gîta declares, ‘The Lord dwells in the hearts of all beings’ (Bg. 18.61),
thoijekReuksHksZnLej.kkUu czã.kks¿U;ks tho mikL;% bfr fl¼e~A vu;ks% dkYifuda

Hksneknk;So 'kkjhjL;ksikL;Roa izfrf"k¼a Hkofr] uHklks¿ifjfPNUuRos¿fi ?kVk|qikfèkHksns&
ukdk'ks HksnO;ogkjon=kkI;kSikfèkdHksnkH;qixekfnfr Hkko%AA6AA
bRFka 'kkjhjL;ksikL;Roa fujL;kèkquk ijekReu mikL;Roek'kÄïÔ ifjgjfrµ
(38) vHkZdkSdLRokÙk};ins'kkPp usfr psUu_ fupkÕ;Roknsoa
O;kseoPpAA7AA
uUoHkZdeYie~ vksdks uhMa LFkkua ;L; lks¿HkZdkSdkLrL; HkkoLrÙoa rLekr~
.in
^,"k es vkRek¿UrâZn;s* (Nkñ 3@14@3) bfr ifjfPNUuk;ruRokr~] ^v.kh;kUczhgsokZ
i d
nIt must be clearly
thereby negating the possibility of meditation on the embodied soul.
understood here that this difference between the embodied soul s t.
u e and the Supreme Self is
taqthough undivided, appears as

imaginary only and not real. This difference, which is the result of ignorance, lasts only
n
till ignorance lasts. The difference is akin to Space which,
a
v e d
divided by the limiting factors like pot, jar etc. (6)
l i@ of meditation on the embodied soul in the

Doubt: After negating theupossibility
a t is now being raised on the feasibility of meditation on
drÚruti declares, ‘This is my Self within the heart, smaller than
aforementioned discussion, doubt
r n
the Supreme Self too. The
e than a grain of barley’ (Ch. Up. 3.14.3), wherein the limitations
a
a grain of rice, slighter
n
r.
declared, in terms of abode and size, befits the embodied soul more than the Supreme
d the Úruti too declares as regards the size of the embodied soul by saying,
Self. Moreover
‘The embodied soul of the size of the tip of the sawyer’ (Úv. Up. 5.8), thereby indicating
that it is the embodied soul that is taught to be meditated upon here and not the Supreme
Self.
Arbhakaukastvâttadvyapadeúâcca neti caenna

nicâyyatvâdevam vyomavacca (7)
If asserted that Brahman is not taught here because of the smallness of Its
abode and because of It too being referred to as minute in size, we say, not so, since
such is done for the sake of meditation, as is seen in the case of Space.
;ok}k* bR;knkS Lo'kCnsuSo rL;k.kh;LRoO;ins'kkPpkjkxzek=kks tho bgksikL;Rosuks&

ifn';rs] u loZxr% ijekResfr psUu_ dqr%\ loZxrL;kfi ijekReuks¿HkZdkSd&
LRok.kh;LRokfnxq.kfof'k"V:is.ksg fupkÕ;Roknsoe~ & æ"VO;Roknsofefr czwe%A
,oe.kh;LRokfnxq.kx.kksisr% ijes'oj% r=k ân;iq.Mjhds fupkÕ;ks æ"VO;ks O;ifn';rs]
;Fkk 'kkyxzkes gfj%A loZxrks¿fi l r=kksikL;eku% izlhnfrA vr% loZxrL;
ijekReuks¿HkZdkSdLRokfnxq.k miklukis{k;k¿fo#¼%A u pSrkork rL; loZxrRogkfu%\
O;kseoPpsfr rRlEHkokr~A ;Fkk loZxrefi O;kse lwphik'kk|is{k;k¿HkZdkSdks¿.kh;'p]
,oa fupkÕ;Rokis{k;k czã.kks¿HkZdkSdLRoe.kh;LRoa p] u ikjekfFkZdfeR;fojksèk%AA7AA
uuq czã.k% loZxrRokH;qixes loZizkf.kân;lEcUèkkr~ rn~xrlq[kknsjfi czãf.k
izlÄ~x% L;kfnR;k'kÄïÔ ifjgjfrµ .in
(39) lEHkksxizkfIrfjfr psUu_ oS'ks";kr~ tAA8AA . ind
u es
ta q
a
Such notion is erroneous. The all-pervading n Supreme Self has been declared to
e d within the confines of heart merely for
be slighter than the grain of rice and also to dwell
v
li @ (stone symbol). Hence it is not converse to
the sake of meditation. It is well known that Lord Vis+nu, though omnipresent, becomes
tusize of the all-pervading Supreme Self for the purpose

happy when worshipped in a ‘Úâlagrâma’
d a
assert as regards the dwelling and
r to Space, which though is all-pervasive, but still assumes
of contemplation. This is akin
r e
a diminutive size and nplace with reference to the eye of a needle. Hence the limitation
with respect to a
r. n
being imagined
size and abode do not belong to the Supreme Self in the real sense, these
merely for the purpose of meditation. Thus there is no contradiction in
d of Vedânta. (7)
the principles
Opponent: If the Supreme Self is accepted to be connected with the hearts of all
beings on account of Its omnipresence then, being conscious akin to the embodied soul,
It too would be subjected to pleasure and pain similar to the embodied soul. Moreover
the declaration by the Úruti, ‘There is no other viewer but Him’ (Br. Up. 3.7.23), indicates
that it is none other but the Supreme Self alone that becomes the embodied soul.
Sambhogaprâptiriti caenna vaiúes+yât (8)

uuq O;kseon~ czã.k% loZxrRos loZthoân;lEcUèkkPpsruRokfo'ks"kkPp

thoon~czã.;fi lq[knq%[kkfnlEHkksxks¿fof'k"V% izlT;srsfr psUu_ oS'ks";kr~A tho&
czã.kksHkksZDr`Rokfnfo'ks"kkUu thoHkksxsu czãf.k HkksxizlfDr%A u p ûkU;ks¿rks¿fLr
æ"Vk* (c`ñ 3@7@23) ^rÙoefl* bR;kfnJqfrH;Lr;ksjd s RoeoxE;rs bfr] vrLrRizlÄ~x
bfr okP;e~_ feF;kKkudfYirlq[kkns% lE;XKkufo"k;s czãf.k lEcUèkk;ksxkr~A ufg
ckySLryefyurkfnfHkfoZdYI;ekus O;ksfEu ijekFkZrks O;kse rS% lEcè;rsA rLekfUeF;k&
KkudfYirksiHkksxxUèkks¿fi us'ojs dYif;rqa 'kD;%A vrks eukse;Rokfnxq.kd% ijes'oj
,oksikL;ks] u tho bfr fl¼e~AA8AA
(13) (2 vŸkfËkdj.ke~ A lwÒ 9&10)
d .in
t
;Fkk ijekReuks HkksDr`RokHkko% iwoZeqDr%] rFksg dr`ZRokHkkoks.i¿nfi czã.kks¿Lrhfr
u es
ta q
If asserted that Brahman too would become the
a n agent of experience of pleasure,
v e d
pain etc., we say, not so, for Its nature is different.
li@
This is incorrect, for the embodied soul alone experiences pain and pleasure, it
being an agent of action; whereasuthe Supreme Brahman, not an agent, experiences no
t
such dualities. Hence it is theadifference between the innate temperament of the two that
r
causes one (the embodieddsoul) to indulge in action and experience its result whereas the
r n
emerely remains a witness. As far for the Úruti asserting the oneness
a
other (the Brahman)
n
d r.
of the embodied soul and Brahman, we say that such pronouncement becomes valid only
after ignorance and its effects have been completely annihilated by the ‘knowledge’ (of
Brahman). It must be remembered that the embodied soul experiences pain and pleasure
due to the effect of Ignorance whereas the Supreme Self is free from it. It is akin to
concavity and dirt attributed to the Sky by the ignorant, whereas in reality the sky never
gets affected by them. Hence one cannot imagine even a whiff of experience (of pain and
pleasure) in Brahman; it, being the results of ignorance, is possible only in the embodied
soul. Hence it is the Supreme Self alone, consisting of ‘mind’ and ‘prâna’, that is taught
here as the entity to be meditated upon, and not the embodied soul. (8)
Topic 2: Attadhikarana
(Brahman is the eater)
iwosZ.kkL; n`"VkUrlaxfr%A
(40) vÙkk pjkpjxzg.kkr~ AA9AA
iwoZi{ks¿XusthZoL; oksiklua] fl¼kUrs fufoZ'ks"kczã.kks Kkufefr r;ks% iQyHksn%A
^;L; czã p {k=ka pksHks Hkor vksnu%A e`R;q;ZL;ksilspua d bRFkk osn ;=k l%AA (dñ
1@2@24) bR;=kkÙkk Jw;rsA l ,o fopkjfo"k;%A v=k df'pnksnuksilspulwfprks¿Ùkk
izrh;rsA l fdefXu%] tho%] ijekRek osfr la'k;s_ vfXujÙkk & ^vfXujUukn%* (c`ñ
As the previous adhikarana denies any experience of pleasure, pain etc. in Brahman,
similarly the current adhikarana commences with a view to refute any agent-ship in
.in
Brahman; thus this adhikarana is related to the previous one by the way of comparative
illustration.
in d
s .
twhom the knowledge-
Doubt: The Úruti says, ‘How can one know of Him, to
u e
enriched Brâhmanas and the activity-enriched Ks+atriyas are
the curry’ (Kath. Up. 1.2.25)? Here arises a doubt asta q but rice (food) and death is
regards the identity of the ‘eater’
a n
d
referred to by the Úruti. Is it the ‘Fire’ or the ‘embodied soul’ or is it the Supreme Brahman?
e Úruti declares so by the text, ‘Fire is the
vthe
Opponent: The eater is Fire @
u l i it is a matter of common experience that fire
since
t
eater of all food’ (Br. Up. 1.4.6). Moreover
a
consumes everything.
d r
Or the eatereisnthe individual soul for the Úruti supports this by the text, ‘One of
them tastes thea
r
n
r. To this we say,
sweet fruit’ (Mu. Up. 3.1.1).
dVedântin:
Attâ carâcaragrahan+ât (9)
The eater is Brahman, for it is in Him alone that all movable and immovable
things get absorbed.
The eater here is none other but the supreme Lord, since it is in Him alone that the
entire universe, comprising all movable and immovable things, gets withdrawn at the
time of dissolution. The annihilation of this entire creation, characterized by Brâhmanas
and Ks+atriyas, cannot possibly be accomplished by any other but the Supreme Lord only.
1@4@6) bfr Jqfrizflf¼H;ke~] thoks ok¿Ùkk] ^r;ksjU;% fiIiya Lok}fÙk*] bfr

n'kZukfnfr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq vÙkk¿=k ijekReSoA dqr%\ pjkpjxzg.kkr~A pjkpj;ks%
LFkkojtÄ~xe;ksjk|Rosu xzg.kkr~ Jo.kkr~A ufg loZlagrkZja ijekRekueUrjs.kkU;L;
dL;fpPpjkpjkr`Roa lEHkofrA e`R;wilspuRosu loZL; izkf.kleqnk;L;k|Rosu
izrh;ekuRokr~ czã{k=k;ks'p izkèkkU;kRizn'kZus¿fojksèkkr~A uuq ^vu'uUuU;ks¿fHkpkd'khrh*
(eqñ 3@1@1) fr JqR;k ijekReuks ukÙk`Rofefr psUu_ rL;k% deZiQyHkksxL; izfr"ksèkdRosu
fodkjlagkjizfr"ksèkdRokHkkokr~A vr% ijekReSok=kkÙkk HkforqegZrhfrAA9AA
(41) izdj.kkPp AA10AA
br'p ijekReSokÙkk] ukU;%A û tk;rs fez;rs ok foif'pfn] (dñ 1@2@18)
d .in
fr ijekReu% izÑrRokr~ pdkjs.k ^d bRFkk osn ;=k l%* bfr rL; nqfoZKs;& t. in
Ro:iklkèkkj.kfyÄ~xkPpsfr Hkko%AA10AA u es
ta q
Moreover the mention of ‘Death’ itself as a ‘curry’ n
e d a that is swallowed along demonstrates
v
that the entire creation is being referred to here as His food. Death, which consumes all,
u li@
is itself consumed by Him. Brâhmanas and Ks+atriyas have been singularly named as they
t
are the foremost of all created beings
a
d rthat the Supreme Lord is not implied here since the Úruti text
n
As for the assertion
declares, ‘The otheremerely looks on without tasting’ (Mu. Up. 3.1.1), we say that such
r This declaration merely negates the experience of fruits of action by
n a
contention is wrong.
r.
d for the latter has been unequivocally proclaimed to be the creator, sustainer
the Supreme Lord. It by no means denies the dissolution of all creation into the Supreme
Brahman,
and the destroyer of the entire universe in all scriptures. Hence the Supreme Self alone
has been referred to as the ‘eater’ in the above Úruti. (9)
Prakaranâcca (10)
Moreover the context relates to Brahman only.
Moreover, it is the Supreme Self alone that is implied by the Úruti here as the
‘eater’ since the context relates to the That only. The Úruti says, ‘That Self is neither born
nor does It die’ (Kath. Up. 1.2.18); here the Supreme Lord alone constitutes the subject
under contemplation. Also the declaration, ‘How can anyone know Him thus’ (Kath. Up.
(14) (3 xqgkfËkdj.ke~ A lwÒ 11&12)

iwo± ;Fkk czã{k=kin;kse`ZR;qinlafufgrRosukfuR;oLrqijRoe~] ,ofegkfi
ficPNCnL; lafufgrxqgkizos'kkfnuk cqf¼thoijRoefLRofr n`"VkUrlaxR;snekgµ
(42) xqgka izfo"VkokRekukS fg rí'kZukr~ AA11AA
v=k cqf¼fHkUuthoKkue~] thofoy{k.kijekReKkufefr iwoZi{kfl¼kUr;ks%
1.2.28), points to the Supreme Self only, since the difficulty in comprehending It is too
well known. (10)
Topic 3: Guhâdhikarana
.i n
(The cavity of the heart)
in d
s .
t ‘Ks+atriya’ have been
As in the preceding adhikarana the words ‘Brâhmana’ and
u e
word ‘death’, similarly in the current context the phrase q
construed to imply all perishable creation because of their occurrence
ta‘entering
in proximity to the
into the cavity of heart’
a
occurs in close proximity to the word ‘drink’ (pibat),n thereby indicating that it is the
ed
related to the previous one by the way of v
‘intellect’ and the ‘embodied soul’ that dwell in the cardiac cavity; thus this adhikarana is
li@ comparative illustration.
tu
rathe reward of their works; both are mutually distinct akin to
Doubt: The Úruti declares, “In this body two beings dwell in the extremely subtle
d
re
shade and light, so has nbeen declared by the worshippers of ‘five-fires’ and the performers
cavity of the heart to enjoy
n a thrice” (Kath. Up. 1.3.1). Here arises a doubt whether these two
of ‘Nâciketa sacrifice’
d r
referred to .by the Úruti are the ‘embodied soul’ and the ‘intellect’, or are they the ‘embodied
soul’ and the ‘Supreme Self’?
Opponent: It is the ‘embodied soul’ and the ‘intellect’ that have been referred to
here in the Úruti.
Guhâm pravis+t+âvâtmânau hi taddarúanât (11)
The two who have entered into the cavity of the heart are the two Selves, for it
is so seen.
iQyHksn%A ^Íra ficUrkS lqÑrL; yksds xqgka izfo"VkS ijes ijkèksZA Nk;krikS czãfonks
onfUr* (dñ 1@3@1) bR;kfn okD;e=k fopkjfo"k;%A r=k fdfeg cqf¼thokS
fufnZ"VkS] mr thoijekRekukfofr la'k;s_ cqf¼thokSA dqr%\ ^xqgka izfo"Vkfofr
fo'ks"k.kkfnfr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq thokReijekRekukosok=k xzkákSA dqr%\ vkRekukS
fg & ;LeknkRekukS psrukS ^Íra ficUrkS* bfr iQyHkksxJo.ksuSdL;kReRos f}rh;&
L;kI;kReRoa U;kÕ;e~A la[;kJo.ks la[;kor% lekuLoHkkoL;So yksds n'kZukr~A vL;
xksf}Zrh;ks¿Uos"VO; bR;qDrs f}rh;L; xksjUos"k.kofngkfi Írikusu fyÄ~xsu fuf'prs
foKkukRefu f}rh;kUos"k.kk;ka lekuLoHkko'psru% ijekReSo izrh;rsA ^xqgkfgra xgojs"Ba
.in
iqjk.ke~* (dñ 1@2@12) ^;ks osn fufgra xqgk;ka ijes O;kseu~* (rSñ 2@1) bR;kfnJqfr"kq
d
t.in Self’ since both
esdisposition. It is seen in
The two referred here are the ‘individual self’ and the ‘Supreme
u
belong to the same class, both are sentient and both have similar
common parlance that during enumeration one roboticallyqassumes that the units of same
n a to find a companion for a
tdesires
‘cow’, then another cow alone is sought ford
e a not a horse etc. Similarly once the
category are being accounted for. For instance if one
and
embodied soul, endowed with intellect, has vbeen ascertained to be one of the dwellers in
@indicatory
the cardiac cavity by the presence oflithe
u mark of enjoying the fruits of work,
the search for the second dweller trobotically concludes in the ‘Supreme Self’ alone because
d rain the ‘intellect’ which is insentient.
of Its similar nature, and not
r e n
n aenjoyment
As for the assertion that on assuming the Supreme Self to be the second dweller
r .
the declaration of of fruit by both becomes erroneous, since such cannot apply
d we say that such can be figuratively asserted for both on the analogy of ‘men
to Brahman,
with umbrella’, wherein only one man has an umbrella and not the whole group. Similarly
here also though it is the individual Self alone who enjoys the fruits of action, yet both
are so spoken of.
Also the objection that the Supreme Self cannot be spoken of as dwelling in the
subtle cavity of the heart since it is inappropriate to incarcerate an all-pervading entity to
a certain location; we say that it involves no contradiction since such confinement of
Brahman is talked of only for the purpose of realization. Moreover the Úruti also declares,
‘Rarely does one know that entity which is inscrutable, ageless and is lodged in an
inaccessible place in the cavity of the heart’ (Kath. Up. 1.2.12), and ‘One who knows that
ijekReuks xqgkfgrRon'kZusuk=kkfi ijekRefu xqgkfgrRoefo#¼e~A loZxrL;kfi czã.k

miyCè;FkksZ ns'kfo'ks"kksins'kks u fo#¼%A rLekf}KkukReijekRekukS xqgka izfo"VkS x`árs As A11AA
(43) fo'ks"k.kkPp AA12AA
br'p thoijekRekukoso xqgka izfo"VkS x`ásrsA dqr%\ ^vkRekua jfFkua fof¼]
'kjhja jFkeso rqA* (dñ 1@3@3) ^lks¿èou% ikjekIuksfr rf}".kks% ijea ine~* (dñ
1@3@9) ^vè;kRe;ksxkfèkxesu nsoa eRok èkhjks g"kZ'kksdkS tgkfr* (dñ 1@2@12)
bR;kfn"kq thoijekReuksjso xUr`xUrO;Rosu eUrèUrO;Rosu p fo'ks"k.kkPpdkjs.k
ijekReizdj.kkfnR;FkZ%A rLekTthoijekRekukosok=k xzkákfofr Hkko%AA12AA
.in
Supreme Self which dwells in the supreme space within the cavity of the heart’ (Tai. Up.
2.1).
i n d
st .
Hence the embodied soul endowed with intellect andethe Supreme Self are the
u
two entities referred to in the Úruti under contemplation.q(11)
n ta
e d
Viúes+an+âccaa(12)
@ v
u li of the two are mentioned.
Moreover the distinctive attributes
a t
d r
Moreover an additional reason for accepting the individual soul and the Supreme
r e nwhich dwell in the cavity of the heart is the mention of distinctive

Self as the twin entities
characteristics a
n
the chariot. and
r
of the two in the ensuing texts. The Úruti declares, ‘Know the body to be
the Self to be the charioteer’ (Kath. Up. 1.3.3), wherein the embodied
d with the intellect is referred to as the charioteer aspiring to attain its
soul identified
destination. The Úruti then goes on to specify the destination as the Supreme Self by
saying, ‘He attains the end of the voyage, and that is the supreme state of Vishnu’ (Kath.
Up. 1.3.9). Thus explicit difference between the embodied soul and the Supreme Self has
been specified by designating the former as the ‘traveler’ and the latter as its ‘destination’.
The foregoing text also specifies these two as the ‘one who meditates’ and the other as
the ‘object of meditation’ by saying, ‘The enduring one relinquishes both happiness and
sorrow on realizing that Supreme Lord by meditating on the Self’ (Kath. Up. 1.2.12).
(12)
(15) (4 vUrjkfËkdj.ke~ A lwÒ 13&17)

iwoZfLeUufèkdj.ks ;Fkk izFkeficUrkfofr f}RoJo.ksu psruRosu lkn`';a
thoij;ksjuql`R; pjeJqrhuka xqgkizos'kknhuka thoijekReuks% ijRoa uhra] rFksg ^n`';rs*
bfr izFkeizR;{kRodFkusu p{kqf"k izfrfcEckoxekuqjksèkkPpjeJqrhukee`rRoknhuka
LrkodRosu dFkafpÙkRijRoa us;fefrn`"VkUrlaxR;snekgµ
(44) vUrj miiÙks% AA13AA
iwoZi{ks izfrfcEcksiklua] fl¼kUrs czãksiklufefr iQyHksn%A midks'kyfo|k;ka
Topic 4: Antarâdhikarana
d .in
(The being in the eye)
t .in
s Úruti in the beginning
ethe
u
In the foregoing adhikarana the twin entities referred to by
q soul and the Supreme
as drinkers of the fruits of action were interpreted as theaembodied
n t
a
Self on the logic of similarity in their class, and later on in the concluding text it was
ed of the heart, similarly in the current
accepted that these two alone dwell in the cavity
v
i@ and the subsequent mention of immortality
adhikarana the person in the eye referred to by the Úruti in the beginning here should be
u l
interpreted as a shadowy being (a reflection),
and fearlessness should be seentmerely as an expression of eulogy; thus this adhikarana
d
is related to the previous oneraby the way of comparative illustration.
r en
Doubt: a
n In the context of discussions between Satyakâma Jâbâla and Upakosala
r. text occurs, ‘The One seen in the eye is the Self. This One is immortal and
the following
fearless.dThis is Brahman’ (Ch. Up. 4.15.1). Here arises a doubt whether the One referred
to in the Úruti is some shadowy being etc. reflected in the eye, or is it the Supreme Self?
Opponent: It is some shadowy being, i.e. a reflection of some person, which is

referred to here by the Úruti.
Antara upapatteh+ (13)
The being inside the eye is Brahman, for the attributes mentioned can apply to
It alone.
NkUnksX;s ^; ,"kks¿f{kf.kiq#"kks n`';rs] ,"k vkResfr gksokpSrne`reHk;esrn~czãsfr*

(Nkñ 4@15@1) bfr fopkjfo"k;ks¿=kA r=k fde;e{;fèkdj.kks fufnZ';eku%
izfrfcEckfn%] mr ijekResfr la'k;s_ izfrfcEckfnfjfr iwoZ%i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq vUrj% &
vf{k.;H;Urj% iq#"k% ijekReSosgksifn"V%A dqr%\ miiÙks%A vkReRoke`rRokHk;Rok&
nhukfegksDrèkekZ.kka ijekReU;soksiiÙks%A r=k ^l vkRek rÙoefl* bR;kfnJqR;k¿¿ReRoa
ijekRefu eq[;o`R;ksii|rsA ve`rRokHk;Ros r=kklÑPN~#rkS Jw;srsA vf{kLFkkua p
loZnks"kjfgRosuksifn"Ve~A ^,ra la;}ke bR;kp{krs*] ,ra fg lokZf.k okekU;fHkla;fUr*
(Nkñ 4@12@2) bR;kfnJqrkS fufnZ"Vla;n~okeRoknhuka ijekReU;soksiifÙkukZU;=kA
vrks¿{;Urj% iq#"k% ijekReSoAA13AA
(45) LFkkukfnO;ins'kkPp AA14AA .in
i n d & ^;% i`fFkO;ka
dFkekdk'koRloZxrL; czã.kks¿Yief{kLFkkueqii|rs bR;r
st . vkg
e
usince the characteristics like
The being in the eye is the Supreme Lord only a q
t in relation to this being can
n
aÚruti declares as regards this being, ‘He
immortality, fearlessness etc., which have been specified
relate to the Supreme Lord alone. Moreoverethe d
v the contention of being the Self relates
@
i eye is a very apposite place for the Supreme
is the Self. That thou art’ (Ch. Up. 6.8.7), wherein
l
u
principally to Brahman only. Furthermore
Lord, as, akin to the Lord who ist free from all blemishes, eye too is unblemished. Besides
d raregards this being, ‘He is the repository of all splendors, the
carrier of all good e
r n the goal of the results of actions etc.’ (Ch. Up. 4.15.2/3/4),
the Úruti further declares
results,
as
which logicallya
n relates to the Supreme Lord only. Hence the being in the eye is God alone
d . (13)
and nonerother.
Opponent: Brahman, being all-pervading like Space, cannot be confined to a

small place like the eye. Hence the One in the eye is other than Brahman.
Sthânâdivyapadeúâcca (14)
And because the abode etc. are attributed to It for the sake of meditation.
fr"Bu~* (c`ñ 3@7@3) bR;kfnuk¿L; fufnZ"Vs"kq i`fFkO;kfnLFkkus"kq ^;'p{kqf"k fr"Bu~*

bR;kfnuk p{kqjfi LFkkua fufnZ"Va] u rq dsoya p{kqjso LFkkue~A rFkk ^rL;ksfnfr uke*]
fgj.;'eJq%* (Nkñ 1@6@7&6) bR;knkS uke :ia pkfi fufnZ"Ve~A vrks¿U;=k
LFkkuuke:ik.kkeqiklukFkZRosu funsZ'kofngkfi loZxrL; ijekReuks¿f{kLFkkuk&
fnO;ins'kknqiyCè;Fk± 'kkyxzke bo fo".kksfjfr ;qDresosfrHkko%AA14AA
(46) lq[kfof'k"VkfHkèkkuknso p AA15AA
br'pkfi ijekReSosgksifn"V%A îzk.kks czã da czã [ka czãs* frokD;ksiØes
;RizØkUra lq[kfof'k"Va czã] rL;SosgkfHkèkkukr~ izÑrL;So czã.kks¿f{kLFkkurka
d
la;}keRokfnxq.krka pkfHkèkk;kfpZjkfndka rf}nksxfra o{;kehR;qiØers ^; ,"kks¿f{kf.k.in
t.i n the purpose of
The all-pervading Brahman is assigned a particular space
ueands names etc. to that all-
for
meditation only; the Úruti assigns various such places, forms
pervading entity for this purpose only. It does not implya
t q Brahman exists only in these
that
places, but It has been presented in such qualified
an manner solely for the purpose of
v
meditation. For instance the Úruti declares, ‘He e dwho controls the earth by dwelling inside
i@ wherein Brahman has been declared to dwell
the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, He is your Self –
omnipresent and immortal’ (Br. Up.l3.7.3),
u
a t declares as regards Its seat in the eye by the text, ‘He
r the eye doesn’t know, whose body is the eye etc. (Br. Up.
in the earth. Similarly the Úruti also
d
r
3.7.18), wherein Brahmann
who dwells in the eye, whom
e is declared as dwelling in the eye also, but not in the eye alone.
n a says, ‘The One whose beard is golden, His name is Ut’ (Ch. Up. 1.6.6/
Similarly the Úruti
d
7), whereinr . the Úruti ascribes name and form to Brahman with the sole purpose of
facilitating meditation on It. Hence, akin to the placement of Vishnu in the stone ‘Úâligrâma’
for the purpose of worship, the position of Brahman in eye etc. for the purpose of meditation
does not present any contradiction. (14)
Sukhaviúis+t+âbhidhânâdeva ca (15)
And on account of the reference to one possessed of bliss.
Furthermore, there cannot be any incongruity as regards the One in the eye being
Brahman only because of Its occurrence in the same context. The topic commences with
the Úruti declaring, ‘Prâna is Brahman, Kam (bliss) is Brahman, Kham (space) is Brahman’
(Ch. Up. 4.10.5), wherein the words ‘bliss’ and ‘space’ mutually qualify each other and
iq#"kks n`';rs* bR;kfnusR;FkZ%AA15AA

(47) Jqrksifu"kRdxR;fHkèkkukPp AA16AA
fyÄ~xknfi rL; czãRoekg & ;LekPN~#rksifu"kRdL; Jqrk mifu"kn~ jgL;a
czãfoKkua ;L;] rFkkfoèkL; czãfonks ;k xfrnsZo;kuk[;k ^vFkksÙkjs.k rilk
czãp;sZ.ks* (izñ 1@10) fr JqrkS* vfXuT;ksZfrjg%* (xhñ 8@24) bfr Le`rkS p
izfl¼k] rL;k xrsjsosgkfi* vkfnR;kPpUæela pUæelks fo|qrfe* (Nkñ 4@15@5)
R;knkofHkèkkuknf{kLFkL; czãRoa fu'ph;rsAA16AA
(48) vuofLFkrsjlEHkokPp usrj% AA17AA
.in
n d
thus conclude in that Supreme Self which is Bliss Itself. Then the Úruti concludes the
i
st.
topic by promising to reveal the course to be followed after death by the one who meditates
u e
as such. And then the same Brahman, with a view to reveal the course, is further elucidated
a q
in the text, ‘The One seen in the eye is the Self. This One is immortal and fearless. This
t
is Brahman’ (Ch. Up. 4.15.1). (15)
a n
v e d
Úrutopanis+atkagatyabhidhânâcca (16)
i@
uldeclaration
And on the account of tthe of the path followed by those who have
d ra
known the Truth of the scriptures.
r e n
n aby which the knower of Brahman departs after death. This path (path of
The Path of
is the same. path
departure declared here for the one who knows the person in the eye
d r has been elucidated by the Úruti in the text, ‘One, attaining perfection by
gods, devayâna)
continence and meditation, proceeds to world of Brahman by traveling along the Northern
Course’ (Pr. Up. 1.10). This path has also been detailed in the Smriti, wherein the text
says, ‘The Path in which the deities of fire, light, day-time, the bright fortnight and the
six months of northern course of sun preside, know that as the path of no return’ (Bg.
8.24). The same path has been declared here for the one who knows the person in the eye
by the Chândogya Úruti that says, ‘He proceeds from the sun to the moon and then to the
lightning from where he is escorted to the world of Brahman by a non-human being
never to return back to the world of transmigration’ (Ch. Up. 4.25.5). Hence the person in
the eye is none other but Brahman only. (16)
uuq Nk;kRek] foKkukRek] nsorkRek ok L;knf{kLFkku bfr psUu_ mikldL;

loZ=kkf{kf.k izfrfcEclEikndfcEcHkwriq#"kkUrjL;koLFkkukHkkokr~] r=k Nk;kRefu
ve`rRokfnxq.kkukelEHkokPpkf{kLFkiq#"kL; Nk;kReRoa oDrqe'kD;Rokr~A ukfi
foKkukRek¿f{kLFk% iq#"k%_ r=kkI;e`rRokfnxq.kkukelEHkokr~A ukfi l nsorkRek Lohdk;Z%]
rL; ijkxz w i Rokne` r Rok|lEHkokr~ mRifÙky;Jo.kkPpA vejRoa p ns o kuka
fpjdkykoLFkkukis{ke~] ,s'o;Zefi ijes'ojk;Ùka] u LokHkkfode~A rLekRijes'oj
,ok;ef{kLFkku% izR;srO;ks] ukU;%AA17AA
AA foJke%2AA d .in
t. in
e s
q u
Anavasthiterasambhavâcca netarah+
a (17)
nont account of impermanence and
None other can be the being in the eye a
edattributes.
impossibility of application of the mentioned v
u li@that the person in the eye could be a shadowy
being, or individual self orrsomea t divine being, we say it is not correct because of their
As for the opponent’s assertion
n d of attributing the characters qualifying the ‘person in

e
impermanence and impossibility
the eye’ to any ofrthese. For instance the possibility of the ‘person in the eye’ to be a
a(reflection of a person standing in front of the eye) cannot be endorsed
. n
is r
‘shadowy being’
since it d not possible for it to dwell permanently in the eye for the reflection disappears
with the movement of the person away from the eye. Moreover the qualities like
immortality and fearlessness cannot be attributed to a shadowy being. Similarly the person
in the eye cannot be the ‘individual soul’ also as the aforementioned qualities of immortality
etc. are not possible in it. Nor can the person be a ‘divine being’ as this god (devatâ)
cannot be the Self because of its existence externally. Moreover the gods are not immortal
as they too go through the cycles of birth and death. They are only declared to be immortal
from the view-point of their long life. Their grandeur too is not innate, but is sanctioned
by the Supreme Lord only on the basis of their meditation etc. and hence they live under
the fear of the Supreme Lord. Thus the Supreme Lord alone can be the person seated in
the eye referred to by the Úruti. (17)
(16) (5 vUr;kZE;fËkdj.ke~ A lwÒ 18&20)

iwoZ=k ^;% i`fFkO;ka fr"Bu~* bR;k|Ur;kZfeczkã.kLFka ^;'p{kqf"k fr"Bu~* bR;kfn
okD;eqnkâR; ^LFkkukfnO;ins'kkPps* fr lw=ks¿Ur;kZfe.kks czãRoa fu.khZre~A bnkuharnsokf{kI;
lekèkÙks bR;k{ksilaxR;snekg&
(49) vUr;kZE;fèknSokfn"kq r¼eZO;ins'kkr~ AA18AA
Topic 5: Antaryâmyadhikarana
(The ruler within)
.i n
In the previous adhikarana while concluding that the person in the eye is Brahman,
in d
the Br+hadâranyaka Úrutis (3.7.3/18) were cited in support of such contention. There the
.
conclusion that the ‘internal ruler’ (antaryâmin) referred to in these Shrutis is none other
st
e
but Brahman only was arrived at without any debate. The current adhikarana commences
u
ta q
with a view to establish this conclusion as regards the aforementioned ‘internal ruler’ by
apposite arguments. Thus this adhikarana is related to the previous one by the way of
a n
protestation.
e d
v inhabits the earth, but is within it, whom the
@
ithe earth, who controls the earth from within; That
Doubt: The Úruti declares, ‘He who
l
u
town immortal Self’ (Br. Up. 3.7.3). Here arises a doubt
earth does not know, whose body is
r a
One is the Internal ruler, your
d
n
whether the Internal ruler spoken of in the Úruti above is the ‘Supreme Self’ or some
‘divine being’ or iseit the ‘embodied soul’ endowed with some mystic powers, or some
r
other entity? a
r. n
dOpponent: The Internal ruler could be a ‘divine being’ or an ‘embodied soul’
endowed with mystic powers, but not Brahman since It is not possessed of body and
organs.
Antaryâmyadhidaivâdis+u taddharmavyapadeúât (18)
The internal ruler heard of in the contexts of the divine and other is Brahman
on account of Its characteristics being mentioned.
iwoZi{ks izèkkuL;] ;ksfxuks thoL; oksiklue~] fl¼kUrs ijes'ojL;Sosfr r;ks%

iQyHksn%A ^;% i`fFkO;ka fr"Bu~ i`fFkO;k vUrjks ;a i`fFkoh u osn ;L; i`fFkoh 'kjhja ;%
i`fFkoheUrjks ;e;R;s"k rs vkRek¿U;kZE;e`r%* (c`ñ 3@7@2) bR;kfnokD;a fo"k;%A
r=kkUr;kZeh izèkkua] izkIrkf.kek|S'o;Z% df'p|ksxh iq#"k%] ijekRek osfr la'k;s_
izèkkuthokfofr iwoZi{ks fl¼kUrekg & v=kkfèknSokfn"kq Jw;ek.kks¿Ur;kZeh ijekReSo
L;kUukU;%A dqr%\ r¼eZO;ins'kkr~A rL; ijekReu% lokZUr;kZfeRoke`rRokReRoknhukelk&
èkkj.kèkekZ.kkfeg O;ins'kkr~A rFkkfg i`fFkO;kfnleLrfodkjtkreUrfLr"BU;e;rhfr
ijekReuks ;ef;r`RoèkeksZiifÙk%A ^,"k rs vkRekUr;kZE;e`r%* bR;kReRoke`rRo;ks'p
eq[;r;k r=kSoksiifÙk%A vr% ijekReSokUr;kZehfrAA18AA
d .in
.i n
uuq ^vn`"Vks¿Jqr% bR;kfnO;ins'kL; :ikfnghur;k ijekReor~ lka[;Le`fr&
t
es
ifjdfYirs izèkkus¿I;qiiÙks% izèkkuesokUr;kZfeinokP;a L;kfnR;k'kÄïÔkg&
u
(50) u LekÙkZer¼ekZfHkykikr~ ta q AA19AA
a n
u p LekÙk± lka[;ifjdfYira izèkkueUr;kZ
v d
e ^vn`"Vks æ"Vk¿Jqr% Jksrk* bR;kfnèkekZ.kka
feinokP;fefr_ dqr%\ vr¼ekZfHk&
ykikr~A vrRinokP;izèkkufHkUuL; ijekReuks
u li@
a tabove is none other but the Supreme Self only, since one
drÚruti and in the same context, characteristics like Immortality,
The Internal ruler heard
r n
finds, in the aforementioned
e (being inside everything viz. earth, sun, water, fire space,
a
Sovereignty, Omnipresence
n Selfhood etc. that befit Brahman only and none other. (18)
r.
senses etc.) and
dOpponent: The pronouncements that the Internal ruler cannot be seen, heard or
known etc. could also befit ‘Pradhâna’ (Primordial Nature), the insentient entity inferred
by the followers of the Sânkhya School of philosophy.
Na ca smârtamataddharmâbhilâpât (19)
And not the Pradhâna known from the Smriti, for the attributes described do
not apply to it.
No, since characteristics like ‘unseen but seeing’, ‘unheard but hearing’, ‘unknown
but the knower’ etc. mentioned in the context (Br. Up. 3.7.23) cannot apply to an insentient
okD;'ks"ks¿fHkykiknfHkèkkukfnR;FkZ%AA19AA
uUosoa psruRokn~æ"Vk] Jksrk] izR;DRoknkRek] èkekZèkeZiQyHkksDr`Rokne`r% 'kkjhjks
thoks ;ksxh L;knUr;kZehR;r vkgµ
(51) 'kkjhj'pksHk;s¿fi fg HksnsuSueèkh;rs AA20AA
usfr iwoZLeknuqorZrsA 'kkjhjks ukUr;kZeh HkforqegZfrA dqr%\ mHk;s¿fi ^;ks
foKkus fr"Bu~* bfr dk.o'kkf[ku%* ; vkRefu fr"Bu~* bfr ekè;fUnu'kkf[ku%
vUr;kZfe.kks HksnsuSua 'kkjhja i`fFkO;kfnonkèkkjRosu fu;E;Rosu pkèkh;rs vkeufUrA u
pSdfLeu~ nsgs }kS æ"VkjkS dFkeqii|srs bfr okP;e~_ vfo|kizR;qiLFkkfirdk;Z&
. in
dkj.kkSikfèkdHksnkH;qixesu ikjekfFkZdHksnO;ins'kkHkkokr~A ,dks fg izR;xkRek] u }kS]
i n d
entity like ‘Pradhâna’. Moreover Pradhâna can never be one’s own
s .
t and not Pradhâna, is
Self, as has been
e
declared regarding that Internal ruler in the Úruti. Hence Brahman,
u
the Internal ruler. (19)
a q
t here as the internal ruler as,
n
aa hearer, a thinker, a knower etc. It is the
Opponent: The embodied soul could be
v e d
being a sentient entity, it can become a witness,
implied
Self also, being the innermost. It must@

results of good and bad actions. u li the embodied soul is the Internal ruler.
be immortal too for it to become the enjoyer of the
a t Hence
r
d we say,
n
Vedântin: To this
e
n arÚârîraúcobhayeapi hi bhedenainamadhîyate (20)
r.
dAnd not the embodied soul also, for it is read as different by the followers of
both the recensions.
The word ‘not’ is to be supplied from the last aphorism. The embodied soul cannot
be the internal ruler for the former is read to be distinct from the latter by the followers of
both Mâdhyandina and the Kânva recensions of Úatapatha Brâhmana. The Kânva text
says, ‘He who dwells in the intellect (vijñâna), whom the intellect does not know’ (Br.
Up. 3.7.22), wherein the word ‘intellect’ refers to the embodied soul for it identifies itself
with the intellect; and the Mâdhyandina text says, ‘He who dwells in the Self (âtmâ),
whom the Self doesn’t know’, wherein the word ‘Self’ refers to the embodied soul. Hence
rL;So ?kVkdk'kks eBkdk'k bR;kSikfèkdHksnon~ HksnO;ogkj%A rFkk p ^;=k fg }Srfeo

Hkofr* ^;=k RoL; loZekReSokHkwr~* bR;kfnJqfr"kq HksnkHksnO;ogkjks n`';rsA rLeknfèk&
nSokfn"kq ijekReSokUr;kZehfr fl¼e~AA20AA
(17) (6 vn`';RokfËkdj.ke~ A lwÒ 21&23)
iwo± ;Fkk izèkkufojksfèkæ"V`RokfnèkekZuqjksèksu u izèkkus¿Ur;kZfeRoa] u rFkk=k
in both readings the individual soul has been talked of as being different from the internal
ruler, for the latter is the ruler of the embodied soul also.
.in
Opponent: It is not possible to have two witnesses in the same body – one the
d
Supreme Self, i.e. the internal ruler and the other the embodied soul.
t. in
Vedântin: The difference between the internal rulere(Supreme s
u Self) and the
q (avidyâ) that conjures the
t a
embodied soul is not factual but is attributed to ‘Nescience’
n
of Space into ‘the pot-space’ etc., a single Selfd
e a
limiting adjuncts. It is because of these limiting attributes that, akin to apparent divisions
is treated as if It were two. The Úruti also
declares, ‘When there is duality then one v
one, everything has become the Self, l @
then
sees something, but when, to the enlightened
i what should one see and with what’ (Br. Up.
u
t possible within the domain of ignorance, but no
d a
2.4.14), wherein all behavior becomes
such activity remains after rthe dawn of knowledge. (20)
e n
r Topic 6: Adr+úyatvâdhikarana
n a
d r . (The Unseen one)
In the previous adhikarana the Supreme Self was acknowledged as the internal
ruler to the exclusion of Pradhâna, as qualities like ‘seeing’, ‘hearing’ etc. mentioned in
the Úruti texts were confirmed to be unfeasible in an insentient entity like Pradhâna. The
current adhikarana now takes up those Úruti texts that do not mention such qualities so as
to eliminate the Pradhâna. Thus this adhikarana is related to the previous one by the way
of counter-illustration.
Doubt: The Mund+akopanis+ad says, ‘That which cannot be see with the eyes;
which cannot be grasped with organs of action; which cannot be categorized into any
caste or class; which is devoid of eyes, ears, hands and feet; which is eternal, all-pervading,
extremely subtle and unshrinking; and which is the source of all creation; That can only
izèkkufojksfèkèkekZ.kka Jo.ke~A vr% izèkkuesokn`';Rokfnxq.kdks Hkwr;ksfu% L;kfnfr

izR;qnkgj.klaxR;snekgµ
(52) vn`';Rokfnxq.kdks èkeksZDrs% AA21AA
v=k iwoZi{ks izèkkuL; 'kkjhjL; ok è;kua] fl¼kUrs fufoZ'ks"kczã.kksKkufefr
r;ks% iQyHksn%A ^;Ùknæs';exzkáexks=keo.kZep{kq%Jks=ka rnikf.kikna fuR;a foHkqa loZxra
lql{w ea rnO;;a ;n~Hkwr;ksfua ifji';fUr èkhjk%* (eqñ 1@1@6) bfr okD;a fopkjfo"k;%A
r=kkn`';Rokfnxq.kdks Hkwr;ksfu% izèkkua] 'kkjhj%] ijekRek osfr lUnsgs & vpsrukuka
dk;kZ.kkeqiknkuRosukpsrua izèkkua Hkwr;ksfu%] ;ksfu'kCnL; fufeÙkokfpRosu 'kkjhjks ok
in
be comprehensively realized by the men of fortitude only’ (Mu. Up. 1.1.6). Here arises a
.
i n d
doubt whether the entity discussed in the Úruti above is Pradhâna, or the embodied soul
or the Supreme Self?
st .
e
Opponent: It must be the insentient Pradhâna onlyuas it alone can appositely be
ta q
the material cause of this insentient creation.
a n
v
Or if the word ‘yoni’ (cause) is taken d
e to imply the efficient (nimitta kârana) and
l i@
not the material cause (upâdana kârana), then the embodied soul can be the entity referred
tu
to in the above Úruti since all creation is brought into existence by the embodied soul
ra
through its merit and demerit.
d
Vedântin:rToe nthis we say,
n a
dr. Adr+úyatvâdigun+ako dharmokteh+ (21)
The one endowed with the attributes of invisibility etc. is Brahman, for the
attributes mentioned apply to It alone.
The entity referred to in the aforementioned Úruti must be ‘Brahman’ alone, for
the characteristics mentioned there can be possible in It only. The Úruti further declares
as regards that entity, ‘He who knows all in general, and distinctively too’ (Mu. Up.
1.1.9). Such universal and distinctive omniscience is possible in Brahman alone, and not
in the insentient Pradhâna or the embodied soul, which is confined in its knowledge by
the limiting adjuncts.
Hkwr;ksfu% L;kfnfr iwoZ%i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq ^;Ùknnsz';fe* R;knkS Jqrk vn`';Rokn;ks

xq.kk ;L; lks¿n`';Rokfnxq.kdks Hkwr;ksfu% ijekReSo L;kUukU;%A dqr%\ èkeksZDrs%A ^;%
loZK% loZfofn* R;kfnJqrL; loZKRokns% ijekReèkeZL; loZHkwr;ksukfogksP;ekuRokr~A
ufg izèkkuL;kpsruL; 'kkjhjL; oksikfèkifjfPNUun`"Vs% loZKRoa loZfoÙoa ok lEHkofr]
;su r;ksjU;rjL; Hkwr;ksfurk L;kr~A u p ^;Fkks.kZukfHk% l`trs x`Êrs p ;Fkk
i`fFkO;keks"kèk;% lEHkofUrA ;Fkk lr% iq#"kkRds'kyksekfu rFkk{kjkRlEHkorhg fo'ofeAA
(eqñ 1@1@7) R;=kkpsrui`fFkO;knhuka n`"VkUrRosuksiknkukÙkFkkfoèksu nk"VkZfUrdsukpsrusu
Hkwr;ksfuuk HkforO;fefr okP;e~_ n`"VkUrnk"VkZfUrd;ksjR;UrlkE;s fu;ekHkkokr~A vU;Fkk
.in
n`"VkUrs LFkwyi`fFkO;knhukeqiknkukn~ nk"VkZfUrds¿fi Hkwr;ksukS LFkwyrk L;kr~A rLekn&
d
n`';Rokfnxq.kdks Hkwr;ksfu% ijekReSosR;FkZ%AA21AA
t .in
(53) fo'ks"k.kHksnO;ins'kkH;ka p usrjkSesAA22AA
q u
ta"k.kHksnO;ins'kkH;ka pA fo'ks"k.ka
brks¿fi ijes'oj ,o Hkwr;ksfuusrZ jkSA dqr%\ fo'ks
n
e d a
v
Opponent: The same Úruti also declares, ‘As a spider spreads and withdraws its
l
thread; as herbs sprout from the earth;
u i@and(Mu.
as hair sprout from the body of a man, so
t
emerges this universe from that Immutable’ Up. 1.1.7); wherein the insentient earth
a cause of creation. Similarly, as per the above illustration,
etc. has been declared to berthe
n d
a r e
the insentient Pradhâna can also be the source of creation.
r. n similar.
Vedântin:
must bedtotally
It is not always necessary that the illustration and the thing illustrated
If one assumes absolute similarity between the two, then one
would have to assume that the source (yoni) of all creation is ‘gross’ too akin to the gross
earth in the illustration, which is not possible even according to your principle also.
Hence Brahman alone has been referred to by the Úruti under contemplation. (21)
Viúes+anabhedavyapadeúâbhyâm ca netarau (22)
The other two viz. the embodied soul and the Pradhâna are not implied, for the
qualities mentioned apply to Brahma alone, and also because of Its difference from
the other two.
Moreover, the Supreme Lord only can be the source (yoni) of creation of all
things for there is the mention of such distinctive characteristics as are possible in It
rkor~ ^fnO;ks áewrZ% iq#"k%* (eqñ 2@1@2) bR;kfnuk 'kkjhjkf}y{k.kRosu izÑra

Hkwr;ksfua fof'kuf"VA rFkk ^v{kjkRijr% ij* bR;knkS izèkkuknfi izÑra Hkwr;ksfua Hksnsu
O;ifn'kfrA rLekPNkjhjkf}y{k.kRosukO;kÑrkUuke:ichtkn{kjkRijekReuks Hksnsu p
O;ins'kkRijekReSo Hkwr;ksfuusZrjkS izèkku'kkjhjkfofrAA22AA
(54) :iksiU;klkPp AA23AA
brks¿fi ijes'ojL;So Hkwr;ksfurk] usrj;ks%A dqr%\ ^,rLekTtk;rs izk.k%*
bR;kfnuk izk.kkfni`fFkO;Url`f"VeqDRok ^vfXuewZèkkZ p{kq"kh pUælw;kSZ] (eqñ 2@1@4)
bR;=k Hkwr;ksukS loZfodkjkRed:iL;ksiU;klkRijekReSo Hkwr;ksfufjfr o`fÙkdkjere~A
HkxoRiknh;ers rq uk;a Hkwr;ksus :iksiU;kl%] bgkxzs¿fi p fodkjtkrL; tk;eku&
.in
RosuksiU;klkr~A vr% îq#"k ,osna fo'oa deZ* (eqñ 2@1@10) bR;kfnuk
in d
.
st He is birth-less,
alone. The Úruti declares, ‘That Purusha is transcendental andeformless.
quimmutable’ (Mu. Up. 2.1.2).
a
without the vital-force and mind; pure and superior to the
These attributes of transcendence etc., cannot apply totthe embodied soul which identifies
nto Ignorance. The phrase ‘superior to
d a
itself with the limiting adjuncts and attributes due
e also. Here the word ‘immutable’ refers
v
the immutable’ (ibid.) sets It apart from Pradhâna
@unmodified.
li
to Pradhâna (Mâyâ), which is the primordial
u
state of all manifestations and modifications
t
while itself remaining un-manifest and
‘yoni’ and not the embodiedasoul or Pradhâna. (22)
Hence the Supreme Lord alone is the
d r
r e n
a Rûpopanyâsâcca (23)
nbecause of the mention of form.
d r
And
.
Moreover, the Supreme Lord only can be the source (yoni) of creation of all
things because there is an indication of Its form. (According to the Vrittikâra) After
declaring the origin of all creation from It in the text, ‘From Him originates the vital-
force, all organs and the mind’ (Mu. Up. 2.1.3), the Úruti goes on to declare the form of
that very source by the text, ‘He of whom heaven is the head, the sun and the moon Its
eyes, the directions Its ears; He is the indwelling Self of all’ (Mu. Up. 2.1.4). All these
characteristics appositely apply to the Supreme Lord alone, and not to the embodied soul
or Pradhâna.
lokZRed:iksiU;klknso ijekRek Hkwr;ksfufjfrAA23AA

(18) (7 oS'okujkfËkdj.ke~ A lwÒ 24&32)
iwoZ=k :iksiU;klizlÄ~xkr~ vn`';Rokfnxq.kdks Hkwr;ksfufoZpkfjr%] r}Rizlax&
lÄ~xR;k¿=k =kSyksD;nsgh oS'okujks fopk;ZrsA ;}k iwoZeqiØeLFkkuken`';Rokfn&
lkèkkj.kèkekZ.kka okD;'ks"kLFkloZKRokfnfyÄ~xsu ;Fkk czãijRoeqDre~ rFkk¿=kkI;qi&
ØeLFklkèkkj.koS'okuj'kCnL; okD;'ks"kLFkgksekfèkdj.kRofyÄ~xsu tkBjkfXuijRoa
But according to Shankarâchârya the above text does not refer to the Supreme
.in
Lord that is the ‘yoni’ of all, because the ensuing text also speaks of creation of
d
i n
modifications. Hence the concluding text, ‘This entire world is but Purusha only’ (Mu.
t .
es
Up. 2.1.10), in fact refers to the Supreme Lord who is the source of all. The earlier text
(Mu. Up. 2.1.3/4) refers to Hiranyagarbha. (23)
q u
n ta
(Vaiúvânarâ isd
e a
Topic 7: Vaiúvânarâdhikarana
Brahman)
v
u li@characters like ‘invisibility’ etc. were construed
In the last adhikarana the general
a t of specific indicatory marks like ‘omniscience’
to imply Brahman due to the occurrence
d r
etc., similarly the word ‘Vaiúvânara’ occurring in the current adhikarana should be
n
e regular fire’ due to the occurrence of specific indicatory marks
like ‘the supportaofrsacrifice’ etc. Hence this adhikarana is related to the previous one by
interpreted here as ‘the
r. n The entity called ‘Vaiúvânara’ is the subject of deliberation here.

the way of illustration.
d
Doubt: Five Brahmins by the name Prâcînashâla, Satyayagya, Indradhyumna,
Jana and Bud+ila contemplated among themselves as to what is Brahman? Which is our
Self? (Ch. Up. 5.11.1) Unable to reach a firm conclusion they, along with Uddâlaka,
went to king Aúvapati and asked the king to reveal to them the entity called ‘Vaiúvânara’
on which he meditates. The king, after denouncing the separate meditations on heaven,
sun, air, space, water, earth as resorted to by the learned Brâhmanas, pronounced that
these constitute the head, eye, vital-force, abdomen, bladder and feet respectively of that
‘Vaiúvânara’. Therein the Chândogya Úruti declares, ‘But he who meditates on this
Vaiúvânara Self knowing It to be extending from heaven to earth and knowing It as one’s
own Self, eats food through all beings, through all selves; of that Vaiúvânara Self heaven
is the head, sun is the eye’ etc. (Ch. Up. 5.18.1-2). Here arises a doubt whether the entity
L;kfnfr n`"VkUrlÄ~xR;snekg µ
(55) oS'okuj% lkèkkj.k'kCnfo'ks"kkr~ AA24AA
iwoZi{ks tkBjkns#iklua] fl¼kUrs ijekReu bfr r;ks% iQyHksn%A oS'okujfo|k;ka
^dks u vkRek fda czãsfr* ^vkRekuesosea oS'okuja lEizR;è;sf"k reso uks cwzfg* (Nkñ
5@11@1&6) bfr pksiØE; |qlw;ZokÕokdk'kokfji`fFkohuka lqrstLRokfnxq.k;ksx&
esdSdksiklufuUn;k p oS'okuja izR;s"kka ewèkkZfnHkkoeqifn';kEuk;rs ^;LRosresoa
izkns'kek=kefHkfoekua oS'okujeqikLrs* (Nkñ 5@18@2) bR;kfnokD;e=k fopkjfo"k;%A
r=k fda oS'okujks tkBjkfXu_] HkwrkfXu%] vkfnR;kfnnsork] 'kkjhj%] ijekRek osfr
la'k;s_ tkBjkfnfjfr iwoZ%i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq oS'okuj% ijekReSo HkforqegZfrA dqr%\
.i n
in d
lkèkkj.k'kCnfo'ks"kkr~A lkèkkj.k'kCn;ksfoZ'ks"kkr~A tkBjkfXuHkwrkXU;kfnR;kfnnsorklq lkèkkj.kks
st .
oS'okuj'kCn%] thoijekReuks% lkèkkj.k% vkRe'kCn%A ,oa p r=k r=k lkèkkj.k&
u e
;ks#Hk;kso'ZS okujkRe'kCn;ks% lÙos¿fi ijekReijRos fo'ks"kks n`';rsA ^rL; g ok ,rL;kReuks
t a q
oS'okujL; ewèkSZo lqrstk* bR;knkS iwoksZDr|qewèkZRokfnfo'ks"k% lokZRedijekReijRos
a n
ve d
,okoxE;rsA ^dks u vkRek fda czãs* (Nkñ 5@11@1) R;qiØes vkReczã'kCnkH;kefi
l @
istomach, or the fire as an element, or the presiding
u
‘Vaiúvânara’ refers to the fire of the
t or the Supreme Self?
r a
deity of fire, or the embodied soul
d may refer to any other except the Supreme Lord.
n
Opponent:eVaiúvânara
r
n a
d r .
Vaiúvânarah+ sâdhâran+aúabdaviúes+ât (24)
Vaiúvânara is Brahman, for the two words ‘Vaiúvânara’ and ‘Self’, though
symbolize many things, have been used here in a very specifically sense.
Vaiúvânara is none other but the Supreme Lord because the two words ‘Vaiúvânara’
and ‘Self’, though symbolizing many things, have been used here very specifically. The
word ‘Vaiúvânara’ is generally used to imply the element called ‘Fire’, or it is used to
imply the deity of fire, or is used to indicate the fire in the stomach. Similarly the word
‘Self’ is used to imply both the ‘embodied self’ and the ‘supreme Self’. But here, in the
iwoksZDrkfu fyÄ~xkfu ijes'ojkoxedkfuA vr% ijekReSo oS'okuj% bfrAA24AA

(56) Le;Zek.keuqekua L;kfnfr AA25AA
br'p ijekReSo oS'okuj%A ;Lekr~ ^;L;kfXujkL;a |kSewZèkkZ [ka ukfHk'pj.kkS
f{kfr%A lw;Z'p{kqfnZ'k% Jks=ka rLeS yksdkReus ue%*AA bR;srRLe;Zek.ka =kSyksdkReda :ia
rUewyHkwrka Jqfreuqeki;nL; oS'okuj'kCnL; ijes'ojijRos¿uqekueuqekida L;kfnR;FkZ%A
lw=kLFk% bfr 'kCnks gsRoFkZ%A ;Lekfnna xeda] rLeknfi oS'okuj% ijekReSofs r Hkko%AA25AA
izdkjkUrjs.kkf{kI; fl¼kUra izfriknf;rqekgµ
(57) 'kCnkfnH;ks¿Ur%izfr"BkukPp usfr psUu_ rFkk n
d .i
in
n`"V~;qins'kknlEHkokRiq#"kefi pSueèkh;rs AA26AA
s t.
Chândogya Úruti, both these words have qualifying adjunctsu econclude in the Supreme
ta q that
its head, the sun its eyes etc. can be validated onlyainn
Lord only. The declaration of the Úruti as regards the ‘Vaiúvânara Self’ that has heaven as
d the case of Supreme Self alone. Also

vecanhasonly
the fruit of meditation on such Vaiúvânara Self been declared to be the fulfillment of
all desires and freedom from all sins, @
i which be correct if the Supreme Self is
meant. Moreover, as stated above inl the context of the occurrence of Vaiúvânara Úruti,
u regarding ‘Brahman’ and the ‘Self’ (Ch. Up. 5.11.1),
t
ra of the Supreme Lord alone. Hence the word ‘Vaiúvânara’
the chapter commences with questions
d
denotes the SupremeeLord
r n only. (24)
which lead to the comprehension
n a
dr . Smaryamân+amanumânam syâditi (25)
Because the cosmic form described in the Smriti is an indicatory mark.
Moreover the Smriti also describes the form of Lord akin to the form described
by the ‘Vaiúvânara’ Úruti. The Smriti declares, ‘Salutations to Him whose mouth is fire,
whose head is heaven, who has sky as the navel, the earth as the feet, the sun as the eye
and the directions as the ears’ (Mbh. 12.47.68). This depiction of the Lord’s cosmic form
by the Smriti agrees well with that described by Úruti text under contemplation, and thus
consolidates the conclusion that the word ‘Vaiúvânara’ denotes the Lord alone. The word
‘iti’ occurring in the aphorism is used in the sense of ‘hence’, i.e. to imply that since the
form referred to in the Smriti bears witness to the Úruti text that form its basis; hence the
word Vaiúvânara refers to the Supreme Lord alone. (25)
'kCNLrko}S'okuj'kCnks u ijes'ojs lEHkofr] rL; tkBjknkS :<Rokr~A vkfnuk

^ân;a xkgZiR;%* (Nkñ 5@18@2) bR;k|fXu=ksrkizdYiue~] ^r|n~HkDra izFkek&
xPNsÙk¼kseh;e~ (Nkñ 5@10@1) bR;kfnuk izk.kkgqR;fèkdj.krkladhÙkZua p x`ársA
,rsH;ks gsrqH;ks tkBjks oS'okuj% izR;srO;%A rFkkUr%izfr"Bkukr~ îq#"ks¿Ur%izfrf"Bra
osn* bR;=k oS'okujL;kUr%izfr"BkuJo.kkr~ tkBj ,o oS'okuj% lEHkofr] u ijes'oj
bfr psUu_ dqr%\ rFkkn`"V~;qins'kkr~A êuksczãsR;qiklhr* (Nkñ 3@18@1) êukse;%
izk.k'kjhjks Hkk:i% (Nkñ 3@14@2) bR;kfnor~A rFkk tkBj:is.k ijes'ojL;
Úabdâdibhyoantah+pratis+t+hânâcca neti caenna, tathâ

dr+s+ht+yupadeúâdasambhavâtpurus+amapi cainamadhîyate (26)
.in
If asserted that Vaiúvânara is not Brahman because of the d
.i n word and other
factors, and because of the mention of its abode inside; we say,
instruction is to conceive Brahman as such, because of e
st not so, because the
mentioned attributes to anything else, and because a ofq
u the inapplicability of the
n t its mention as a Purus+a.
Opponent: It is not possible to conclude

e d athat the word ‘Vaiúvânara’ refers to the
@
Supreme Lord since it is conventionally used v in a different sense. Also the word ‘fire’, as
u li (Sh. Br. 10.6.1.12), does not refer to the Supreme
used in the text, ‘This fire is Vaiúvânara’
a t in the aphorism refers to the three fires described in
Lord. The word ‘âdi’ (other factors)
the Chândogya Upanishadrwherein
Up. 5.18.2). Thereeitn
d it is said, ‘The heart is the Gârhapatya fire’ etc. (Ch.
r is also declared, ‘The first morsel of the served food should be

a is construed
r . n
offered as an ablation
word ‘Vaiúvânara’
to Prâna’ (Ch. Up. 5.19.1). From all these texts the meaning of
to be ‘gastric fire’. Similarly the text, ‘He who knows this
d as dwelling within the Purusha’ (Sh. Br. 10.6.1.11), wherein one hears of the
Vaiúvânara
Vaiúvânara as residing inside, can only hold true if the word Vaiúvânara is construed to
imply the fire in stomach and not the Supreme Lord.
Vedântin: This is not correct since the aforementioned Úruti texts only preach
meditation on the gastric fire as Brahman akin to that in the text, ‘Meditate on the mind
as Brahman’ (Ch. Up. 3.18.1); or Brahman is preached here to be meditated upon as
qualified by the attributes of Vaiúvânara fire in the stomach, akin to that in the text, ‘That
which is identified with the mind, which has Prâna as its body, has effulgence as its form’
(Ch. Up. 3.14.2). Moreover the contention that the word ‘Vaiúvânara’ is primarily used in
n`"Vs#ikLrs#ins'kkr~A u p tkBjs ,o oS'okuj'kCnks eq[;% L;kfnfr okP;e~_ vlEHkokr~A

êwèkSZo lqrstk* bR;knsfoZ'ks"kL; tkBjs¿lEHkokr~A fda p iq#"kefi pSua oS'okujeèkh;rs
oktlusf;u% ^l ,"kks¿fXuoSZ'okujks ;Riq#"k% l ;ks gSresoefXua oS'okuja iq#"ka
iq#"ks¿Ur%izfrf"Bra osn** ('kñ czkñ 10@6@1@11) bfrA vr% ijes'ojL; lokZRe&
RokRiq#"kRoa iq#"ks¿Ur%izfrf"BrRoa pksHk;ksiiÙksoSZ'okuj% ijekReSosfr fl¼e~AA26AA
uuq |qewèkZRokfnfo'ks"kL; tkBjkfo"k;Ros¿fi nsorkfo"k;Roa L;kfnR;r vkg µ
(58) vr ,o u nsork Hkwra p AA27AA
vr ,oksDrsH;ks gsrqH;ks u nsork oS'okuj%] rFkk HkwrkfXujfi u oS'okuj%A ufg
HkwrkXusjkS".;izdk'kek=kkRedL; |qewèkZRokfndYiuksii|rs] fodkjL; fodkjkUrjkRe& d .in
t .in
u estext, ‘Of that Vaiúvânara,
the sense of gastric fire is unacceptable, since if this be so then the
heaven is the head’ (Ch. Up. 5.18.1-2), cannot be justified.
ta qFurthermore the followers of
Vâjasaneya recension read of this Vaiúvânara as Purus+
a nfirea himself, and not merely the one
e d
that resides in the Purus+a. The text, ‘The Vaiúvânara is Purus+
a itself. He who knows
v Purusha’ (Sh. Br. 10.6. 1.11), confirms this.
The Brahman alone, being the Self lof @
this Vaiúvânara Purus+a as residing within the
i can be implied by this text as It alone can be
u all,
t within the Purus+a. Hence Vaiúvânara implies the
Brahman only. (26)
dr a
both Purus+a as well as have residence
e n
Even if a it r
n to Vaiúvânara as the gastric fire, but they can be aptly applied to
appositely .applied
r
be accepted that attributes like ‘heaven as the head’ etc. cannot be
d as the deity (of fire) or as an element (fire). This is clarified in the next aphorism:
Vaiúvânara
Ata eva na devatâ bhûtam ca (27)
And for the same reason Vaiúvânara is neither the deity nor the element.
The word Vaiúvânara cannot be construed to imply either the deity or the element.
The element Fire, which is characterized by heat and light, cannot be assumed to have
heaven as its head etc. Both the Fire as well as the Heaven are modifications (effect) of
Brahman, and hence one effect cannot become the Self of another. Similarly the deity
too, though possessed of divinity, cannot be assumed to have heaven as its head etc., for
the deity is not the cause of heaven etc. Moreover the grandeur of the deities is not
RoklEHkokr~A u pS'o;Z;ksxkísork;ka rFkkRoa L;kfnfr okP;e~_ rL;k vdkj.kRokRijes'&

ojkèkhuS'o;ZoÙokPpA vrks oS'okuj% lokZRed% ijekReSosR;FkZ%AA27AA
iwo± tkBjkfXuizrhdks tkBjkXU;qikfèkdks ok ijekReksikL; bR;qDreUr%izfrf"BrRok&
|uqjksèksuA bnkuha rq fouSo izrhdksikfèkdYiukH;ka lk{kknfi ijekReksiklukifjxzgs
fojksèkkHkkoa tSfefujkpk;ksZ eU;rs bR;kgµ
(59) lk{kknI;fojksèka tSfefu% AA28AA
iwokZiji;kZykspusu oS'okujL; ijekReifjxzgs lqfuf'prs rf}"k;s oS'okuj'kCnks
fo'o'pklkS uj'psfr] fo'os"kka ok;a uj%] fo'os ok ujk vL;sfr fo'okuj% ijekRek]
lokZReRokr~A l ,o oS'okuj% LokFksZ jk{klok;lkfnor~ rf¼r%] iwoZinL; ûjs
.in
in d implies the
st .
unrestrained, but is under the control of the Supreme Lord. Hence Vaiúvânara
Supreme Lord only. (27)
u e
.
a q
t (28)
n
Sâks+âdapyavirodham jaiminih+
a even if Vaiúvânara is directly
v e d
Jaimini feels that there is no contradiction
conceived as Brahman.
l i @
u
t(26) it was concluded that the fire in the stomach may be
r a
In the earlier aphorism
nd and can be meditated upon as such, or Brahman is to be
taken as a symbol of Brahman
meditated upon asre
n a implies Brahman only. Âchârya Jaimini proposes that the word
conditioned by the gastric fire, and thereby it was concluded that the
r. may be directly accepted to mean the Supreme Lord (in His cosmic form)
word Vaiúvânara
d
‘Vaiúvânara’
for meditation, rather then imagining ‘fire’ as a symbol (gastric fire) or limiting adjunct.
According to Jaimini this inference regarding the implication of the word ‘Vaiúvânara’
may also be arrived at by directly analyzing the word itself in the following manner
without any contradictions. Vaiúvânara means He who is the ‘vishva’ (universe) as well
as the ‘nara’ (person); or He who is the ‘nara’ (ordainer) of the ‘vishva’ (universe); or He
to whom belong all (viúva) beings (nara); thereby implying the Supreme Lord for He is
the Self of all. The words ‘Vaiúvânara’ and ‘Viúvânara’ are same akin to the words ‘râks+asa’
and ‘raks+as’ (both mean demon) or the words ‘vâyasa’ and ‘vayas’ (both mean crow), the
suffix signifying the original word itself. Moreover the word ‘agni’ may also be construed
to mean the Supreme Lord, as ‘agni’ is the one that leads from the front or the one that
leads to the attainment of fruit of actions, both of which appositely conclude in the Supreme
laKk;kfeR;usu* nh?kZRofefr ;ksxsu czãijr;k us;%A ,oexz.khRokfn;ksxsukfXu'kCn%]

lokZReRokr~ xkgZiR;kfndYiua izk.kkgqR;fèkdj.kRoa p ije'ojs¿I;qii|rs bfr
rkRi;kZFkZ%AA28AA
vFk ijekReifjxzgs izkns'kek=kJqfra O;k[;krqekjHkrsµ
(60) vfHkO;DrsfjR;k'ejF;% AA29AA
loZxrL;kfi ijekReu% izkns'kek=kRoeqii|rsA dqr%\ vfHkO;Drs%A vfHkO;T;rs
[kyq izkns'kek=kifjek.kks ân;kfn"kwiyfCèkLFkkus"kq ijekReksikldkukeuqxzgk;sR;k'ejF;
vkpk;ksZ eU;rs bR;FkZ%AA29AA
d .in
vuqLe`frfufeÙkk ijekRefu izkns'kek=kJqfrfjfr erkUrjekgµ
t .in
(61) vuqLe`rsckZnfj% AA30AA es
q u
Lord. And since the Supreme Lord is the Self of all, itta
n is perfectly logical to visualize It
a oblations to ‘Prâna’. (28)
e d
as the ‘Gârhapatya fire’, or as the place for offering
v with a view to analyze the Chândogya
@
li‘spatial limitation’ (prâdeúamâtra úruti) in view of
The subsequent aphorisms commence
Úruti (Ch. Up. 5.18.1) concerningu
a t the
d r
direct interpretation of the word ‘Vaiúvânara’ as implying the Supreme Lord.
e n
r Abhivyakterityâúmarathyah+ (29)
a
n says that He manifests in a spatially limited way for the sake of
d r.
Âúmarathya
His revelation.
According to Âúmarathya the all-pervading Lord is talked of as spatially limited

for the sake of His materialization that occurs out of favor for His worshippers. The
Lord, to bless His worshippers, may also manifest in particular places like the heart etc.,
as these are the spots where He manifests in a spatially limited way for sake of His
revelation. (29)
Anusmr+terbâdarih+ (30)
Bâdari says that Brahman is spoken of as spatially limited on account of being

meditated upon.
izkns'kek=kân;izfrf"Brsu eulk¿uqLe`rès ;kZuknizkns'kek=kks¿fi izkns'kek=k bR;qip;Zrs

bfr cknfjjkpk;ksZ eU;rsA ;Fkk izLFkferk ;ok% izLFkk bfr r}r~ izkns'kek=kRoJqfrrkRi;Z&
fl¼ÔFkZfefrAA30AA
lEifÙkfufeÙkk izkns'kek=kJqfrfjfr tSfefuerekgµ
(62) lEiÙksfjfr tSfefuLrFkk fg n'kZ;fr AA31AA
ewèkkZfnpqcqdkUrs"kq nsgko;os"kq izkns'kek=ks"kq oS'okujL;ksikL;Roizfriknukr~
ijes'ojL; izkns'kek=kRolEiÙks% izkns'kek=kJqfr#ii|rs bfr tSfefujkpk;ksZ eU;rsA r=k
JqR;Urja n'kZ;fr îzkns'kek=kfeo g oS nsok% lqfofnrk vfHklEiUuk%* bR;kfn&
oktlusf;czkã.ka lekuizdj.ka |qizHk`rhu~ i`fFkO;Urkuo;oku~ ewèkkZfnpqcqdkUrs"kq
.i n
in d
=kSyksD;kReuks oS'okujL; lEikn;Rijes'ojL; izkns'kek=kRolEifÙka n'kZ;rhfr Hkko%AA31AA
st .
u e
According to Bâdari the Supreme Lord is spokenqof as spatially limited since He
a
t is spatially limited. Hence the
is meditated on by the mind that dwells in the heartnwhich
Lord, though not limited spatially, is talked ofd
e a
figuratively as being spatially limited. For
instance the amount of barley measured byva container called ‘prastha’ is said to be prastha
li @ upon by one’s mind which is of the dimension
u
in quantity, similarly the Lord, mediated
of the space within the heart, istallegorically
d r a referred to as being spatially limited. (30)
r e n
Sampatteriti jaiministathâ hi darúyati (31)
n a
r .
Jaimini says that the spatial limitation is spoken of from the standpoint of
d through superimposition; for the Úruti declares so.
meditation
According to Jaimini the Lord is spoken of as being spatially limited taking into
account the mediation through superimposition (sampat upâsana). In the ‘Vâjasaneya
brâhmana’ the limbs of the ‘Vaiúvânara Self’ (cosmic being) are superimposed upon the
different parts of the worshipper’s body starting from head to chin. There the head (of the
worshipper) is identified with the ‘heavens’ (Vaiúvânara’s head), the eyes of the worshipper
as the ‘sun’ (Vaiúvânara’s eye) etc.; thus superimposing various limbs of Vaiúvânara onto
the parts of the worshipper’s body giving an impression as if the Lord is spatially restricted.
(31)
(63) vkeufUr pSuefLeu~ AA32AA

vfLeUizkns'kek=kifjek.ks ewèkZpqcqdkUrjkys pSua ijes'ojekeufUr tkckyk% &
^; ,"kks¿uUrks¿O;Dr vkRek lks¿foeqDrs izfrf"Br%---A oj.kk;ka ukL;ka p eè;s izfrf"Br%*
(tkñ1) bR;kfnA rLekRijes'ojs izkns'kek=kJqfr#iiUukA vr% lokZRed% ijekReSo
oS'okuj bfr fl¼e~AA32AA
;rhUædqyfryddSyklihBkèkh'ojLokfefo|kuUnfxfjfojfprk;ka fo|kuUno`ÙkkS izFkekè;k;L;
f}rh;% ikn%AA1&2AA
d .in
t.in
Aamananti cainamasmin (32)ue
s
ta q
And the followers of Jâbâla speak of the n
and the chin.
ed a God in the space between the head
v
u li@branch speak of the Supreme Lord in between
Also the followers of the Jâbâla
a t Úruti declares, ‘That which is this infinite and
the head and the chin. The Jâbâla
d
imperceptible Self is seatedron this embodied one between Varanâ (eyebrows) and Nâsi
(nose)’, thus talkinge
r n
of the Supreme Lord as spatially restrained. Hence the Vaiúvânara is
n
the Supreme Self a (32)
only.
dr.
¨
izFkekË;k;s r`rh;% ikn%
(v=kkLi"VczãfyÄ~xkuka izk;ks Ks;czãfo"k;k.kka fopkj%)
bRFkeLi"VczãfyÄ~x;qDrosnkUrokD;kukeqikL;czãfo"k;k.kka izk;'k mikL;Rosu
czãf.k leUo;% izfrikfnr%A lEizfr rkn`'kkuka okD;kuka izk;'kks Ks;Rosu czãf.k
leUo;a izfriknf;rqa iknks¿;ekjH;rsA
(19) (1 |qHok|fËkdj.ke~ A lwÒ 1&7)
iwo± =kSyksD;kRek oS'okuj% ijekReSoRs ;qDre~] rfgZ =kSyksD;k;rueU;RL;kfnR;kf{kI;
lekèkkukRiwosZ.kkL;k{ksilaxR;k] ;FkksiØeLFkL; oS'okujlkèkkj.k'kCnL; okD;'ks"kLFk&
|qewèkZRokfnfyÄ~xsu czãijRoeqDre~] rFkk¿=kkfi miØeLFkL; lkèkkj.kk;ruRoL;
^ve`rL;S"k lsrq%* bfr okD;'ks"kLFklsrqRofyÄ~xsu ifjfPNUuizèkkukfnijRoa L;kfnfr
Chapter 1 Section 3
The second section of the current chapter deliberated upon those Úruti texts wherein
one does not come across definitive indicatory marks of Brahman. Such texts were
ultimately shown to harmoniously conclude in the exposition of the ‘Qualified Brahman’
(the entity to be meditated upon). Now, with a view to demonstrate the harmonious
conclusion of other similar texts in the elucidation of ‘Unqualified Brahman’ (the entity
to be known) commences the current section of this chapter.
Topic-1: Dyubhvâdyadhikarana
(The abode of Heaven, Earth etc.)
In the preceding adhikarana it was concluded that ‘Vaiúvânara’, whose body is

constituted by the three worlds, is none other but the Supreme Lord. Hence it can be
construed that the entity, which is the repository of all the three worlds, should be different
from the Supreme Lord; the current adhikarana commences in response to such
protestation. Hence the current adhikarana is related to the previous one by the way of
protestation (âksh+epa).
n`"VkUrlaxR;k ok¿fèkdj.kfenekjH;rsµ
(64) |qHok|k;rua Lo'kCnkr~ AA1AA
v=k iwoZi{ks izèkkuk|qiklua] fl¼kUrs czãizesfr r;ks% iQyHksn%A ^^;fLeU|kS%
i`fFkoh pkUrfj{keksra eu% lg izk.kS'p loSZ%A resoSda tkuFk vkRekueU;k okpks
foeq×pFkke`rL;S"k lsrqfj** (eqñ 2@2@5) R;kfnokD;e=k fopkjfo"k;%A r=k
Or, as in the preceding adhikarana the word ‘Vaiúvânara’ was construed to imply
the Supreme Lord in view of the occurrence, towards the end, of text, ‘Its head is the
heaven’ etc.; similarly the word ‘immortal’, occurring in the current adhikarana should
.in
refer to Pradhâna and not to ‘Brahman’, in view of the occurrence of the word ‘bridge’
d
i n
(setu) at the end of the text. Hence the current adhikarana is related to the previous one by
t.
es
the way of comparative illustration.
u
q all worries know that Self
t
Doubt: The Mund+aka Úruti declares, ‘Leaving aside
a
ntheUp.sky2.2.5).
alone into which are woven the heaven, the earth and
e d a
senses, since this Self is the bridge to Immortality’ (Mu.
as also the mind with all the
Here arises a doubt as
regards the repository of all worlds being v
@ talked of here; that whether that repository is
the ‘embodied soul’ or ‘Brahman’ orlithe ‘Pradhâna’?
tu
d ra must be something other than Brahman. It may be the
Opponent: The repository
re
‘Pradhâna’; for it beingnthe material cause of heaven etc., the Pradhâna can well be their
repository also. a
n Or it may be the ‘embodied soul’; for by virtue of it being the agent of
experience .of this diverse world of enjoyment, it can logically be its repository also.
dr
.
Dyubhvâdyâyatanam svaúabdât (1)
The repository of Earth etc. is Brahman, for the word Self is used there.
The repository of all such worlds, of which the heaven and the earth are foremost,
can be Brahman only, since in the aforementioned Mund+aka Úruti the word ‘Self’ is used,
which is apposite only if Brahman is being referred to and not Pradhâna or the embodied
soul. The Úruti declares, ‘Know that Self alone which is one without a second’ (Mu. Up.
2.2.5); wherein the word ‘Self’ is appropriate only if used to designate Brahman and
;nsrn~|qizHk`rhukeksrRosu fdf×pnk;rueoxE;rs] rfRda izèkkua] tho%] ija czã osfr

la'k;s_ Le`frizfl¼a izèkkua ifjxzghrO;a] rL; dkj.kRoknk;ruRoksiiÙks%A thoks ok
xzká%] rL;kfi HkksDr`Rokn~ HkksX;a izi×pa izR;k;ruRoksiiÙksfjfr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq
|qHok|k;rua] |kS'p Hkw'p |qHkqokS] |qHkqokoknh ;L; txrLrn~|qHokfn] rL;k;rua
ija czãSo HkforqegZfrA dqr%\ Lo'kCnkr~ & LoL; ijczã.kks okpdknkRe'kCnkfnR;FkZ%A
^^resoSda tkuFk vkRekufe** R;=kkRe'kCn% ijekRefo"k;Ros la?kVrs] ukU;=kA u
pksikfèkfof'k"Vs¿fi thokRefu vkRe'kCn% izfl¼ bfr okP;e~_ resoSda tkuFk
vkRekufeR;=k lkoèkkj.kkRe'kCnL; ifjxzgs.k dk;Zfof'k"VpSrU;L;kfoKs;r;k
fu#ikfèkdL; ijczã.kks foKs;RokH;qixekr~A ;fLeUukLrs nsonÙkLrnku;sR;qDrkS vklu&
esoku;fr u nsonÙka] rFkSok;ruHkwrL;SoSdjlL;kReuks foKs;Roeqifn';rsA vr%
.in
miØeLFklkèkkj.kk;ruRoL; xkS.klsrqRofyÄ~xkRizFkekReJqR;k p ijczãijRoeso] u
in d
st.
izèkkukfnijRofefr Hkko%AA1AA
e
(65) eqDrksilÌ;O;inst'a kkr~quAA2AA
none other. If asserted that the word ‘Self’ is d a nused to designate ‘the qualified Self’,
v e and hence the Úruti might be interpreted
also
li@
i.e. the Self qualified with adjuncts and attributes,
tu
to indicate the ‘Qualified Brahman’; then this is not correct, for the Úruti specifically
d a
emphasizes on knowing the ‘Unqualified Brahman’ by the use of word ‘alone’ along
r by saying, ‘Bring the one on which Devadatta sits’,
with ‘Self’. If anyone is instructed
then the seat alone isnto be brought and not Devadatta; similarly the unqualified Self
alone, which isathe rerepository of all, is being preached by the Úruti as the object to be
known. As.far
r nas the usage of the word ‘bridge’ (setu) in the Úruti is concerned, it should
d merely as the fact of ‘holding together’, and not in its primary sense of a
be interpreted
dam with banks. Hence the repository of all worlds is the Unqualified Supreme Brahman
alone, as is indicated by the use of the word ‘Self’ in its primary sense and the word
‘bridge’ in its secondary sense. (1)
Muktopasr+pyavyapadeshât (2)
Because of the declaration regarding It being the goal of the liberated souls.
Furthermore Brahman alone can be the repository of all worlds, for that repository
has been declared to be the place attained by the liberated souls. The word ‘Muktopas+ripya’
br'p ijeso czã |qHok|k;rue~A dqr%\ eqDrS#ilÌ;rkO;ifn';ekuRokr~A

r=k eqDrS#ilÌ;rk¿FkksZ Hkkoizèkkur;k yH;rsA rFkk p nsgkfn"oukReLogfeR;kRe&
cq¼Ôk¿fo|;k rRiwtuifjHkoknkS jkx}s"kkfnn'kZusu rf}ijhrk¿fo|kjkx}s"kkfnnks"k&
eqDrS#ilÌ;rk izØkUrs |qHok|k;rus ^rFkk fo}kUuke:ikf}eqDr% ijkRija iq#"keqiSfr
fnO;fe* (eqñ 3@28) frJqfrO;Zifn'kfrA izèkkukfn"kq Dokfi eqDrksilÌ;Roa ukfLr
izfl¼e~A vrks |qHok|k;rua ija czãSosR;FkZ%AA2AA
(66) ukuqekuerPNCnkr~ AA3AA
vuqeh;rs bR;uqekua lka[;ifjdfYira izèkkufeg u |qHok|k;ruRosu izfriÙkO;e~A
d .in
t
refers to that entity which is attained by those liberated souls who have
. insuccessfully freed
themselves from the clutches of ignorance. The superimposition s
u e ofaffection
the idea of Self on the
t q
non-Self results in attachment to the body etc. with consequent for those who
a it. This superimposition is the
adore the body and repugnance for those who disregard
n
a cycles of transmigration. On the
d
work of Nescience that binds the souls to the eternal
e
v are free from the defects of affection and
contrary as regards those liberated ones, whose ignorance has been completely annihilated
@
li this entity that has been described as the repository
by the knowledge of Self and who consequently
repugnance, it is declared that theyu
a t attain
of earth and heaven. The same
r has been declared in the Úruti also wherein it is said, ‘The
d from the web of name and form and attains the Supreme
effulgent Purus+a’ r e nUp.
knower of the Self frees himself
a (Mu. 3.2.8). One doesn’t come across any scriptural declaration

n of ‘Pradhâna’ etc. has been preached for the liberated one, since
attainmentr.of such an insentient non-Self entity will be ruinous and serve no purpose
wherein the attainment
d
whatsoever. Therefore the repository of earth and heaven that is attained by the liberated
ones is Brahman only and none other. (2)
Nânumânamatacchabdât (3)
Not the inferred one, for no term to that effect occurs in the scriptures.
Furthermore ‘Pradhâna’, an insentient entity inferred by the school of Sânkhyas,

cannot be the repository of earth and heaven since there is no word that establishes the
insentient Pradhâna in such a way. On the contrary one comes across various Úruti texts
that declare the sentient Brahman as the intelligent entity fit to be referred to as the
repository of earth and all. The Shruti’s declaration, ‘He who is omniscient in general
dqr%\ vrPNCnkr~ & rL;kpsruL; izèkkuL; izfriknd% 'kCnLrPNCn%] u

rPNCnks¿rPNCn%] rLekr~A vrks¿psruizèkkuizfriknd'kCnL;sgJo.kkHkkokr~ rf}ijhrL;
psruL; izfriknd'kCnL;k=k Jo.kkPp u izèkkua |qHok|k;rufefr Hkko%AA3AA
(67) izk.kHk`Pp AA4AA
pdkjs.k |qHok|k;rue~] vrPNCnkPpsR;uqorsZrsA ;ksxfoHkkx mÙkjkFkZ%A izk.kHk`rks
foKkukReu% lR;fi vkReRos psruRos pksikfèkifjfPNUur;k loZKRok|lEHkokUu r=kkfi
|qHok|k;ruRoe~A rLekÙkRlkèkkj.k vkRe'kCnks¿rPNCn ,osR;FkZ% AA4AA
vFk 'kkjhjs |qHok|k;ruRofujkls f=kfHk% lw=kS% gsRoUrjekgµ
(68) HksnO;ins'kkr~ AA5AA
. in
i n d
.
st a sentient entity
e
and all-knowing in specifics’ (Mu. Up. 1.1.9), clearly establishes
u (3)
a q
(Brahman) opposed to the insentient Pradhâna of the Sânkhyas.
t
n
a(4)
ve d
Prân+abhr+cca
Not also the individual soul.i@

tu l
d
The word ‘ca’ in ther aaphorism signifies the repetition of the words ‘not’ (na) and
‘absence of the word n
ar e tat’ (atacaúabdât) from the previous sutra. The current aphorism has
been created independently from the previous one in order to connect it with the subsequent
ones whereinnthe embodied soul and not Pradhâna has been discussed. The embodied
d
soul too,
. the Pradhâna, cannot be the repository of earth and heaven on account of
rlike
the absence of words to that import. The embodied soul (living being), though sentient
and possessed of the Self, lacks in omniscience due its association with the limiting
adjuncts and hence cannot be the repository of earth, heaven etc. (4)
Further reasons as to why the embodied soul cannot be the repository of earth,
heaven etc. have been discussed in the subsequent three aphorisms.
Bhedavyapadeúât (5)
On account of the difference being mentioned.

|qHok|k;rua] izk.kHk`PpksHk;eqÙkjs"kq f=k"kq lw=ks"kq vuqorZrAs ^resod

S a tkuFk vkRekufe*
R;=k eqeq{kks% izk.kHk`rks Kkr`RosukReinokP;L; czã.kks Ks;Rosu p HksnO;ins'kkUu
|qHok|k;rua 'kkjhj bR;FkZ%AA5AA
(69) izdj.kkr~ AA6AA
^dfLeUuq Hkxoks foKkrs loZfena foKkra Hkorh* (eqñ 1@1@3) R;sdfoKkusu
loZfoKkukr~ czãizdj.kknfi u |qHok|k;rua 'kkjhj%AA6AA
(70) fLFkR;nukH;ka p AA7AA
^}k lqi.kkZ* (eqñ 3@1@1) bfreU=ks ^r;ksjU;% fiIiya Lok}fÙk* bfr
d .in
t .in
deZiQyk'kue~] ^vu'uUuU;ks¿fHkpkd'khfr* bR;kSnklhU;a p fufnZ';srsA rkH;ka
The Úruti declares, ‘Know that Self alone’ (Mu. Up. u

es
ta qa knowable object i.e. the Self
2.2.5), wherein an aspirant (a
n soul from Brahman. Hence the

living being, a knower) is being advised to comprehend
a
v d
(Brahman), thereby clearly distinguishing the embodied
e heaven etc. (5)
embodied soul cannot be the repository of earth,
u li@
a t Prakaran+ât (6)
n
On account of the drcontext too.
a r e
. n‘O Lord,
Moreover
r
this is a context of the Supreme Self alone as is explicitly clear from
d
the Úruti text, knowing what does this entire world come to be known’ (Mu. Up.
1.1.3), wherein the Úruti talks of an entity knowing which one comes to know all. Such
omniscience is possible from the knowledge of Brahman alone as It is the basis of the
entire creation. Hence the context concerns Brahman and not the embodied soul; and
therefore the latter cannot be the repository of earth, heaven etc. (6)
Sthityadanâbhyâm ca (7)
Also on account of the mention of remaining witness and eating.
Moreover the Úruti says, ‘Two birds of similar nature reside on a single tree, of
them one tastes the fruits of actions and the other merely remains a witness’ (Mu. Up.
3.1.1), wherein the tree refers to the body, the one experiencing the fruit of action is the
fLFkR;nukH;ka u 'kkjhjks |qHok|k;rua] fdUrq ija czãSosfr fl¼e~AA7AA

(20) (2 HkwekfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 8&9)
iwo± ;nqDrekRe'kCnkn~ |qHok|k;rua ija czãfs rA rnlaxre~_ ^rjfr'kksdekRefor~*
(Nkñ 7@1@3) bR;=k izdj.ks iz'uizfropuijEijk;k% izk.kkRije~ vn'kZusu izk.ks¿fi
embodied soul and the other is the Brahman. Hence a clear distinction has been drawn
between the agent of experience (embodied soul) and the witness (Brahman). Therefore
Brahman alone can be the repository of earth, heaven etc. and not the embodied soul. (7)
Topic 2: Bhûmâdhikarana
(Brahman is Infinite) .i n
in d
.
In the previous section it was concluded that the repositoryt of earth, heaven etc. is
u es The current adhikarana
Brahman alone because of the usage of the word ‘Self’ in the text.
t
commences on a note of protest against the aforementioneda q conclusion by referring to
a n(Ch. Up. on7.1.3).
another Úruti text wherein, in proximity to the discussion Prâna (vital-force), it is
ed
declared, ‘The knower of Self goes beyond grief’
v Here, one may well
i@ can possibly be used to refer to entities other

argue that the word ‘Self’ in this Úruti text refers to Prâna and not to the Supreme Self,
thereby establishing that the wordl‘Self’
than Brahman also.
a tu
d r
r e
Doubt: In the nChândogya Úruti Sanatkumâra says to devaris+i Nârada, ‘Bhûmâ
indeed should a
r
would indeed. n be worshipped’ (Ch. Up. 7.23-24). Hearing this Nârada affirms that he
do that, but asks Sanatkumâra to explain the meaning of the word ‘Bhûmâ’
d
first. Sanatkumâra then says, ‘Wherein an aspirant does not see, hear, or know anything
else separate from his own Self, know that to be the Bhûmâ’ (Ch. Up. 7.23-24). These
sentences form the topic of deliberation of this adhikarana. Here arises a doubt whether
the word ‘Bhûmâ’ refers to the Supreme Self or to the Prâna (vital-force)?
Opponent: The word ‘Bhûmâ’ refers to the vital-force (Prâna) and not the Supreme
Self, since after enumerating (in the ascending order) the superiority of all entities from
‘name’ onwards to ‘hope’, it is finally declared that, ‘Prâna is superior to hope’ (Ch. Up.
7.15.1), and then the discussion ends there. This clearly establishes that ‘Prâna’ is the
most superior of all. Moreover the knower of ‘Prâna’ is referred to as the ‘ativâdin’, i.e.
vkRe'kCniz;ksxlEHkokfnR;k{ksilaxR;snekgµ
(71) Hkwek lEizlknknè;qins'kkr~ AA8AA
v=k iwoZi{ks izk.kksiklua] fl¼kUrs rq czãKkufefr iQyHksn%A ^Hkwek Roso
foftKkflrO; bfr Hkwekua Hkxoks foftKkl bfr*] ^;=k ukU;Ri';fr ukU;PN`.kksfr
ukU;f}tkukfr l Hkwek* (Nkñ 7@23]24) bR;kfnokD;e=k fopkjfo"k;%A r=k fda
izk.kks Hkwek L;kr~] ijekRek osfr la'k;s_ izk.kks HkwekA dqr%\ ukekfnH; vk'kkUrsH;%
^vfLr Hkxoks ukEuks Hkw;%* bfr ôkXoko ukEuks Hkw;lh*] izk.kks ok vk'kk;k Hkw;ku~*
bR;kfnuk Hkw;kala lizi×peqDRok Hkw;% iz'uksÙkjijEijk¿n'kZukr~] izk.knf'kZu'pkfrok&
d
fnRodFkukfnfr iwoZ%i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq Hkwek ijekReSok=k HkforqegZfrA dqr%\ .in
t.in
lEizlknknè;qins'kkr~A lE;DizlhnR;fLeu~ tho bfr lEizlkn% lq"kqfIr%] rL;ka
u es
lEizlknkoLFkk;ka izk.kks tkxrhZfr lEizlkn'kCnsu izk.kks¿fHkèkh;rs_ rLekr~ izk.kknfèk ¾
ta q
mèo± HkwEu mifn';ekuRokfnR;FkZ%A u p izk.kksins'kkRija iz'uizfropuk¿n'kZusu izk.kL;So
a n
v e d
the one whose statement surpasses all previous statements. Hence the word ‘Bhûmâ’ in
the text refers to ‘Prâna’ only.
uli@
t
Vedântin: To this weasay,
d r
r e n
Bhûmâ samprasâdâdadhyupadeshât (8)
n a
.
r is Brahman, for it is taught after the state of deep-sleep.
dBhûmâ
The word ‘Bhûmâ’ in the Úruti text refers to Brahman and not to Prâna because of
the declaration of its superiority to ‘samprasâda’. The state wherein one becomes
completely tranquil is termed as the state of ‘samprasâda’, and one experiences such
tranquility in the state of deep sleep (sus+upti). Hence ‘samprasâda’ refers to ‘deep sleep’
in the derivative sense. And since the ‘Prâna’ alone remains awake in that state of complete
tranquility, hence in the current sutra ‘Prâna’ alone has been implied by the word
‘samprasâda’. ‘Bhûmâ’ is then taught after ‘Prâna’ and then the discussion ends. Hence it
is inappropriate to accept ‘Prâna’ as the implication of the word ‘Bhûmâ’, since
Sanatkumâra spoke of ‘Bhûmâ’ separately only after apprehending the discontentment of
Nârada even after hearing the discourse on ‘Prâna’. Hence ‘Bhûmâ’ is something clearly
superior to ‘Prâna’ and not the ‘Prâna’ itself.
HkweRoeH;qi;s fefr okP;e~_ izk.kkUreqins'ka JqRok rw".khHkwra ukjna izfr Lo;eso luRdqekjs.k
izk.kfHkUuL; HkwEu mifn';ekuRokr~A ukfi izk.kfo"k;desokfrokfnRofefr okP;e~_
^,"k rq ok vfronfr ;% lR;sukfronfr* (Nkñ 7@16) bR;=k ^rq* 'kCnsu
izk.kL;kfrokfnRoa O;koR;Z lR;inokP;ijekReoknL;kfrokfnRodFkusu izk.kfHkUuL;SoHkwe&
Roksins'kkr~A ,oa p ^rjfr 'kksdekRefor~* bfr iz'uokD;s vkReKkus 'kksdinokP;kfo|k&
rRdk;Zll a kjlUrj.klkèkuRodFkusu oSiYq ;kfRedk Hkwe:irk ijekReU;so lwii|rs bfrAA8AA
(72) èkeksZiiÙks'p AA9AA
HkwesR;uqorZrsA Hkwek ijekReSoA dqr%\ ^;=k ukU;Ri';fr* bR;kfnuksDrkuka
n'kZukfnloZO;ogkjkHkkokuka ^;ks oS Hkwek rRlq[ka*] ^;ks oS Hkwek rne`rfe* R;kfnuksDrkuka
.in
nd is also not
lq[k:iRoke`rRoknhuka èkekZ.kka p ijekReU;soksiiÙksfjfrAA9AA
Moreover the assertion that the knower of ‘Prâna’ is ant.‘ativâdin’ i
correct, since the same Upanishad declares, ‘But ativâdin indeed
u esis the one who transcends
t
all others by realization of the Truth’ (Ch. Up. 7.16.1). The
a qword ‘Truth’ here refers to the
Supreme Brahman only since It alone is the paramount
‘Prâna’ alone cannot be an ‘ativâdin’. Henced an reality. Hence the knower of
not ‘Prâna’. Moreover the declaration ofvthe e theÚruti,word‘The‘Bhûmâ’ refers to Brahman and
i
grief’ (Ch. Up. 7.1.3), wherein thelword @ ‘grief’ signifies ignorance (avidyâ) that is the
knower of Self goes beyond
tu of ‘Self’ that is the remedy of all sorrows clearly

d a
root of all sorrows, and the knowledge
r
implies that ‘Bhûmâ’ is synonymous with ‘Self’ (Brahman) and not Prâna. (8)
r e n
n a Dharmopapatteúca (9)
r. because the qualities mentioned are applicable to Brahman alone.
dAnd
Moreover the characteristics attributed to ‘Bhûmâ’ are appropriate when it is
construed to imply the Supreme Self and none other. The Úruti’s declaration, ‘Know that
as Bhûmâ where one does not see anything else, does not hear anything else, doesn’t
know anything else’ (Ch. Up. 7.24.1), wherein the complete absence of all behavior is
propounded by the Úruti as characterizing the ‘Bhûmâ’, can appositely be true only if
‘Bhûmâ’ is construed to imply the Supreme Self. Furthermore while describing ‘Bhûmâ’
the Úruti declares, ‘That which is Bhûmâ is indeed Bliss and is indeed immortal too’ (Ch.
Up. 7.24.1), wherein the attributes like ‘bliss’ and ‘immortality’ can only be apposite if
the Supreme Self is accepted as the implication of the word ‘Bhûmâ’. (9)
(21) (3 v{kjkfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 10&12)

iwo± ;Fkk lR;'kCnL; czãf.k :<Rokr~ Hkwek czãsfr] rFkk¿=kkI;{kj'kCnL; o.ksZ
:<Rokn~ o.kZ ,ok{kja L;kfnfr n`"VkUrlaxR;snekg&
(73) v{kjeEcjkUrèk`rs% AA10AA
v=k iwoZi{ks vksÄïkj:ik{kjksiklua] fl¼kUrs czãKkufefr iQyHksn%A ^dfLeUuq
[kYokdk'k vksr'p izksr'psfrA l gksokpSr}S rn{kja xkfxZ! czkã.kk vfHkonUR;LFkwyfe*
(c`ñ 3@8@7&8) R;kfnokD;e=k fopkjfo"k;%A r=k fde{kj'kCnsu o.kZ mP;rs]
Topic 3: Aks+arâdhikarana
d .in
(The Immutable One)
t.i n
u es to imply Brahman
taqBrahman, similarly the word
As in the previous section the word ‘Bhûmâ’ was construed
nused in this sense only; the current

because the soubriquet ‘Truth’ is commonly used to imply
a
v ed
‘Aks+ara’ should imply a syllable since it is generally
adhikarana begins with such comparative illustration.
Doubt: In the discussionsu li@ Yâjñavalkya and Gârgi, on being asked by the
a t encases the Space also, the former replied, ‘O Gârgi,
amongst
drara, which the knowers of Brahman describe as neither gross

latter as regards the entity which
r n
this Space is woven in Aks+
e3.8.7-8). Here arises a doubt whether the word ‘Aks+ara’ denotes a
a
nor subtle’ (Br. Up.
n the Supreme Self?
r.
syllable or it implies
dOpponent: The word ‘Aks+ara’ denotes a syllable, since in passages as ‘The
delineation of letters’ (Pânini’s fourteen sûtras), the term ‘Aks+ara’ is used in the proverbial
sense of a syllable. Also the Úruti’s declaration, ‘All this is indeed Om only’ (Ch. Up.
2.23.3), wherein for the purpose of meditation the syllable ‘Om’ is declared to be identical
to all, further goes on to prove that the word ‘Aks+ara’ implies a syllable only.
Aks+aramambarântadhr+teh+ (10)
Aks+ara is Brahman, for it supports all up to the Space.

ijekRek osfr la'k;s_ ^v{kjlekEuk;* bR;knko{kj'kCnL; o.ksZ :<Rokr~ ^¬dkj

,osna loZfe* (Nkñ 2@23@3) R;kfnJqR;Urjs o.kZL;ksikL;Rosu lokZReRokoèkk&
j.kkPpk{kj'kCnks o.kZ ,osfr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq u {kjR;'uqrs psfr fuR;RoO;k&
fiRokH;ke{kja ijeso czãA dqr%\ vEcjkUrèk`rs%A ^,rfLeUuq [kYo{kjs xkX;kZdk'k
vksr'p izkrs 'ps* (c`ñ 3@8@11) frJqrkS i`fFkO;knsjkdk'kkUrL; fodkjtkrL; èkkj.kkr~A
u p czã.kks¿U;=k rRlEHkofrA ^¬dkj ,osna loZfe* R;knkS czãizfrifÙklkèkuRosu
LrkodRofefrAA10AA
uuq dk;ZL; dkj.kkèkhur;k¿EcjkUrèk`fr% izèkkus¿I;qii|rs bR;r vkg&
(74) lk p iz'kklukr~ AA11AA
. in
lk pkEcjkUrèk`fr% ijes'ojL;So deZA dqr%\ iz'kklukr~A ^,rL; ok v{kjL;
i n d
.
st cannot be destroyed;
e
The word ‘Aks+ara’ refers to one that is all-pervasive and which
u only in the Supreme Self,
a q
and such attributes of all-pervasiveness and eternality conclude
and none other. Hence the word ‘Aks+ara’ denotes tthe Supreme Self only.. The Úruti
a n ara only’ (Br. Up. 3.8.11), wherein
d
declares, ‘O Gârgi, the Space is transfixed in this Aks+
e of all elements from Earth to Space;
it is explicitly declared that ‘Aks+ara’ is thevsustainer
and such an entity cannot be anything@
u li creation from Space downwards. As far as the
else but Brahman only. Brahman alone possesses
the competence of sustaining the
Úruti declaring the syllable a
t entire
declaration is merely and

r ‘Om’ to be all this (Ch. Up. 2.23.3) is concerned, then such
e n eulogy, since ‘Om’ is a means for the realization of the Supreme

Self. (10)
n ar
d r. the ‘effect’ is known to be dependent on ‘cause’, therefore the triple-trait
Since
‘Pradhâna’ of the Sânkhyas may well be acknowledged as the sustainer of this world,
which is nothing but the manifestation of the three traits. This doubt is removed in the
next aphorism,
Sâ ca praúâsanât (11)
And the act of supporting is possible for Brahman alone, for the rulership is
attributed to It.
Brahman alone is the sustainer of the entire world, since in the same context of
‘Aks+ara’, one hears, ‘The Sun and Moon are bound by the administration of this Aks+ara
iz'kklus xkfxZ! lw;kZpUæelkS foèk`rkS fr"Br%* (c`ñ 3@8@9) bR;kfnuk ikjes'oj&

deZiz'kkluL; Jo.kkr~A uápsrus izèkkus txf}"k;da iz'kklua lEHkofr] e`nkfn"kq
?kVkfnfo"k;diz'kkluk¿n'kZukfnfr Hkko%AA11AA
(75) vU;HkkoO;ko`Ùks'p AA12AA
vU;L; izèkkukns% Hkkoks èkeZLrL; O;ko`Ùks'p ^r}k ,rn{kja xkX;Zn`"Va æ"Vð*
(c`ñ 3@8@11) bR;=kksDrkn`"VRoknsèkZeZL; izèkkusO;ins'klEHkos¿fi æ"V`Rokfn&
èkeZL;kpsruizèkkus¿lEHkokfnR;FkZ%A rLekRijeso czãk{kjfefr fl¼e~AA12AA
(22) (4 bZ{kfrdeZO;ins'kkfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 13)n
d .i
t. in
iwo± o.ksZ :<L;k{kj'kCnL;kEcjkUrtxn~èk`fr:ifyÄ~xsu u {kjR;'uqrs osfr
u es attributed to ‘Aks+ara’
alone’ (Br. Up. 3.8.9), wherein the act of administration has been
by the Úruti. This act of administration is only possibleainqa sentient entity i.e. Brahman,
n t
and not in the insentient Pradhâna of the Sânkhyas.
ed a The pot may well be the ‘effect’ of
clay, but none can assert that the clay has any administrative control over the pot. Hence
the ‘administration’ Úruti clearly declares v
i@
Brahman to be the sustainer of the world. (11)
tu l
d r aAnyabhâvavyâvr+ tteúca (12)
n
And becauseethe Úruti negates the qualities of any other than Brahman.
r
a
nsame context one also hears the exclusion of Pradhâna by the declaration of
r.
In the
d ‘O Gârgi, that same very Aks+ara though is not seen by anyone, but It is the
the Úruti,
witness of all, is never heard but is the hearer, is never thought of but is the thinker’ (Br.
Up. 3.8.11), wherein though the Pradhâna may also not be the object of eyes, ears, mind
etc., but being insentient, it can never be the witness, the hearer or the thinker etc. Hence
the word ‘Aks+ara’ refers to the Supreme Self alone. (12)
Topic 4: Îks+atikarmavyapadeúâdhikarana
(The Superior Brahman)
In the preceding topic it was shown that even though the word ‘Aks+ara’ is more
commonly used in the sense of a ‘syllable’, but due to characteristics like ‘sustenance of
;ksxo`Ù;k p czãijRoa fu.khZre~] r}n=kkfi ns'kifjfPNUuiQyJqfrfyÄ~xsu ij'kCn&

L;kisf{kdijRofof'k"Vfgj.;xHkZijRoa us;fefr n`"VkUrlaxR;snekg&
(76) bZ{kfrdeZO;ins'kkRl% AA13AA
v=k iwoZi{ks dk;Zczãksiklua] fl¼kUrs ijczãksiklufefr iQyHksn%A ^;% iqujsra
f=kek=ks.kksfeR;usuo
S k{kjs.k ija iq#"kefHkè;k;hr* (izñ 5@5) bfr okD;e=k fopkjfo"k;%A
the universe’, ‘all-pervasiveness’ and ‘eternality’, the word has been used etymologically
to imply the Supreme Self. Similarly the word ‘Para’ in the ensuing texts should be taken
to imply ‘Hiranyagarbha’ (the highest Person, Inferior Brahman), as one specifically hears
of the attainment of Brahmaloka as the result of mediation. The current adhikarana thus
commences with such comparative illustration.
.i n
i n d is advocated,
t .
sBrahman’
Here in the opponent’s view the meditation on the ‘Inferior Brahman’
whereas the Vedântin advocates meditation on the ‘Superior
u e (Unqualified
Brahman).
ta q
Doubt: The Úruti declares, “Anyone d a nworships the highest Person with the
v
help of the syllable ‘Om’ as possessed of theethree letters ‘A’ (akâra), ‘U’ (ukâra) and ‘M’
who
(makâra), is elevated to Brahmalokaiby

l @the hymns of Sâma” (Pr. Up. 5.5). Here arises a
doubt whether the Úruti advises
a tumeditation on the ‘Superior Brahman’ (Unqualified
d r
Brahman) or on the ‘Inferior Brahman’ (Qualified Brahman)?
r e n
n a the attainment of Brahmloka (a spatially limited world) by such an
Opponent: The meditation on the ‘Inferior Brahman’ has been advocated, since
dr.
the Úruti declares
aspirant.
Îks+atikarmavyapadeúât sah+ (13)
Supreme Brahman alone is meant, for there is the mention of It being the
object of the act of seeing.
The meditation on the ‘Superior Brahman’ has been advocated there, since the
Úrutis propound that entity as the ‘object’ (karma) of the ‘act (kriyâ) of seeing (îks+ana)’.
fde=k ija czãkfHkèks;eqr] vija ok czãfs r fo'k;s_ vija czãfs rA dqr%\ ^l lkefHk#Uuh;rs
czãyksdfe* (izñ 5@5) R;=k ns'kifjfPNUuL; iQyL;ksP;ekuRokfnfr iwoZ% i{k%A
fl¼kUrs l% è;krO;Rosuksifn';eku% ijeso czãA dqr%\ bZ{kfrdeZO;ins'kkr~A ^l
,rLekTtho?kukRijkr~ ija iqfj'k;a iq#"keh{krs* (izñ 5@5) bfr okD;'ks"ks
bZ{kfrdeZRosukL;kfHkè;s;L; iq#"kL; O;ins'kkr~A r=k è;kuL; dekZrFkkHkwrefi oLrq
Hkofr] bZ{krsLrq deZ rFkk Hkwreso oLrqA vr% ijeso czã lE;Xn'kZufo"k;&
Hkwreh{kfrdeZRosu O;ifn"Vfefr xE;rsA rPpsg ijiq#"k'kCnkH;kefHkè;krO;a izR;fHkKk;rsA
u p ns'kifjfPNUuiQyJqR;k dFke=k ija czãkfHkè;s;a ;qT;srsfr\ f=kek=kksÄïkjkyEcusu
ija czãkfHkè;k;r% czãyksdizkIR;uUrja lE;Xn'kZuksRiÙ;qiiÙks%A vr% ØeeqDR;fHk&
d .in
izk;esrnfo#¼fefrAA13AA
t .in
u es
AA foJke%3AA taq
a n
v e d
u li@who pervades everything and is higher than the
tot be separate from this overall collection of beings’ (Pr.
The Úruti declares, ‘The highest Person
higher, is seen by the aspirant
Up. 5.5). It is well-knowndthat
a
r the object of meditation could well be an unreal thing, but
n
the object of an act ofeseeing cannot be unreal but has to be a factual entity only. Since the
ract of ‘seeing’ such an entity, it can well be concluded that the entity is
n a
Úruti mentions the
none-otherr.but the Supreme Self alone. That same ‘Supreme Self’ has been designated as
d Person in the Úruti text. If asserted that due to the mention of spatially limited
the highest
fruit (Brahmaloka) that is attained by such meditation, one cannot accept the fact that the
object of such meditation can be a spatially unbound entity like the Supreme Self; we say
that this assertion is incorrect, since the one who meditates on the Supreme Brahman
with the support of the three lettered word ‘Om’ attains full realization of the Supreme
Self chronologically, after attaining Brahmaloka. Hence the idea of chronological
emancipation (krama-mukti) is intended to be conveyed by the Úruti. (13)
Topic 5: Daharâdhikarana
(The Small Space is Brahman)
(23) (5 ngjkfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 14&21)

;Fkk iwo± ijiq#"k'kCnL; :<Ôk czãijRosu czãoS ksikL;efHkfgra] r}fngkI;kdk'k&
'kCnL; Hkwrkdk'ks :<RokÙkL;SoksikL;Roa dFka ukH;qis;rs bfr vk{ksilaxR;snekg&
(77) ngj mÙkjsH;% AA14AA
v=k iwoZi{ks Hkwrkdk'kk|qiklua] fl¼kUrs czãksiklufefr iQyHksn%A ^vFk
In the previous adhikarana the expression ‘highest Person’, being commonly used
to refer to the Supreme Brahman, was accepted to mean that only; similarly why shouldn’t
the word ‘Âkâúa’, being commonly used to refer to the element ‘Space’, should also be
accepted here in ensuing Úruti texts as implying the element ‘Space’ alone?; the current
adhikarana commences in response to such objection of the opponent. .i n
in d
Here in the opponent’s view the meditation on the element
sSelf.
t ‘Space’ is advocated,
whereas in the Vedântin’s view the meditation on the Supreme
u e is implied.
a q
t within the small space (dahara
Doubt: The Úruti declares, ‘The entity thatn
e
Âkâúa), present in the small lotus-shaped place dathis city of Brahman (body), should be
in
resides
inquired into’ (Ch. Up. 8.1.1). Here arisesv

l i @ a doubt whether the small space heard of in the
tu
lotus-like place (heart) is the material space (bhûta Âkâúa) or is it the embodied Self or is
it the Supreme Self?
ra
dword ‘dahara Âkâúa’ (small space) refers to the ‘material space’,
Opponent:e n
r used in this sense only. Or the word may refer to the ‘embodied
The
n a
as the word is universally
r.
d smallness is propounded by the Úruti that compares it to the tip of the goading
soul’ (jîva), since the embodied soul, limited by the mind, stays put in the cavity of the
heart. Its
stick (Shvae. Up. 5.8). The identicalness of the embodied soul with Brahman, which is
pervasive like the Space, justifies the usage of the term ‘Âkâúa’ for the embodied soul
too. Hence the embodied soul is implied by the term ‘dahara Âkâúa’.
Dahara uttarebhyah+ (14)
The small-space is Brahman, for so is implied by the subsequent text.

;fnnefLeUczãiqjs ngja iq.Mjhda os'e ngjks¿fLeUuUrjkdk'kLrfLeU;nUrLrnUos"VO;fe*

(Nkñ 8@1@1) frokD;e=k fopkjfo"k;%A r=k ngjiq.Mjhds Jw;ek.kks ngjkdk'k%
fda Hkwrkdk'kks] tho%] ijekRek osfr la'k;s_ Hkwrkdk'ks :<Rokn~ Hkwrkdk'k ,o
ngj'kCn%A thoks ok eu&mikfèkd'pA rL; ân;s¿UrjoLFkkusu ngjRoa czãkHksnfoo{k;k
pkdk'kksiferÙofefr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq ngjkdk'k% ijekReSoA dqr%\ mÙkjsH;ks
okD;'ks"kxrsH;ks gsrqH;%A rFkkfg ^;kokUok v;ekdk'kLrkokus"kks¿UrâZn;s vkdk'k mHks
vfLeU|koki`fFkoh vUrjso lekfgrs* ^,"k vkRek¿igrikIek fotjks foe`R;qfoZ'kksd%
(Nkñ 8@1@3&4) bR;knkokdk'kksiekuRo|koki`fFkO;fèk"BkuRokReRokigrikIeRok&
fnczãèkekZ.kka O;ins'kkUu Hkwrkdk'kks u ok thoks¿=k ngjinokP;%A u p :<Ôk
d .in
t.in
Hkwrkdk'k%\ ,dfLeUuqiekuksies;RokuqiiÙks%A u p ckákH;UrjRodfYirHksnsuksi&
es
ekuksies;Hkko bfr okP;e~_ vxR;k dkYifudHksnkJ;.kkr~A uUosoa rfgZ thos
u
ta q
vkRe'kCniz;ksxlEHkosu czãkHksnfoo{k;k loZxrRokfnlEHkosu p ngj'kCnks thoij
a n
bfr psUu_ iwoksZDrgsrqH;ks czãf.k r=kksDrloZèkeksZiiÙks% dFkf×pTthoijRo&
v e d
LohdkjkuqiiÙksfjfr ijekReSo ngjkdk'k% bfr fl¼e~AA14AA
@
uli is Brahman only, because of the implication of
The small space (daharatÂkâúa)
d
the subsequent Úruti text. TheaÚruti further declares, ‘The Space that is within the heart is
routside.
e n
same in extent as the Space Both heaven and earth are indeed incorporated within
it’ (Ch. Up. 8.1.3),r‘This is the Self, free from sin, old age and death, and is devoid of
sorrow’ (Ch. n
a
d
comparison
.
r with Space, its designation as the repository of heaven and earth, and attributes
Up. 8.1.5) etc., wherein the characteristics enumerated by the Úruti like
like freedom from sin, old age, death etc., are all apposite for Supreme Self alone, and
not for material space or the embodied soul. Also, referring to the Úruti (Ch. Up. 8.1.3),
it is clear that ‘Space’ (Âkâúa) cannot be compared with itself, for no comparison is
possible in a single entity, it being only possible amongst two or more entities. If asserted
that such comparison may be possible in a single entity also, taking into account its
imaginary external or internal divisions; then such assertion is incorrect, for such
comparison, which relies on an imaginative distinction, would be debilitating. Though
the word ‘Self’ (Ch. Up. 8.1.5) is also used for the embodied soul, and it may also be
justified to promulgate the all-pervasiveness of the jîva on account of its identicalness
with Brahman, but the remaining attributes like freedom from sin, old age, death, sorrow
etc. completely conclude in Brahman only. Hence the small space is Brahman only. (14)
mÙkjsH;ks gsrqH;ks ngjkdk'kL; fu.khZrs czãijRos gsRoUrjekg&

(78) xfr'kCnkH;ka rFkkfg n`"Va fyÄ~xa p AA15AA
br'p ngjkdk'k% ijekReSoA dqr%\ xfr'kCnkH;ke~A ^bek% lokZ% iztk
vgjgxZPNUR; ,ra czãyksda u foUnfUr*A (Nkñ 8@3@2) bR;=k ngjokD;'ks"ks izÑra
ngja czã'kCnsuksDRok rf}"k;k xfr% iztk'kCnokP;kuka thokuka izR;geqP;ekuk ngjL;
czãrka xe;frA rLeknqDrk xfrczZã'kCn'psR;kH;ka ngjL; czãRofefrA rFkk fg ^lrk
lksE;! rnk lEiUuks Hkorh* (Nkñ 6@8@1) frJqR;Urjs¿fi izR;ga czãfo"k;a xeua
n`"Ve~A ,oa pSrnso n`"Va czão
S yksd% czãyksd bfr lkekukfèkdj.;ifjxzgs ngjkdk'kL;
.in
Further reasons are being given in favor of establishing the meaning of ‘dahara
Âkâúa’ as Brahman, in the next aphorisms,
in d
. st
.
Gatiúabdâbhyâm tathâhi dr+s+tam lingameca
.
q u (15)
n ta
a
The small space is Brahman, for there is the mention of ‘going into’ and of the
ed Upanis+ada, and an indicatory sign
word ‘Brahma-loka’; so also is declared in another
is also present.
@ v
li
a tutext regarding the ‘small space’ (dahara Âkâúa), occurs
Complimentary to the Úruti
d r populace goes to Brahma-loka (the world that is Brahman)
the following text, ‘This entire
n wherein that ‘small space’ is being designated by the word
removement
daily’ (Ch. Up. 8.3.2),
‘Brahman’, andathe
r . n
thereby establishing
of populace towards ‘Brahman’ is being promulgated
the Brahmanhood of the ‘small space’. Hence due to the mention of
d as well as the usage of the word ‘Brahman’, it has been established that
the movement
the ‘small space’ is nothing but Brahman only. Moreover the same has been declared in
the sixth chapter of the same Upanis+ad also, wherein it is said, ‘O amiable one, the
individual soul becomes identical with Brahman in deep-sleep’ (Ch. Up. 6.8.1).
If asserted that the word ‘Brahmaloka’ may also be construed to imply the world
of Brahmâ (Prajâpâti); then we say that the word may indeed be construed to imply the
‘world of Brahmâ’ if the word ‘Brahmaloka’ is accepted as ‘tatpurûs+a’ compound with
sixth case-ending. But if the word ‘Brahmaloka’ is explained in the sense of apposition
as ‘karmadhâraya’ compound, then the inference would be – the world that is Brahman.
The declaration of the Úruti as regards the daily repatriation of the populace to ‘Brahmaloka’
czãRos fyÄ~xe~A ufg izR;ga lq"kqIrkoLFkk;ka thokuka fgj.;xHkZyksdxeua lEHkofrA

fu"kknLFkifrU;k;kPp "k"Bhleklk}jadeZèkkj;lekl% bfrAA15AA
(79) èk`rs'p efgEuks¿L;kfLeUuqiyCèks% AA16AA
^vFk ; vkRes* fr izÑra ngjkdk'ka fufnZ'; ^l lsrfq oZèk`frjs"kka yksdkukelEHksnk;*
(Nkñ 8@4@1) bR;=k Jqrk;k èk`rjs fi gsrkscã
Zz o
S ngjkdk'k%A vL; loZo.kkZJefoèkkj.k&
y{k.kefgEuks¿fLeu~ ijekRefu ^,"k ijes'oj ,"k Hkwrkfèkifrjs"k Hkwriky ,"klsrqfoZèkj.k
,"kka yksdkukelEHksnk;* bR;kfnJqR;Urjs¿I;qiyCèksfjR;FkZ%AA16AA
.in
goes on to confirm that the word should be accepted as ‘karmadhâraya’ compound, as it
d
t. n
is not logical otherwise to assume that the populace daily move to the world of ‘Brahmâ’
i
(satyaloka) in their deep sleep. The acceptance of the word ‘Brahmaloka’ as ‘karmadhârya’
es
compound instead of ‘tatpurûs+a’ compound with sixth case-ending is in conformity of
u
the logic of *‘nis+âdasthapati’. (15)
taq
an
ved
* The Nis+âda community has no right to the Vedas akin to the Úûdras, but a scriptural passage
occurs that reads ‘Nis+âdasthapati yâjayet’. Its interpretation may be done in three ways. Firstly the word
uli@
‘Nis+âdasthapati’ may be admitted as a ‘tatpurûs+a’ compound with sixth case-ending thereby meaning ‘the
king of Nis+âdas’. Secondly it may be admitted as a ‘bahubrîhi’ compound thereby meaning ‘the one
t
ra
whose king is Nis+âda’. Thirdly it may be admitted as ‘karmadhâraya’ compound thereby meaning ‘the
d
Nis+âda who is the king of Nis+âdas’. The opponent feels that it would only be appropriate if one accepts
n
e
the ‘tatpurûs+a’ or the ‘bahubrîhi’ implication, for by admitting so the word ‘Nis+âdasthapati’ can be assumed
ar
as refering to a ‘dvija’ (twice born) who has the right to the Vedas. The Vedântin on the other hand rules
. n
that it would be more appropriate to accept the ‘karmadhâraya’ implication, for the other two are emblematic.
dr Dhr+teúca mahimnoasyâsminnupalabdheh+ (16)

Also on account of the mention of holding of the world by the small-space, for
this greatness is seen from other texts to apply to Him alone.
In the eighth chapter of the Chândogya Upanishad, in the context of the small
space (dahara Âkâúa), the Úruti declares, ‘That which is this Self, is a dam that prevents
these worlds from getting mixed up’ (Ch. Up. 8.4.1). Like a dam that limits the vast
expanse of water, the Self holds these different worlds in position so as to avoid their mix
up. Thus it is shown that the small space within the lotus of heart has the ability to hold
the entire creation in its position; which is possible only when the small space is nothing
but Brahman. Another Úruti declares, ‘Brahman alone is the ruler of beings, It alone is
(80) izfl¼s'p AA17AA

yksd:<Ôis{k;k ^vkdk'kks oS uke uke:i;ksfuZofZ grk* (Nkñ 8@1@4) ^lokZf.k
g ok bekfu HkwrkU;kdk'kknso leqRi|Urs* (Nkñ 1@9@1) bR;knkS JkSr:<scZyh;LRosu
ngjkdk'kL;kfi ijekReU;so izfl¼s% ijekReSo ngjkdk'kks] u Hkwrkdk'k bfr fl¼e~AA17AA
,oa ngjkdk'kL; Hkwrkdk'kijRoa fujL;snkuha rL; izR;xkReRoek'kÄïÔkg&
(81) brjijke'kkZRl bfr psUuklEHkokr~ AA18AA
;Fkk okD;'ks"kcysu ngj% ijekResR;qDre~] r}}kD;'ks"ks.k ^vFk ; ,"k
lEizlknks¿LekPNjhjkRleqRFkk;s* (Nkñ 8@3@4) R;kfnuk lEizlkn'kCnsurs jL; thoL;kfi
ijke'kkZr~ l thoks ngjkdk'k% 'kD;rs¿H;qixUrqfefr psUu_ vlEHkokr~A thos
. in
i n d
s t
their sustainer, and It alone is the dam that prevents different worlds. from getting mixed
up’ (Br. Up. 4.4.22). (16)
u e
t a q
a n
Prasiddheúca (17)
And because of the familiar use v ofe

d
the word Âkâúa in the sense of Brahman.
@
uli is universally famous in the sense of ‘material
Even though the word t‘Space’
athe Úrutis like, ‘Indeed the Space is the revealer of all name
space’, still on the strengthrof
d
en
and form’ (Ch. Up. 8.14), ‘All these creatures are born from Space only’ (Ch. Up. 1.9.1)
arthe word ‘dahara Âkâúa’ refers to supreme Brahman only. (17)
etc., it is clear that
n
dr. Itaraparâmarúât sa iti chennâsambhavât (18)
If asserted that the other (embodied soul) is implied by the small-space on

account of it beign alluded to in the complementary text; we say, not so, for that is
impossible.
Opponent: If on the strength of the Úruti the meaning of the word ‘dahara Âkâúa’
has been taken as the Supreme Self, then on the basis of the complementary text, ‘This is
the Self, the serene one (samprasâda), that raises itself from the body and attains its own
real nature’ (Ch. Up. 8.3.4), wherein the embodied soul is the subject of deliberation, it
vkdk'kksies;RokigrikIeRoknhuka ijekReèkekZ.kkelEHkokfnfr Hkko%AA18AA

vFkksDÙkL;klEHkoL; gsrksjflf¼fjR;k'kaD; ifjgjfr &
(82) mÙkjkPpsnkfoHkwZrLo:iLrq AA19AA
mÙkjkr~ ^; vkRek¿igrikIek* bfr izfrKk; ^; ,"kks¿f{kf.k iq#"kks n`';rs ,"k
vkRek (Nkñ 8@7@4) bfriztkifrokD;kn~ tkxznk|oLFkkiUus thos¿igrik&
IeRokfnxq.klEHkokTtho ,o ngjkdk'kinokP; bfr psr\~ v=kksP;rs] vkfoHkwrZ Lo:iLrqA
rq'kCnks¿=k tho'kadkO;ko`R;FkZ%A ;rks fg r=kkI;kfoHkwZra ikjekfFkZda ijekRey{k.ka
Lo:ieL;sR;kfoHkwZrLo:iks thoks foof{kr%] u rq thoRosu :is.k thoks foof{kr%_
îja T;ksfr#ilEi| Losu :is.kkfHkfu"i|rs (Nkñ 8@12@2) bR;qilagkjn'kZukr~A d .in
t .in
may be asserted that the small space refers to the embodied e s and not the Supreme
q u soul
Brahman.
n ta
d a
e possibly conclude in the embodied soul
Vedântin: This is not correct, since other attributes like comparison with Space,
v
@ like mind, intellect etc. Hence the small
freedom from sin, old age and death etc. cannot
that is identified with such limitingliadjuncts
u
t only. (18)
a
space refers to the supreme Brahman
drfurther objections, which are clarified in the next aphorisms,
re n
The opponent raises
n a
d r. Uttarâccedâvirbhûtasvarûpastu (19)
If asserted that the embodied soul is implied here because of subsequent

reference to it in the chapter; we say, not so, for the subsequent text reveals the real
nature of the embodied soul.
Opponent: The small space refers to the embodied soul and not the Supreme
Brahman since after commencing with, ‘That Self which is free from sin’ (Ch. Up. 8.7.1),
the Úruti declares, ‘The person who is seen in the eye is the Self’ (Ch. Up. 8.7.4), ‘The
one who moves about in dreams is the Self’ (Ch. Up. 8.10.1) etc., wherein the individual
soul is discussed as being involved in the states of awakening, dream etc., and it is also
declared to be free from sin etc. Hence the individual soul is being referred by the term
small space.
vrksfoosdfoKkukHkkoknukfoHkwZrLo:ir;k foosdfoKkuknkfoHkwZrLo:iL; thoL;

czãRosukigrikIeRokfnlEHkos¿fi thoRosu rnlEHkokUu iwoZlw=kLFkgsrqjfl¼ bfrAA19AA
vFk ^; ,"k lEizlkn%* (Nkñ 8@3@4) bR;kfnngjokD;'ks"ks thoijke'kZL;
oS;F;± L;kfnR;r vkg&
(83) vU;kFkZ'p ijke'kZ% AA20AA
thoijke'kZ% ^Losu :is.kkfHkfu"i|rs* bR;knkoqilaiÙkO;% ijekReSokigrikIeRok&
fnxq.kd mikL; bR;soeFkksZ¿;a ijekReokfnuks¿I;qii|rsA vrks u thoizfriknuij%
.in
Vedântin: The word ‘tu’ (but) in the aphorism refutes the opponent’s view. The
in d
individual soul is being referred to here in its real nature, and not as an embodied being.
.
The individual soul, in reality, is identical with Brahman only. The Úruti explicitly declares,
st
e
‘Raising itself from the body and realizing the supreme Light, it attains its own real
u
ta q
nature. It is then the highest Purus+a’ (Ch. Up. 8.12.3). Hence attributes like immortality,
lack of sin, old age and death etc., which are not possible in the sense of individual soul
a n
ve d
as limited by adjuncts like intellect etc, become possible when the soul attain its real
form that is identical with the Supreme Brahman. (19)
l @
i is interpreted as the supreme Brahman, then the
u
t one (samprasâda) etc.’ (Ch. Up. 8.3.4), occurring in
Opponent: If the small space
r a
Úruti text ‘This is the Self, the
d
serene
n
the passage complementary to the text concerning small space, wherein the Úruti refers
re would be rendered futile.
to the embodied soul,
n a
d r
To .this the vedântin replies,
Anyârthaúca parâmarúah+ (20)
And the reference to the embodied soul in the complementary text is meant for
a different purpose.
The same Úruti declares ahead, ‘This is the Self, the serene one (samprasâda),
that raises itself from the body and attains its own real nature’ (Ch. Up. 8.3.4), wherein it
is explicitly declared that the embodied soul in the deep sleep attains Brahman, which is
its own real form. And it is for the purpose of meditation on this Brahman only, the real
form of the individual soul, which has been declared to be endowed with attributes of
iwoksZDrijke'kZ bfr Hkko%AA20AA

(84) vYiJqrsfjfr psÙknqDre~ AA21AA
uuq ^ngjks¿fLeUuUrjkdk'k%* bR;=kkdk'kL;kYiRoa Jw;ek.ka ijes'ojs uksii|rs]
thoL; RokjkxzksiferL;kYiRoa lEHkofrA vrks¿YiJqrsnZgjkdk'kks thoks] u ijes'oj
bfr psr~\ r=k ^vHkZdkSdLRokÙk}Ôins'kkPps* (czñ 1@2@7) fr lw=ks lekèkkueqDre~A
vrks ngjkdk'k% ijekReSoksikL; bfr fl¼e~AA21AA
(24) (6 vuqd`R;fËkdj.ke~ A lw0 22&23)
d .in
eternality, freedom from sin, old age, death etc., that the concept of jîva has been forwarded
t .in
by the Úruti. The Úruti does not intend to propound the actual existence of the embodied
soul. (20)
u es
t a qthat is there within the heart’
Opponent: The Úruti declares, ‘The small space
(Ch. Up. 8.1.1), wherein the smallness that one a n regarding the space cannot apply
v d hears
e for the embodied soul that has indeed
appositely to the Supreme Lord, but fits perfectly
been declared to be akin to the tip of @
concerning the small space can u li theto the
goading stick (Úv. Up. 5.8). Hence the Úruti
t apply embodied soul only, and not to supreme
Brahman.
d ra
e n replies,
To this therVedântin
n a
dr . Alpaúruteriti caettaduktam (21)
If asserted that the small-space is mentioned as limited in dimension, and hence

it cannot imply Brahman; then that this has already been explained earlier.
This objection has already been answered in the earlier aphorism (1.2.7), wherein
it has been clarified that such spatial limitation for the supreme Brahman has been talked
about from a relative stand-point only for the purpose of meditation. The statement
concerning the spatial limitation is not in the realistic sense of propounding the Lord’s
form. (21)
Topic 6: Anukr+tyadhikarana
(The Light is Brahman)
iwo± îja T;ksfr#ilEi|* bfrokD;'ks"ks.k ngjkdk'kL; czãRoa fuèkkZfjre~A

T;ksfr%izlaxkfnnkuha û r=k lw;ksZ Hkkfr* bR;kfnokD;a fopk;Zrs bfr izlaxlaxR;snekg&
(85) vuqÑrsLrL; p AA22AA
v=k iwoZi{ks¿ykSfddrstl miklua_ fl¼kUrs fufoZ'ks"kczã.kks Kkufefr iQyHksn%A
û r=k lw;ksZ Hkkfr u pUærkjda usek fo|qrks HkkfUr dqrks¿;efXufj* (eqñ 2@2@10)
R;kfnokD;e=k fopkjfo"k;%A r=k lw;kZfnfuf[kytxn~HkkldRosu izrh;ekua rst%
df'p¼krqfo'ks"k%] ijekRek osfr la'k;s_ izcysu rstlk nqcZyL;kfHkHkon'kZuk&
Previously, on the strength of the complementary text, ‘Raising itself from the
. in
body and realizing the supreme Light, it attains its own real nature. It is then the highest
n d
Purus+a’ (Ch. Up. 8.12.3), it was established that the ‘small space’ refers to the Supreme
i
st .
Brahman. The current adhikarana now commences with a view to deliberate upon the
‘Light’ Úrutis.
u e
a q
tconcludes in the meditation on the
Here in the opponent’s view the ‘Light’ Úruti
divine light, whereas the vedântin asserts that itd
n
a in the knowledge of the Supreme
Brahman. v e concludes
l @
i ‘There the sun does not shine, nor does the moon,
tu
a
Doubt: The Úruti’s declaration,
r
dwith His light; by His light all shine diversely’ (Mu. Up. 2.2.10),
stars or lightning illuminate It; how can the fire do so. The truth indeed is that everything
e n
else shines in accordance
r deliberation here. Here arises a doubt whether the illuminator of all
a
forms the topic under
n
r .
including the sun etc. is a material entity or is it Brahman?
dOpponent: The illuminator of all including the sun etc. is some material light
only. It is well known that in front of a brighter light the less intense lights become
subdued, as the light of a lamp gets subdued in front of the sun’s light.
Anukr+testasya ca (22)
The Light is Brahman, for the mention of ‘shining in accordance’, and because
of the use of word ‘His’.
Ùkstksèkkrqfo'ks"k ,o df'pfnfr iwo%Z i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq r=k lw;kZfntxn~HkkldRosukoxE;ekua

czãSoA dqr%\ vuqÑrs% ^reso HkkUreuqHkkfr loZe~* (eqñ 2@2@10) bR;&
=kkuqdj.kknuqHkkukfnR;FkZ%A rFkkfg ^Hkk:i% lR;ladYi%* (Nkñ 3@14@2)
bfrJqR;Urjs¿fi izkKkReuks Hkk:iRoefHkfgre~A reso izkKekRekua lw;kZn;ks¿uqHkkfUr] u
rstksèkkrqa df×pfnfr izfl¼e~A ufg iznhi% iznhikUrjeuqHkkrhfr n`"Vpje~A vLrq rfgZ
lw;kZnhuka LorksHkkufefr\ rka efra O;korZ;fr ^rL; ps* R;kfnukA ^rL; Hkklk loZfena
foHkkfr* bfr prqFkZiknsu czãHkklk rs"kka HkkL;Rokoxekr~A rstks¿Urjs.k èkkrqfo'ks"ks.k
lw;kZnhuka foHkkuelEHkoe~] izÑ"Vrstlk¿iÑ"Vrstlka izfr?kkrn'kZukr~A fda pksDr&
eU=kksDrr=ksfrinsu |qHok|k;ruRosu fu.khZra izÑra czãSo ijke`';rs] rL;So lÙk;k
d .in
LiQwR;kZ p ^loZfena* uke:ifØ;kdkjdiQytkrefHkO;T;rsA vr% Lo;aT;ksfr%
t.i n
lw;kZfnfuf[kytxnoHkklda czãSo] u rq ykSfdda rst% bfr fl¼e~AA22AA
u es
(86) vfi p Le;Zrs AA23AA
ta q
The Light that illuminates everything d a nlike sun, moon etc. is Brahman only,
v e (anukarana) in that context. The Úruti
else
@ with His light; by His light all shine
since one hears of the fact of ‘acting in accordance’
declares, ‘Everything else shines inliaccordance
u
diversely’ (Mu. Up. 2.2.10). Alsot the Chândogya Úruti too declares the Self as, ‘That Self
d
is of the nature of Light andrhasa true resolve’ (Ch. Up. 3.14.2). The bodies like sun, moon
etc follow the lighte ofnthe sentient Self, and not any other material light. In common
a r
r n
parlance too, one does not see any lamp lighting up by emulating the light of another
. sun and other shining bodies, being equivalent in nature, do not shine in
d
lamp. Similarly
emulation of each other. Moreover it is seen that the light of one subdues the light of
another. They shine in accordance with the light of Brahman only. This is made clear by
the aforementioned Mund+aka Úruti (2.2.10), wherein, by the fourth line of the canto, it is
ardently declared by the word ‘His’, that everything else shines by ‘His’ light. In addition
the word ‘tatra’ (there) in the mantra (ibid.) points to the acceptance of the subject-matter
already under discussion; and that subject is Brahman only, as It is the subject already
under consideration and has been established as the repository of earth and heaven etc.
(Mu. Up. 2.2.5). It is by the existence and sentience of Brahman only that all name, form,
action, agent and fruit become manifest. Hence the light of the self-effulgent Brahman
alone illuminates the sun etc., and not any material light. (22)
Api ca smaryate (23)

vfi p û rn~Hkkl;rs lw;ksZ u 'k'kkÄïks u ikod%* (xhñ 15@6) bfr]

^;nkfnR;xra rstks txn~Hkkl;rs¿f[kyfe* (xhñ 15@12) fr pk=k izkKL;SokReu%
lw;kZfnfHkjuoHkkL;Ros lfr rn~HkkldRoa Le;Zrs bR;FkZ%AA23AA
(25) (7 izferkfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 24&25)
iwo± lw;kZ|uqHkkukfnuk fyÄ~xsu ^r=ks* fr fo"k;lIreha eRok u HkkrhR;knkS ;Fkk
f.ktè;kgkjs.k u r‰kl;rhR;FkksZ fu.khZr%A rFksgkfi ^vÄ~x"q Bek=k%* bfr ifjek.kfyÄ~xus
And the Smriti mentions this too.
. in
The Smritis too declare, ‘That Brahman cannot be illumined by the sun, the moon
in d
and the fire’ (Bg. 15.6), ‘Know the light of sun that illumines the entire world, as also the
.
light of moon and fire, to be My light only’ (BG. 15.12), wherein the sentient Self alone
st
has been declared to be the illuminator of sun, moon etc. (23)
u e
Topic 7: Pramitâdhikarana
ta q
(The Measured a nOne)
v e d
li@
In the previous adhikarana it was established that the light of the sentient Brahman
a tu by admitting the word ‘tatra’ (there) as having the

is the illuminator of everything else. There in the Úruti text, ‘There the sun does not
rsupplying the suffix ‘n+ica’ to the word ‘bhâti’ (light), it was

illuminate etc.’ (Mu. Up. 2.2.10),
d
seventh case-ending and
shown to mean that
r e n‘That’ entity cannot be illuminated by sun etc.; rather sun etc. is
n a entity. Similarly in the current adhikarana, after acknowledging the
referencerto
d . the embodied soul due to the presence of the indicatory sign (size of thumb),
illumined by that
one should then meditate on it as, ‘I am the Lord’. Hence, by supplying the injunction
about meditation, the ‘Thumb-size’ Úruti should be interpreted as sermonizing meditation.
Here in the opponent’s view meditation on the embodied soul is meant, whereas
the vedântin asserts that the knowledge of Supreme Brahman is implied.
Doubt: The Úruti declares, ‘The Being (Purus+a) of the size of thumb sits inside
the heart’ (Kath. Up. 2.1.12), ‘That Being is akin to a smokeless light. He is the ruler of
the past, present and the future. He exists today and He will exist tomorrow also. This is
That’ (Kath. Up. 2.1.13). Here arises a doubt whether the thumb sized being is the embodied
soul or the Supreme Brahman?
thoeknk; r=ks'kkuks¿Lehfr Hkko;sfnfr foè;è;kgkjs.kksiklukijRoeÄ~xq"BokD;&

L;kH;qis;fefr n`"VkUrlaxR;snekgµ
(87) 'kCnknso izfer% AA24AA
v=k iwoZi{ks thoksiklua iQya] fl¼kUrs ijekReèkh% iQyfefr r;ksHksZn%A
^vÄ~xq"Bek=k% iq#"kks eè;s vkRefu fr"Bfr* ^vÄ~xq"Bek=k% iq#"kks T;ksfrfjokèkwed%A
bZ'kkuks HkwrHkO;L; l ,ok| l m 'o%*AA (dñ 2@4@12&13) bR;kfnokD;e=k
fopkjfo"k;%A r=kkÄ~xq"Bek=k% iq#"kks tho%] ijekRek osfr lUnsgs_ lksikfèkdRokTtho
bfr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq & izferks¿Ä~xq"Bek=kizferks¿;a iq#"k% ijekReSo HkforqegZfrA
d .in
dqr%\ 'kCnkr~A ^bZ'kkuks HkwrHkO;L;s* R;knkS fujÄ~dq'kS'o;ZJo.kkr~A u pkÄ~xq"Bek=kRoa
thofyÄ~eLrhfr okP;a_ fyÄ~xJqR;ks% Jqrjs o t .in
s cyh;LRokr~A ,oa p vÄ~x"q Bek=kthoeuw|
u es
czãkHksncksèkuk; ijekReuks¿I;Ä~xq"Bek=kRoeqii|rsA fda p ^vU;=k èkekZn&
ta q
U;=kk¿èkekZnU;=kkLekRÑrkÑrkr~* (dñ 1@2@14) bfr izÑrL;So i`"VL; czã.k ^,r}S
a n
d
rr~* bR;=kkuqlUèkkuknfi ijekReSo izfer bfrAA24AA
e
Opponent: The embodied soul, in v
to here by the Úruti texts.
u li@ its form limited by adjuncts, is the one referred
a t
r say,
Vedântin: To thisdwe
re n
n a Úabdâdeva pramitah+ (24)
.
dTher thumb-sized being is Brahman, for the word ‘ruler’ is used to designate It.
The thumb sized being can be the Supreme Brahman alone, since the Úruti declares
it to be the ruler of the past, present and the future, thereby endowing it with unrestrained
grandeur. If asserted that the phrase ‘thumb-size’ mentioned in the Úruti is an indicatory
sign of the embodied soul and not of supreme Brahman; we say that such assertion is
incorrect, for the Úruti is accepted to be stronger than the indicatory sign. The text, ‘This
is That’ (Kath. Up. 2.1.13), refers to the entity enquired about in the beginning by Naciketâ
by the question, ‘Tell me of that entity that is different from virtue and vice, different
from cause and effect and different from past and future’ (Kath. Up. 1.2.14). In response
to this query the description of that entity has been given in the Úruti texts (ibid. 2.1.12-
13) under contemplation. Hence the thumb-sized Being is none other but Brahman only.
(24)
(88) â|is{k;k rq euq";kfèkdkjkr~ AA25AA

uuq thoL; ijekFkZr% loZxrczãLo:iRosu dFkeÄ~x"q Bek=kRofefr 'kÄïkO;ko`R;Fk±
lkS=kLrq'kCn%A loZxrL;kfi ijekReuks ân;s¿oLFkkueis{;kdk'kL; oa'kiokZis{k&
ejfRuek=kRofeokÄ~xq"Bek=kRoeqii|rsA euq";kfèkdkjkr~A 'kkL=ks"kq euq";k.kkefèkdkjkÙkn~&
ân;L;kÄ~xq"Bek=kRokÙknis{k;k¿Ä~xq"Bek=kRoa czã.kks¿fo#¼e~A vrks¿Ä~xq"Bek=k&
okD;izfrik|% ijekReSosfr fl¼e~AA25AA
(26) (8 nsorkfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 26&33)
Hr+dyapeks+ayâ tu manus+yâdhikârât (25)
.in
But the size is spoken of from the perspective of Its existence ind
the heart; for only the humans have a right to the scriptures. t.i
n the space within
u es
t a
If the individual soul is acknowledged transcendentally q to be identical to Brahman
a
and hence endowed with attributes of all-pervasiveness n etc, then how can it be ever
declared to be thumb-sized? The word ‘tu’ (but)
v edin thein theheartaphorism is meant to negate such
li @ within the segment of a bamboo is spoken of

objection. The all-pervasive Brahman resides of the size of thumb; hence It is
tu Brahman, though all-pervading, is spoken of as

called as being thumb-sized. Just as space
being thumb-sized due to its

d a
as being a segment in length, similarly
r abode in the heart of the size of thumb. The space within the
human heart, which n
a r e is being spoken of here, is approximately the size of thumb only.
r. n
Though the hearts
a right to scriptures,
of other creatures have varying sizes, but since only the humans have
hence the thumb size applying to the human heart has been specified.
Henced the thumb-sized being is none else but Brahman only. (25)
Topic 8: Devatâdhikarana
(The Gods)
In the previous adhikarana it was declared that only the humans have a right to
scriptures. If this be so then beings other than humans, like gods etc., should have no
right to scriptures. The current adhikarana thus commences in response to such objection.
Or, after declaring the right of humans to scriptures, the question of the right of
gods arises; and hence the current adhikarana commences as a continuation of the topic.
iwo± 'kkL=kseuq";kfèkdkjks¿fHkfgr'psÙkáZeuq";k.kka nsoknhuka r=kkfèkdkjks u

L;kfnR;kf{kI; lekèkkrqfeR;k{ksilaxR;k] izlaxlaxR;k osnekgµ
(89) rnqi;Zfi cknjk;.k% lEHkokr~ AA26AA
iwoZi{ks¿=k eU=kknhukeizkek.;knqixeuknhuka okD;kukefi LokFksZ izkek.;kHkk&
okÙkÙoeL;knsjfi uSD;fu"BRoa iQya] fl¼kUrs rRloZlEHkoknSD;fu"BRoa iQyfefrHksn%A
^bUæks g oS nsokukefHkizoozkt* (Nkñ 8@7@2) ^r|ks ;ks nsokuka izR;cqè;r l ,o
rnHkofn (c`ñ 1@4@10) R;kfnokD;afopkjfo"k;%A r=k fda nsoknhuka czãfo|k&
;kefèkdkjks¿fLr u osfr la'k;s_ ukLrhfr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq & rnqi;Zfi rs"kka
d .in
euq";k.kkeqifj"Vk|s nsokn;Lrs"kkefi czãfo|k;kefèkdjks¿Lrhfr cknj.kkpk;ksZ¿eU;rA
t.in
dqr%\ lEHkokr~A rs"kkeI;fFkZRolkeF;kZ|fèkdkjdkj.kL; lEHkokr~A r=kkfFkZRoa
u es
rkoUeks{kfo"k;a fodkjfo"k;foHkwR;kykspukfnfufeÙka nsoknhukefi lEHkofrA rFkk
ta q
the knowledge of Brahman that he had receivedd an
Doubt: The Shrutis declare, ‘Indra went before the gods and preached to them
e from Prajâpati’ (Ch. Up. 8.7.2), ‘Amongst

the gods whosoever realized that Brahmanvbecame Brahman himself’ (Br. Up. 1.4.10).
Here arises a doubt whether the godsl @ a right to the knowledge of Brahman or not?
ihave
u
t corroborative passages, anecdotes, mythology etc.
Opponent: The Vedic a
drthe gods have bodies. Moreover they have no hankering for
verses,
are unable to establishn
re do not have the right to knowledge.
that
liberation; henceathey
r . n
dVedântin: To this we say,
Taduparyapi bâdarâyan+ah sambhavât (26)
According to Bâdarâyana, the beings higher than the humans too have a right
to the knowledge of Brahman, for that is possible.
According to the teacher Bâdarâyana, the gods too have a right to the knowledge
of Brahman, since they too fulfill the eligibility criterion necessary for the pursuance of
such knowledge. (It must be understood that the gods have no competence for rites, as
they have no gods to sacrifice to.) The gods too have a hankering for emancipation since
they may also develop dispassion towards their grandeur and pleasure after appreciating
lkeF;Zefi rs"kkeLR;so] eU=kkFkZoknsfrgkliqjk.kyksdsH;ks foxzgoÙok|oxekr~A Lo;a

izfrHkkrosnRokn~] fo|kxzg.kkFk±* ,d'kra g oS o"kkZf.k e?kokUiztkirkS czãp;Zeqokl*
(Nkñ 8@11@3) bR;knkS czãp;Zokln'kZukPp uksiu;ukHkkoks fo|kfèkdkjfuorZd%A
rLekísoknhukefi fo|kLofèkdkjs¿Ä~xq"Bek=kJqfr% LokÄ~xq"Bkis{k;k u fo#è;rsAA26AA
(90) fojksèk% deZ.khfr psUukusdizfriÙksnZ'kZukr~ AA27AA
uuq nsoknhuka foxzgoÙok|H;qixesu fo|kLofèkdjks of.kZr%A ,oa p
foxzgoÙokn`fRoxkfnofnUæknhukefi Lo:ilfUuèkkusu dekZÄ~xRoeH;qis;e~A rnk p
deZf.k fojksèk% L;kr~_ rs"kka Lo:ilfUuèkkusu ;kxkÄ~xRokn'kZukr~] cgq"kq ;kxs"kq ;qxinsd&
L;sUæL; Lo:ilfUuèkkurk¿lEHkokPpsfr psUu] vusdizfriÙksnZ'kZukr~A ,dL;kihUækfn&
. in
in d Moreover
s .
its impermanence, and hence may have the desire for attaining eternal happiness.
t bodies, as is known
e
the gods are endowed with the competence too, since they too possess
from the Vedas, their corroborative passages, mythology etc.u
q Also one doesn’t come across
a theinstructs
ntthat
any scriptural text that disqualifies them from attaining
for the assertion that one doesn’t come across anyatext
knowledge of Brahman. As
v e d
with the sacred thread (upanayana) that is essential
the gods to be invested
to pursue the study of Vedas, then we
@
of the impressions of their previouslibirths. Hence they have no need to study the Vedas.
say that the meaning of the Vedas robotically becomes known to the gods on the strength
u for their investiture with the sacred thread. On
tinstruction
a
racross instances of the gods living at the gurukula (teacher’s
Therefore there is no scriptural
d
the other hand one comes
r e
residence) under a vow nof continence (brahmacarya) to attain the knowledge of Brahman.
The Úruti says,a
. n ‘Indra
(Ch. Up.r8.11.3).
lived with Prajapati for hundred years under the vow of continence’
the fatedof thumb Úruti versus the gods is concerned, we say that the Úruti text remains
Hence the gods too have a right to the knowledge of Brahman. As for
valid as long as their own thumbs are kept in view. (26)
Virodhah+ karman+îti caennânekapratipatterdarúanât (27)
If asserted that this would give rise to a contradiction in the matter of rites; we
say, not so, for from the scriptures they are seen to assume many forms.
Opponent: If we acknowledge that the gods too possess bodies, as has been
declared in the previous aphorism, we will then have to admit that gods like Indra etc.
also participate physically in rites, akin to the participation of human priests etc. But this
nsoL;kusds"kka 'kjhjk.kka ;qxiRizkIrsnZ'kZukr~A rFkkfg ^dfr nsok%* bR;qiØE; ^=k;'p =kh

p 'krk] =k;'p =kh p lgÏk* bfr fu#P; ^dres rs* bfr iz'us efgeku ,oS"kkesrs]
=kfL=ka'kÙoso nsok%* (c`ñ 3@9@1&2) bR;kfnJqfrjsdL;So nsoL;kusd:irka] r=kkfi
Øes.kkUrHkkZO; izk.kSd:irka nsokuka p n'kZ;frA ,oa pkusd:iizfrifÙklEHkoknsdSdk
nsork cgq:iSjkRekua foHkT; cgq"kq ;kxs"kq ;qxinÄ~xHkkoa ;krhfrA ijS'p u
n`';rs¿UrèkkZukfnfØ;k;ksxkfnfrHkko%A ;}k¿usd=k deZf.k ,dL; izfriÙksjÄ~xHkkoL;
yksds n'kZukr~A ;Fkk cgqfHkuZeLdqokZ.kS;qZxinsdks czkã.kks uefLØ;rsA rFksgksís'kifj&
R;kxkRedRok|kxL; foxzgorheI;sdka nsorkeqfí'; cgo% Loa Loa æO;a ;qxir~
ifjR;{kUrhfr foxzgoÙos¿fi nsokuka u deZf.k fdf×pf}#è;rsAA27AA
d .in
(91) 'kCns bfr psUukr% izHkokRizR;{kkuqekukH;ke~
t. inAA28AA
u esetc. physically attending
ta q
will lead to contradictions, as none has ever seen gods like Indra
to be physically present at many sacrifices at thea n time.

any rites. Moreover, on assigning a body to the gods, it will not be possible for Indra etc.
v e d same
li@concurrently,
Vedântin: To this we say that such
the capability of assuming manyu
contradiction does not arise as the gods have
a t bodies and hence they can attend many
d r
sacrifices simultaneously. Shâkalya asks Yâjñavalkaya, ‘How many gods are there’ (Br.
n
Up. 3.9.1). The latter replies, ‘Three hundred and three, and three thousand and three’.
e are those’. The reply comes, ‘These are but their manifestations;
When asked again,r‘Which
but factually n a
that each r
d .
god
there are only thirty three gods’ (Br. Up. 3.9.2). Thus the Úruti establishes
can have many forms simultaneously. Furthermore the Úruti also shows
that these many forms can be ultimately incorporated into one God – the Hiranyagarbha
(The Vital Force) (Br. Up. 3.9.9). Hence the gods can assume varied forms simultaneously
and can thus attend multiple sacrifices concurrently. The others are unable to see them
since they are endowed with the power of remaining invisible.
Or this aphorism may alternatively be explained as below:
As a single subject may sometimes become associated with many acts

simultaneously, akin to the case of many people offering salutations concurrently to a
single Brahmin; similarly many persons, according to their desires and competence, may
make their offerings to a single embodied god. Thus there is no contradiction. (27)
uuq ekLrq nsoknhuka foxzgoÙos deZf.k df'pf}jksèk%] 'kCns rq fojksèk% izlT;sr\

rFkkfg nsoknhukeLenkfnonfuR;foxzgorka fuR;osnkFkZRokH;qixes fuR;osnkRed'kCn&
L;kfuR;foxzgork nsosu lg fuR;lEcUèkkHkkokfUuR;kfuR;;ks% lEcUèks fojksèk%A
^fuR;s'kCnkFkZlEcUèks* bR;kfnuk fuR;% 'kCnks¿FkZLrRlEcUèk'psR;H;qisR; oSfnds 'kCns
izkek.;a fLFkra] r=k fojksèk% L;kfnfr psUu] vr% izHkokr~A vr ,o oSfndkPNCnkr~
nsokfntxr% izHkoknqRiÙks%A uuq ^tUek|L; ;r%* bR;=k czãizHkoRos txrks¿oèkkfjrs
dFka iqu% 'kCnizHkoRoeqP;rsA fda pksP;ekus¿fi 'kCnizHkoRos oLokfnnsokuk&
Úabda iti caennâtah+ prabhavâtpratyâks+ânumânâbhyâm (28)
.i n
If asserted that then would arise a contradiction with the Vedic words; we say,
in d
not so, for the world together with the gods are created from these words, and this is
known from direct revelation and inference.
st .
e
u no contradiction arises in
t a
Opponent: On admitting bodies for the gods, though q
matter of their association with the rites, but stilln
a contradictions persist with respect to
the Vedic pronouncements. On assuming thedgods to be embodied, they too, like us,
ebodies, and therefore their connection with
would become associated with impermanent v
@ In other words the Vedas are eternal, and
i
eternal Vedic verses would becomelimpossible.
u the association between the Vedic verses and their
so should be their meaning, astalso
meanings. But no embodied
d a
r being can be eternal. Hence under these circumstances there
cannot be an eternaln
re relation between the gods with impermanent bodies and eternal
a admission
r . n
Vedic verses, since
eternal entity. The
there is an opposition in relation between an impermanent and an
of the authority of Vedas is subsequent to admitting eternality
d words, their meanings and their relation. Hence, on admitting bodies for the
of the Vedic
gods, there would indeed arise a contradiction with the Vedas.
Vedântin: There is no contradiction; for the entire universe including the gods
etc. arises from Vedic words only.
Opponent: The origin of Universe has already been demonstrated from Brahman
in the aphorism, ‘That from which this Universe in born etc.’ (1.1.2), then how can you
propound its origin from the Vedic words? Even if it be acknowledged that the Universe
arises from Vedic words, it will then lead to admitting the births of the gods like ‘Vasu’
etc. also, and that would entail their impermanence. This would then lead to the
eqRifÙkeÙosuk¿fuR;RokÙk}kpdoLokfn'kCnkukefuR;RoizlÄ~xkPNCns fojksèkLrnoLFk ,osfr

psUu_ vkÑfrfHk% lg 'kCnkuka lEcUèkkH;qixekr~] O;DrhukekuUR;kRlEcUèk&
xzg.kkuqiiÙks'pA xokfnO;DrhukeqRifÙkeÙos¿fi rnkÑrhukeqRiÙ;HkkokÙkS% lg r}kpdkuka
fuR;'kCnkuka fuR;lEcUèkkH;qixes 'kCns RonqDrfojksèkkHkkokr~A 'kCnizHkoRoa p txrks
czãizHkoRooUuksiknkudkj.kkfHkizk;s.kkfHkera] fda rfgZ_ fLFkrs okpdkReuk fuR;s 'kCns
fuR;kFkZlEcUèks 'kCnO;ogkj;ksX;kFkZO;fDrfu"ifÙk%A uuq 'kCnizHkoRoa nsokfntxr%
dFkeoxE;rs\ izR;{kkuqekukH;ke~A izR;{ka Jqfr%] Loizkek.;a izR;uis{kRokr~A vuqekua
Le`fr%] Loizkek.;a izfr lkis{kRokr~A ^,rs bfr oS iztkifrnsZokul`tr* bR;kfnJqfr%
^vukfnfuèkuk fuR;k okxqRl`"Vk Lo;EHkqokA vknkS osne;h fuR;k ;r% lokZ% izo`Ùk;%*AA
d .in
mRlxZRoa pk=k lEiznk;izorZukRedRoa æ"VO;e~A ,oa ôsn'kCnsH; ,oknkS fueZes l
t.in
es
impermanence of Vedic words like ‘Vasu’ etc. that relate touimpermanent
ta q implications.
Hence the contradiction would remain as before.
a n
Vedântin: Though the bodies of gods ed
v these eternal general features that eternal
like Indra etc. are impermanent, yet their
general features are eternal; and it is@
association of Vedic words should beliadmitted. For instance though one may admit to the
with
birth etc. of a cow, as a newabody tu is assumed at the time of birth, but yet the general
d r species are not created anew every time a cow is born.
n
features that characterize the
rate birth.theSimilar
Hence the relation between cow and the cow-hood remains eternal, even though fresh
n a
.
bodies are assumed
dr everlasting
from Vedic
is the case of gods. By stating the origin of the world
words, does not mean that the Vedic words are the material cause of the
world. The relation between an eternal word and its meaning is what makes
the usage of that word empirically possible, by ascribing it to an individual taking birth.
This is what is meant by stating the origin of world from Vedic words. This is known
from the Vedas as well as the Smr+tis, the former being the source of direct revelation, as
they do not depend on any other source of knowledge, where as the latter is the source of
inferred disclosure, for the Smr+tis depend on other sources for their validity. The Vedas
declare, “The Prajâpati created the gods by reflecting on the word ‘ete’ (these); He created
humans by thinking of the word ‘asrgram’ etc.” (Rg. Veda. 9.62), wherein the word ‘ete’
reminds Him of the gods and the word ‘asrgram’ reminds Him of men, since their bodies
have blood. The Smr+ti too declares, ‘At the beginning of creation, the Prajapâti manifested
the eternal divine speech in the form of Vedas, and from that speech commenced all
activity’. The manifestation of Vedas should be comprehended in the sense of initiating
egs'oj%* (euqñ 1@21) bR;kfnLe`fr%A vr% 'kCnizHkoRoL; nsokfnO;Drhuka lEHkokr~

rnkÑR;k lg lEcUèkL; fuR;RokPp foxzgoRos¿fi nsoknhuka u 'kCns df'pf}jksèk%
bfr fl¼e~AA28AA
uuq LorU=kL; dÙkqZjLej.kkfnfHk% fLFkrs osnL; fuR;Ros rík<ÔkZ; ^vr% izHkokr~*
bfr nsoknhuka osnHkoRokfHkèkkusu rnqRikndosnL;kfi izHkoizlÄ~xknfuR;Roek'kÄïÔkgµ
(92) vr ,o p fuR;Roe~ AA29AA
vr ,o & fu;rkÑrsnsZoknstZxrks osn'kCnizHkoRok}sn'kCns fuR;Roefi
izR;srO;fefrAA29AA
uuq egkizy;s =kSyksD;L; izyhur;k¿¿ÑrsjfiizyhuRokPNCnkFkZlEcUèkL;k&
.in
fuR;RofojksèkLrnoLFk ,osR;k'kÄïÔkg&
in d
.
t ti also declares,
sManusmr+
u e
their propagation through the tradition of teachers and pupils. The
‘In the beginning, The Lord created the worlds from theqVedic words only’ (Manu. Sm.
n a
t words with the eternal general
features of different species, the contradictiond
e a the bodies of gods and the Vedas
1.21). Hence on admitting the eternal association of Vedic
involving
is solved. (28)
@ v
u li
a
None has any recollectiont of an independent author of the Vedas, and hence the
d r
eternality of the Vedas is taken for granted. The contradiction about the eternality of the
r e n for the gods has also been clarified in the last aphorism. Now
Vedas on assuming bodies
n a
the next aphorism reaffirms this eternality of Vedas form the perspective of the very fact
r .
of the emergence
d
of creation from the Vedic words.
Ata eva ca nityatvam (29)
And from this very reason follows the eternality of the Vedas.
From the very fact that world of gods and others, having eternal general features,
emerge from the Vedic words, it follows that the Vedic words also are eternal. Seer
Vedvyâsa also declares, ‘The Vedas that had vanished along with the anecdotes at the
time of the great dissolution (mahâ pralaya), were received by the great seers through
austerities’, thereby proving the eternality of the Vedas. (29)
(93) lekuuke:iRokPpko`ÙkkoI;fojksèkks n'kZukRLe`rs'p AA30AA

egkizy;kH;qixes¿fi Lokiizcksèk;ksfjokukfnlalkjs izy;izHko;ksjko`Ùkkofi izy;s
izi×pL; laLdkjkReuk Loksiknkukfo|k;ka lÙosu iwoZfLeu~ dYis ;Fkk izi×pL;
uke:is] r}nqÙkjdYiizi×pL; uke:iRoknkÑrsfuZR;Rosu u 'kCnkFkZlEcUèkL;k&
fuR;Rofojksèk% 'kÄïuh;%A rFkk p lekuuke:iRoa JqfrLe`frH;ka fl¼feR;kg &
n'kZukRLe`rs'psfrA ^lw;kZpUæelkS èkkrk ;Fkk iwoZedYi;fn (Í-la- 10@190@3)
frJqrs% ^;FkrqZ"o`rqfyÄ~xkfu uke:ikf.k i;Z;sA n`';Urs rkfu rkU;so rFkk Hkkok
;qxkfn"kqAA* bR;kfnLe`rs'psfr Hkko%AA30AA
uuq nsoknhukefi czãfo|k;keLR;fèkdkj bfr ;RizfrKkra] r=kkg&
d.in
t .intime of the great
Opponent: When all the three worlds are destroyed at
dissolution, and all names and forms too perish without a u es then the continuity of
the
relation between a word and its meaning that makes t a

the qusage of that word empirically
trace,
a n of the Vedic words crops up

ve d
possible is also lost. In that case the defect of non-eternality
again. This is being clarified in the next aphorism,
l @
ittâvapyavirodho
Samânanâmrûpatvâccâvr+
t u darúanâtsmr+teúca (30)
d ra to the eternality of the Vedas, for the same names

r
and forms are repeatede nin every fresh worldy cycle, for such is known from the Úrutis
And there is no contradiction
and Smritis. a
r. n
dLike a person going into deep-sleep (sus+upti), where all name and form vanishes,
finds no discontinuity in existence on waking up, similarly at the time of dissolution of
the universe, the entire creation continues to exists in a potential state (as a seed) in
Nescienec (ignorance), and manifests again ‘as before’ at the time of the next cycle of
creation. Hence there is no break with respect to the varied names and forms that existed
in the previous cycle inasmuch as the same names and forms manifest again. The Vedas
declare, ‘The designer of the Universe created the sun, moon etc. just like what they were
in the previous cycle’ (Rg. Veda. 10.190.3). The Smriti too declares, ‘Just as signs of
various seasons like spring etc. are seen to revolve serially, similarly all names and things
emerge at the beginning of the cycle, exactly conforming to what they were in the previous
cycle’ (Mbh. Shânti. 231.58, 210.17). Hence no defect vis-a-vis the eternality of Vedas
arises. (30)
(94) eèokfn"olEHkoknufèkdkja tSfefu% AA31AA

nsoknhuka czãfo|k;keufèkdkja tSfefujkpk;ksZ eU;rsA dqr%\ eèokfn"olEHkokr~
& ^vlkS oko vkfnR;ks nsoeèkq* (Nkñ 3@1@1) ^vkfnR;ks czãsR;kns'k%* (Nkñ
3@11@1) ôk;qokZo laoxZ%* (Nkñ 4@3@1) bR;kfn"kq eèkqczãlaoxkZè;klsukfnR;kfn&
nsorksiklus"kq euq";kfèkdkjds"kq rs"kkesokfnR;kfnnsokukefèkdkjklEHkokr~A ;rks fg
Hksnfu"BRosuksikluk;k ,dL;ksikL;ksikldHkkoks¿lEHko%A rLekn=k czãfo|k;ka
nsoknhukeufèkdkjks] fo|kRokfo'ks"kkr~ eèokfnfo|kLoufèkdkjofnfr iz;ksxks¿fi
lEHkorhfr Hkko%AA31AA
(95) T;ksfrf"k HkkokPp AA32AA
.in
n d
The assertion that the gods too have a right to the knowledge of Brahman, is
i
being objected to in the next two aphorisms,
s t.
. u e
Madhvâdis+vasambhavâdanadhikaram
t a qJaiminih+ (31)
a nto the knowledge of Brahman on
Jaimini says that the gods have no right
account of the impossibility of their being v d
equalified for Madhu vidyâ etc.
li @
According to the teacher uJaimini the gods have no right to the knowledge of
tthem
d r
Brahman, as it is impossible a
for to have any right to the Madhu-vidyâ etc. (meditation
en
concerning honey). The Úruti declares, ‘Indeed this sun is madhu (honey) to the gods’
r the meditation on the sun as honey is propounded by the Úruti.
a
(Ch. Up. 3.1.1), wherein
n is impossible for the sun god. Similarly in other meditations like, ‘Meditate
r.
This meditation
on the d
sun as Brahman’ (Ch. Up. 3.19.1), ‘Air is the place of merger’ (Ch. Up. 4.3.1) etc.,
wherein mediations on the gods themselves are promulgated, it is obvious that those very
gods cannot participate in these mediations, for there has to be a difference with respect
to the meditator and the object of meditation. The subject and object of meditation cannot
be the same. Hence, akin to Madhu-vidyâ etc., the gods have no right to the Brahman-
vidyâ too, since both are analogous inasmuch as the ‘vidyâ’ part (knowledge) is concerned.
(31)
Further reason to prove the disentitlement of gods for attaining the knowledge of
Brahman is being given in the next aphorism,
Jyotis+i bhâvâcca (32)

vufèkdkjfeR;uqorZrsA dqr'p nsoknhukeufèkdkja eU;rs\ T;ksfrf"k |qLFkkue&

gksjk=kkH;ka caHkzeTtxnoHkklda T;ksfreZ.Mya yksds izfl¼e~A r=kSokfnR;kn;ks nsorkokpdk%
'kCnk% iz;qT;Urs_ yksdizfl¼sokZD;'ks"kizfl¼s'pA rLekUe`nkfnonpsruRokoxesu
foxzgkfnerks T;ksfreZ.MyL; izR;{kk|xkspjRokr~ u r=kkfFkZRokfnda lEHkofrA
nsofoxzgkfnizfrikndeU=kkFkZoknsfrgkliqjk.kyksdkukeU;ijRosu LokFksZ rkRi;kZHkkokUu
nsoknhuka czãfo|k;kefèkdkj%AA32AA
(96) Hkkoa rq cknjk;.kks¿fLr fg AA33AA
lkS=kLrq 'kCn% lw=k};ksDriwoZi{kO;korZd%A cknjk;.kLRokpk;ksZ eèkqfo|k&
fn"ofèkdkjkHkkos¿fi nsoknhuka foxzgoRosu czãfo|k;kefèkdkjL; Hkkoa eU;rsA dqr%\
d .in
t. in
Moreover the words are used with respect to the spheres
u es of light.
The words suns etc., which are indicative of tgods, a q are applied to the illumined
a n motion thereby illuminating the
bodies that exist in Space and remain in continuous
d
worlds. Moreover the usage of these wordsein this sense is universally prevalent, and
v portion of the text concerning the
@
liare lacking in body parts like heart etc., as also in
such usage is also seen in the complementary
Madhuvidyâ. These illumined bodies
tu
r
sentience and desire. These area insentient like the earth etc., and hence have no competence
dany knowledge. The Vedas, their corroborative passages,
r e n
whatsoever for attaining
a
mythology etc. that talk of the bodies of gods, in reality mean something else. Hence the
gods etc. havenno right to the knowledge of Brahman. (32)
dTher.next aphorism refutes the view-point of Jaimini presented in the above two
sutras.
.
Bhâvam tu Bâdarâyanoasti hi (33)
But Bâdarâyana says that the gods are eligible, for they possess the pre-requisites
of knowledge.
The word ‘tu’ (but) in the sutra is to refute the Jaimini’s view-point. According to
the teacher Bâdarâyana the gods, even though not having any right to Madhuvidyâ etc.,
have a right to the knowledge of Brahman, for the gods are seen and heard to possess
rs"oI;fFkZRolkeF;kZ|fèkdkjdkj.keLR;soA ufg Dofpnfèkdkjks¿lEHko bR;srkork

lEHkokfèkdkjks¿I;iks|sr\ czkã.kL; jktlw;s¿ufèkdkjs¿fi c`gLifrlos¿fèkdkjn'kZukr~A
u p rs"kka foxzgoÙokHkko bfr okP;e~_ rRizfrikndeU=kknhuka ekukUrjfojksèkkHkkosu
izek.kRokfnfrA rLekUeU=kkfnH;ks foxzgoÙokoxeknfFkZRokfnlEHkokPp nsoknhukefi
czãfo|k;keqiiUuks¿fèkdkj%AA33AA
(27) (9 vi'kwÊkfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 34&38)
iwo± ;Fkk ^r|ks ;ks nsokuke~----*bfr nsokfn'kCnJqR;k euq";kfèkdkjfu;eeiks|
bodies. They too have a desire for emancipation and are also endowed with the competence
in
to attain such knowledge. It is inappropriate to deny their right at places where such right
.
in d
is possible, even though they may be ineligible for certain meditations. For instance a
st .
Brahmin may not be eligible to perform the ‘Rajasûya’ sacrifice, which might be the
e
pleasure of a Kshatriya only, but still his right to perform the ‘Br+haspati’ sacrifice cannot
u
ta q
be denied. The assertion that the gods do not have bodies is totally inappropriate, since
n
various Vedic verses etc. bear testimony to the fact that the gods do possess bodies. These
a
v e d
verses should be accepted as valid means so far as they do not come into any contradiction
with other means. Hence the gods do have bodies as also the desire for emancipation and
li @
competence to such knowledge. Thus their right to the knowledge of Brahman is
indubitably established. (33)
tu
r a
d Topic 9: Apaúûdrâdhikarana
r e n
n a (The Right of Úûdra)
d r
The
. declaration of the Úruti, ‘Of the gods, those who realized Brahman became
Brahman themselves’ (Br. Up. 1.4.10), wherein due to the occurrence of the word ‘gods’,
their right to the knowledge of Brahman was accepted. Similarly one hears of the word
‘úûdra’ too in the Úruti, and hence their right to such knowledge should also be
acknowledged. This adhikarana commences to elucidate this theme.
Here in the opponent’s view the Úûdras too have a right to the knowledge of
Brahman, whereas in the vedântin’s view they do not possess such right.
Doubt: The Úruti declares, ‘O úûdra, keep to yourself your affluence together
with your chariot and cows’ (Ch. Up. 4.2.3). Here arises a doubt whether the ‘Úûdra’ has
any right to the knowledge of Brahman or not?
czãfo|k;ka nsoknhukeI;fèkdkjks¿fHkfgr%] rFksgk¿Lrq 'kwæ'kCnJo.ksu f}tkR;fèkdkj&

fu;eeiks| 'kwæL;kfi r=kkfèkdkj bfr n`"VkUrlaxR;snekgµ
(97) 'kqxL; rnuknjJo.kkÙknkæo.kkRlwP;rs fg AA34AA
v=k iwoZi{ks tkfr'kwæL;kfi czãfo|k;kefèkdkj%] fl¼kUrs ukfèkdkj% bfr
r;ks% iQyHksn%A laoxZfo|k;ke~ & ^vggkjs Rok 'kwæ! roSo lg xksfHkjLrq* (Nkñ
4@2@3) bR;kfnokD;a fopkjfo"k;%A r=kksDr'kwæL; czãfo|k;kefèkdkjks¿fLr u
osfr la'k;s_ vfèkdkjdkj.kkfFkZRolkeF;Z;ks% lEHkokr~ ^rLekPNwæks ;Ks¿uoDyÌr%
(rSñ lañ 7@1@1@6) bfror~ ^'kwæks fo|k;keleFkZ%* bfr fu"ksèkkJo.kkPp 'kwæL;kfi
d .in
t
Opponent: The Úûdra too has a right to the knowledge of Brahman
.in as, akin to
gods, he too possesses the desire for emancipation, and has thesbodily competence too.
q
Moreover, though one hears of the Shruti’s declaration, ‘Henceue the Úûdra is not eligible
n ta to perform sacrifice is denied;
to perform sacrifices’ (Tai. S. 7.1.1.6), wherein his right
d a of the knowledge of Brahman.
but one does not hear of any denial for the attainment
e
Moreover the Úruti, ‘O úûdra, keep to yourself
@ vindicatory mark confirming the competence
your affluence together with your chariot
of Úûdra for such knowledge. Here

t u lini the Úruti, King Jânaúruti, who went to Raikva for
and cows’ (Ch. Up. 4.2.3), carries a distinct
gaining knowledge, is beingacalled Úûdra by him (Raikva). Jânashruti was ultimately

given the knowledge. d
r
r e n
a
n To this we say,
r.
Vedântin:
d Shugasya tadanâdarashrvanâttadâdravanât sûchyatae hi (34)
Grief engulfed him (Jânaúruti) on hearing the contemptuous words of the
Swans, as is clear from his (Jânaúruti’s) approaching him (Raikava); for this is indicated
by the use of the word Úudra by Raikava.
The Úûdra has no right to the knowledge of Brahman, for though he may have the
desire and bodily competence but has no scriptural sanction. A Úûdra cannot study the
Vedas, as such study requires one to be invested with the ‘sacred thread’ beforehand.
Such investiture with the ‘sacred thread’ is only sanctioned for the three castes, and not
for the Úûdras. Moreover the Úruti declaring Úûdra as ineligible for performing sacrifices
czãfo|k;kefèkdkjks¿Lrhfr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq & iwoZLeknufèkdkjfefr ineuqoR;Z

izFkekUrRosu foifj.ks;e~A 'kwæL; czãfo|k;kefuèkdkj%A dqr%\ vL; rnuknjJo.kkr~A
^dEoj ,uesrRlUra l;qXokufeo jSDoekRFk* (Nkñ 4@1@3) bR;LEkk¼alokD;knkReuks¿uk&
njJo.kknL; tkuJqrs% ikS=kk;.kL; {kf=k;L; ;k 'kqxqRisns] lk fg jSDos.k LoL;
loZKRo[;kiukFk± 'kwæ'kCnsu lwP;rsA ;ksxo`R;k¿fi 'kwæ'kCnL; {kf=k;ijRoekg &
rnkæo.kkr~A rPNCnsu 'kqx~] tkuJqfr%] jSDoks ok ijke`';rsA rFkkfg ra 'kqpefHknqæko
izkIrokfuR;FkZ%A 'kqpk ok tkuJqfrjfHknqæqos izkIr bR;FkZ%A 'kqpk ok jSDoa tkuJqfrnqZæko
xrokfuR;FkZ%A rLekÙknkæo.kkfnfr Hkko%A ,oa p 'kwæs¿fFkZRolEHkos¿fi o.kZ=k;fo"k;&
dksiu;uiwod Z kè;;ukHkkokUu rL; fo|k;kefèkdkj%A ^'kwæks ;Ks¿uoDyÌr%* bfr U;k;L;
lkèkkj.kr;k czãfo|k;kefi 'kwæL;klkeF;± |ksr;rhfr cksè;e~AA34AA
.in
(98) {kf=k;Roxrs'pksÙkj=k pS=kjFksu fyÄ~xkr~.in d
AA35AA
e st
(Tai. S. 7.1.1.6), also suggests that Úûdra has no right to q theuknowledge too, for the same
logic applies to both. As far as the use of the wordn a
t in Raikva Úruti is concerned,
e d
then the word there refers to the ‘grief’ experienced aby Jânaúruti on hearing the conversation
‘Úûdra’
of the swans flying over his palace. The swan

@ v says to its fellow, ‘Hey, Who is the one who
can match the splendor of Raikva of
u litheembarrassed,
chariot; certainly that one is not Jânaúruti’ (Ch.
a
Up. 4.1.3). Hearing this Jânaúrutit felt and was engulfed in grief. And when
Raikva addressed himn drthe wordwith‘Úûdra’,

he went to meet Raikva, subdued grief, then on seeing the grief-stricken Jânaúruti,
omniscience also.a e with thereby demonstrating his (Raikava’s) own

rHence the use of the word ‘Úûdra’ is not to be taken in its conventional
r .
sense thereby n conferring eligibility for knowledge on Úûdra, but it has to be taken in its
d
etymological sense. Hence one who is a born Úûdra has no right to knowledge. Moreover
by the implication of the phrase ‘Tadâdravanât’, it becomes clear that the word Úûdra
suggests grief. The phrase ‘Tadâdravanât’ can be construed to imply – a) He (Jânaúruti)
approached towards that grief; or b) He (Jânaúruti) was approached by that grief; or c) He
rushed to that (Raikva) because of grief. Hence the derived meaning of the word ‘Úûdra’
has to be accepted as the original meaning is unacceptable. (34)
Ks+atriyatvagateúcottaratra caitrarathena lingât (35)
And because his (Jânaúruti’s) ks+atriyahood is evident from the indicatory sign
of his being mentioned along with the descendent of Citraratha.
br'p u tkuJqfrtkZfr'kwæ%A mÙkj=k & laoxZfo|kokD;'ks"ks pS=kjFksu izfl¼&

{kf=k;s.kkfHkizrkfj.kk lg lekuk;ka fo|k;ka ladhrZufyÄ~xkr~ tkuJqrsjfi {kf=k;Roko&
xrsfjR;FkZ%A lekutkrh;kukeso izk;s.k lgpkjn'kZusu tkuJqrs% {kf=k;Rokoxfr%A vrks
u tkfr'kwæL; czãfo|k;kefèkdkj bfr Hkko%AA35AA
(99) laLdkjijke'kkZÙknHkkokfHkykikPp AA36AA
br'p u fo|k;ka tkfr'kwæL;kfèkdkj%] ;f}|kizns'ks"kq ^ra gksifuU;s* ('kñczkñ
11@5@3@13) ^vèkhfg Hkxo bfr gksillkn* (Nkñ 7@1@1) ^rs g lfeRik.k;ks
HkxoUra fiIiykneqilUuk%* (izñ 1@1) bR;kfn"kwiu;ukfnlaLdkjk.kka ijke'kkZr~A uUosoa
d
rfgZ 'kwæL;ksiu;ua dYiuh;fefr psUu_ rnHkokfHkykikPpA û 'kwæs ikrda fdf×pUu.in
p laLdkjegZfr* (eñ 10@12@6) bR;kfnuk rL; 'kwæL;ksiu;ukfnlaLdk& t. in
jkHkkodFkukfnR;FkZ%AA36AA u es
ta q
a n as he is mentioned along with the
Furthermore Jânaúruti was not a Úûdra by caste
v d
ealone
Ks+atriya Caitraratha Abhipratârina in the complementary text of the ‘samvarga vidyâ’. In
i@amongst the persons of same caste. Hence the

common parlance it is well known that equals
events like eating together etc. are lseen
u
are mentioned together. Traditionally
a
person who is born Úûdra has no t right to the knowledge of Brahman. (35)
d r
r e n
Sanskâraparâmarúâttadabhâvâbhilâpâcca (36)
n a the purificatory rites are mentioned for the others, and their
r.
absencedis declared for the Úudra.
And because
Furthermore, the Úûdras are ineligible for ceremonies like investiture with the
‘sacred thread’ etc., which are essential pre-requisites for studying the Vedas to gain
knowledge. In the context of Vedic knowledge, it is declared, ‘He (the teacher) vested
him (the pupil) with the sacred thread’ (Sh. B. 11.5.3.13). The Chândogya Úruti declares,
‘Uttering holy (Vedic) hymns, Nârada approached Sanatkumara and said, O Sir, teach
me’ (Ch. Up. 7.1.1). Similarly the Praúnopanis+ad declares, ‘They went to venerable
Pippalâda with sacrificial faggots in hands’ (Pr. Up. 1.1). These Úrutis demonstrate the
existence of certain purification rites like investiture with ‘sacred thread’ etc., which are
prohibited for Úûdras. The Smr+tis declare, ‘The Úûdra incurs no sin, nor he undergoes
any purification rites’ (Manu. Sm. 10.126). Hence the Úûdra has no right to knowledge.
(36)
(100) rnHkkofuèkkZj.ks p izo`Ùks% AA37AA

brks u tkfr'kwæL;kfèkdkj%A ;fRdy rL; tkckyL; ^lk¿gesrUuosn
;n~xks=kLRoefl] tckyk rq ukekgefLe lR;dkeks uke Roefl] l lR;dke ,o
tkckyks czqohFkk bfr* (Nkñ 4@4@2) bfrJqR;k lR;opusu 'kwæRokHkkos fuèkkZfjrs
ûSrnczkã.kks fooDrqegZfr* (Nkñ 4@4@5) bR;usu xkSreL; tkckyeqiusrqeuq'kkflrqa
p izo`ÙksfjfrHkko%AA37AA
(101) Jo.kkè;;ukFkZizfr"ksèkkRLe`rs'p AA38AA
br'p u tkfr'kwæL; fo|k;kefèkdkj%A ;R[kyq Le`rs% ^vFk osneqi&
'k`.orL=kiqtrqH;ka Jks=ka ifjiwj.ke~* ^rLekPNwælehis ukè;srO;e~* û 'kwæk; efra
.in
Tadabhâvanirdhâran+e ca pravr+tteh+ (37) .in
d
e st
q u to Satyakâma only after
And because Gautama decided to impart knowledge
ascertaining that the latter was not a Úudra.
n ta
e d a
Further reason as to why the Úûdras
given. In the Chândogya Upanishadioccurs@ v thehavestorynoofright to Vedic knowledge is being
t
the mother of Satyakâma, tells herusonl that if the teacher at guru-kula asks him regarding
Satyakâma Jâbâla. There Jâbâla,
d r
his caste etc., then he shouldaonly reply thus, ‘My mother does not know my caste. I only
know that my name n
Satyakâma Jâbâla’ e is Satyakâma and my mother’s name is Jâbâla, and hence I am
ar(Ch.concluded
Up. 4.4.2). Hearing this truthful utterance from the pupil’s mouth,
r n
the teacher.Gautama that Satyakâma cannot be a Úûdra, and hence proceeded
d him into Vedic studies. Hence it is clear from this topic that Úûdras have no
to initiate
right to knowledge. (37)
Úravan+âdhyayanârthapratis+edhâtsmr+teúca (38)
And because the hearing, studying and understanding of the Vedas is prohibited
for the Úudra by the Smriti.
Further reason as to why a born Úûdra has no right to the knowledge of Brahman
is being cited. The Úûdra is barred from hearing and studying the Vedas as per the Smr+tis
too. The Smr+ti declares, ‘Should a Úûdra happen to hear the Vedas, his ears should be
n|kr~* ^f}tkrhukeè;;ufeT;knkufe* R;kfnLe`frrks osnJo.L; rnè;;uL;

rnFkZKkukuq"Bku;ks'pizfr"ksèkkr~A iwoZÑrlaLdkjo'kkf}nqjèkeZO;kèkknhuka KkuksRiÙ;k u
'kD;rs iQyizkfIr% izfr"ks¼qe~A ^Jko;sPprqjks o.kkZu~* bfr iqjk.ksfrgklkfèkxes
pkrqoZ.;kZfèkdkjJo.kkPp osniwoZdks ukLR;fèkdkj% 'kwæk.kkfefr rkRi;Ze~AA38AA
(28) (10 dEiukfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 39)
voflr% izklfÄ~xdks¿fèkdkjfopkj%A izdr` esokèkquk okD;kFkZfopkja izorZf;";ke%A
filled with scorching lead and lac’ (Gau. Dh. Su. 12.4), ‘One should not recite Vedas in
.in
front of a Úûdra so that the latter does not hear them’, ‘Study, sacrifice and charity, these
in d
three are for Brâhman+a, Ks+atriya and Veúya’ (Gau. Dh. Su. 9.1). If objected that how
t.
could Úûdras like Vidhur and Dharmavyâdha attain knowledge? The reply is that they
es
attained it as a result of good impressions of the past lives, and not from hearing etc. in
u
ta q
the present birth. The fruit of the deeds of past lives cannot be denied. It should be noted
n
that only the hearing and study of the Vedas have been prohibited for the Úûdras; the right
a
ve d
to hear the Purânas and mythologies remains unaffected. The Smr+ti too declares, ‘All
four castes should hear the Purânas and mythologies keeping the Brahmins in the forefront’
(Mbh. Sh. 327.49). (38)
u li@
a t 10: Kampanâdhikarana
dr
Topic
en (Vibration)
r on the right to the knowledge of Brahman ends here. This
n a
d r .
The deliberation
contemplation was the result of the subject that incidentally cropped up during the
discussions on the ‘Thumb’ Úruti in the Sutra 25. Now commences the deliberation on
the main topic in line with the discussions in ‘Pramitâdhikarana’ (Topic 7). Thus the
current adhikarana is related, not to the previous two adhikaranas, but to Topic 7. In topic
7 it was established that the ‘thumb-sized being’ was none other but Brahman only. But
here, in the current adhikarana, the word ‘Prâna’ cannot refer to Brahman, as such identity
between the two is impossible. Hence the current adhikarana is related to the previous by
the way of counter-illustration.
Here in the opponent’s view the meditation on ‘Prâna’ is the ultimate conclusion,
whereas the vedântin asserts the knowledge of the Unqualified Brahman as the final
conclusion.
izklfÄ~xdRokUukL;kO;ofgrsu laxR;is{kkA ^'kCnknso izfer%* bR;=kkfèkdj.ks czãokD;s

;Fkk czãKkuk; thokuqoknks¿fHkfgr%A u rFkk=k ^;fnne~* bfr okD;s izk.kkuqoknks
;qDr%] rL; dfYirRosu Lo:irks czãSD;k;ksxkfnfr izR;qnkgj.klaxR;snekgµ
(102) dEiukr~ AA39AA
v=k iwoZi{ks izk.kksiklua iQya] fl¼kUrs fufoZ'ks"kczãKkua iQyfefr r;ksHksZn%A
^;fnna fd×p txRlo± izk.k ,tfr fu%l`re~A egn~Hk;a otzeq|ra ; ,rf}nqje`rkLrs
HkoUrh* (dñ 2@3@2) fr okD;e=kfopkjfo"k;%A r=kkfLeUokD;s ^,t` dEius* bfr
èkkrks% dEiukFkZdr;k loZtxRdEiuHk;dkj.kL; otz'kfCnrL; foKkukne`rRoizkfIr%
Jw;rs] l fda ok;qfodkj%] ijekRek osfr la'k;s_ i×po`ÙkkS ok;qfodkjs izk.ks lo±
. in
txRizfr"Bk;Stfr] ok;qfufeÙkeso egn~Hk;kuda otzeq|rs] ôk;qjso O;f"VokZ;q%
in d
st .
lef"VjiqueZ`R;qa t;fr ; ,oa osn* bfr JqR;Urjs ok;qfoKkuknsoke`rRofefr gsrksjso
e
u in Prâna only; it emerges
a
Doubt: The Úruti declares, ‘The entire world vibrates
t q
n
from Prâna too. Those who know this exceptionally terrifying entity, which is akin to an
aUp. 2.3.2). Here arises a doubt whether
arising thunder, they become immortal’ (Kath.
e d
v is the vital-force, or is it Brahman?
the terrifying entity (Prâna) referred to here
@
uli to the vital-force (a modification of the Air) that is
Opponent: The ‘Prâna’trefers
d r
known to be divided into five a variants functionally. The entire world vibrates in it. Also
e n
it is commonly seen that the roar of thunder, rain etc. all are associated with the movement
ar too declare, ‘Air is the ‘particular’ (vyas+ti) as well as the ‘aggregate’
of Air. Other Úrutis
n
dr. Air is the entity referred here by the Úruti.
(samas+ti); the one who knows such overcomes fortuitous death’ (Br. Up. 3.3.2). Hence
the element
Kampanât (39)
Prâna is Brahman, for there is the mention of vibration.
The word ‘Prâna’ refers to Brahman and not to Air, since the entire universe
along with Air vibrates at the command of Brahman only. The Úruti declares, ‘That is
pure Brahman; that alone is called immortality. In that only all the worlds are engrossed.
izfriÙkO;fefr iwo%Z i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq okD;s¿fLeu~ izk.k'kCnsu czão

S ksP;rs_ u ok;qfodkj%A
dqr%\ lok;qdL; loZizi×pL; czãkK;k dEiukr~A rFkkfg & ^rnso 'kqØa rn~czã
rnsoke`reqP;rsA rfLe¡Yyksdk% fJrk% losZ rnq ukR;sfr d'pu* (dñ 2@3@1) û
izk.ksu ukikusu eR;ksZ thofr d'puA brjs.k rq thofUr ;fLeUusrkoqikfJrkSAA* (d0
2@2@5) bR;kfnxzUFki;kZykspusu ijekReU;so loZStf;r`Roeqii|rs] u ok;qfodkjsA
^Hk;knfXuLrirh* (dñ 2@3@3) R;=k ijekReuks Hk;gsrqRoksDrsLrL;So êgn~Hk;a
otzeq|re~* bR;=kkfi lafuèkkur;k Hk;gsrqRoizR;fHkKkukr~] ^reso fofnRokfre`R;qesfr*
bR;knkS czãfoKkukne`rRoJo.kkPp Dofp}k;qfoKkukne`rRoJo.kekisf{kdke`rRo&
fo"k;dfefr cksè;e~AA39AA
d . in
(29) (11 T;ksfrjfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 40)
t .i n
iwo± loZ'kCnJqfrladkspkuqiiÙ;k izdj.ko'kkRizk.k'kCnL; u es czãijRoefHkfgra
t a q
d an(exhalation);
None can exceed it’ (Kath. Up. 2.3.1), wherein Brahman
the text, ‘None lives by prâna (inhalation) andeapâna
is explicitly mentioned. Also
v they live by something
u li@
else in which both prâna and apâna are transfixed’ (Kath. Up. 2.2.5), points to Brahman
t
only, which is the sustainer of all, and not Air etc. At other places too the declaration of
ra alone as the cause of fear. Similarly, in the Úruti under

the Úruti, ‘The Fire burns out of His fear; out of His fear blows the wind’ (Kath. Up.
d
consideration (Kath.eUp.
r n 2.3.2), the knowledge of that exceptionally terrifying entity is
2.3.3) etc., points to Brahman
na which from the fact of ‘proximity’ (to Kath. Up. 2.3.3) and the fact
desired to be attained;
of It beingra. source of fear, concludes in Brahman only. Also by the text, ‘Knowing Him
d becomes immortal’ (Kath. Up. 2.3.2), Brahman alone emerges as the designated
alone, one
entity, for immortality comes from the knowledge of Brahman only. Hence wherever one
hears of attainment of immortality by the knowledge of Air, that immortality should be
understood to be figurative only. (39)
Topic 11: Jyotiradhikarana

(The Light is Brahman)
In the last adhikarana the word ‘Prâna’ was construed to mean Brahman in
accordance with the context there, but the word ‘Light’ in the current adhikarana cannot
be interpreted as Brahman since no such context corroborates that implication. This
adhikarana commences in response to such counter-illustration.
;Fkk] u rFksg lEizlknokD;s izdj.kkuqxzkgda fdf×pnfLr izek.ka] ;su czã

T;skfr%'kCnokP;a L;kfnfr izR;qnkgj.klaxR;snekg&
(103) T;ksfrnZ'kZukr~ AA40AA
v=k iwoZi{ks vkfnR;ksiklu;k ØeeqfDr%] fl¼kUrs czãKkukRl|ks eqfDrfjfr&
iQyHksn%A ^,"k lEizlknks¿LekPNjhjkRleqRFkk; ija T;ksfr#ilEi| Losu :is.kk¿fHkfu"i|rs*
(Nkñ 8@12@3) bR;kfnokD;e=k fopkj.kh;e~A r=k fda T;ksfr%'kCnokP;ekfnR;kfnrst%]
fdaok ija czãfs r lUnsg_s :<RokT;ksfr%'kCnokP;ekfnR;kfnrst% bfr iwo%Z i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq
ijeso czãk=k T;sfr%'kfCnre~A dqr%\ n'kZukr~A ^; vkRek¿igrikIes* (Nkñ 8@7@1)
R;igrikIeRokfnxq.kdL;kReuks¿=k izdj.kknkoUos"VO;Rosu foftKkflrO;Rosu p
.i n
n
Here in the opponent’s view, meditation on Sun etc. andiattainment
d of serial
s .
t direct emancipation
e
emancipation is the conclusion, whereas the vedântin promulgates
u
by the knowledge of Brahman.
taq
Doubt: The Úruti declares, ‘The being inathe ndeep-sleep
d rises above the gross and
ve becomes established in its own nature’
subtle bodies, and attaining the supreme Light,
(Ch. Up. 8.12.3). Here arises a doubt @
i
illumined bodies like sun etc., oruitlrefers to the supreme Brahman?
whether the word ‘Light’ here refers to the light of
a t
Opponent: Thed
r
e n word ‘Light’ refers to the material light of illumined bodies like
sun etc.
n ar
r. To this we say,
dVedântin:
Jyotirdarúanât (40)
Light is Brahman, for the scriptures mention so.
The word ‘Light’ refers to Brahman only, for it occurs in the context of Brahman.
Starting with, ‘The Self that is free from sin’ (Ch. Up. 8.7.1), wherein characteristics like
‘freedom form sin’ etc. establish Brahman as the subject-matter, the Úruti proceeds by
declaring this Self as an entity to be explored and aspired for. The same Self has been
referred to in the ‘Light’ Úruti also. The qualifications like ‘supreme Light’ and the ‘highest
izfrKkur;k¿uqo`fÙkn'kZukr~A ^,ra Roso rs Hkw;ks¿uqO;k[;kL;kfe* (Nkñ 8@9@6)

bR;uqlUèkkukr~ îja T;ksfr%* ^l mÙke% iq#"k%* (Nkñ 8@12@3) bfr fo'ks"k.kkPp
T;ksfr% ijaczãSo] ukfnR;kfnrst% bfr Hkko%AA40AA
(30) (12 vFkkZUrjRokfnO;ins'kkfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 41)
iwo± ;FkksiØekfno'kknFkkZUrjs izfl¼L;kfi T;ksfr%'kCnL; ijczãijRoa]
rFkkdk'kksiØekfno'kkn~czãkfn'kCnks¿fi LokFkkZnU;ij% L;kfnfrn`"VkUrlaxR;snekgµ
Being’ conclude in Brahman only. Also the text, ‘I shall explain That to you again’ (Ch.
.in
Up. 8.9.3), reveals the exploration of that entity. (40)
in d
Topic 12: Arthântaratvâdivyapadeúâdhikarana
t.
(The Space is Brahman)
u es
t aq famous in other sense, was
n beginning with It, similarly the
As in the last adhikarana the word ‘Light’, though
a
v d
construed to imply Brahman on the strength of context
e on the strength of commencement
word ‘Brahman’ should also be interpreted otherwise,
li @ thus commences in response to such view-

of the context with ‘Space’; this adhikarana
point of the opponent.
t u
dra view one attains serial emancipation by meditating on
r e nof material Space, whereas the Vedântin asserts the attainment of
Here in the opponent’s
a from the knowledge of Brahman.

Brahman of the form
n
r .
direct emancipation
dDoubt: The Úruti declares, ‘Indeed Space (âkâúa) is the revealer of all name and
form. That in which they are contained is Brahman; that is immortal and is the Self’ (Ch.
Up. 8.14.1). Here arises a doubt whether the word ‘Space’ refers to the material space or
Brahman?
Opponent: The word ‘Space’ refers to material space, for that is the conventional
meaning of the word. Moreover the material space is the sustainer of all name and form
inasmuch as it provides room to the entire creation. Also no indicatory sign of Brahman,
like ‘creatorship’ etc. is found in the Úruti.

(104) vkdk'kks¿FkkZUrjRokfnO;ins'kkr~ AA41AA

v=k iwoZi{ks Hkwrkdk'kkRedczãksiklu;k ØeeqfDr%] fl¼kUrs czãKkusu
l|kseqfDrfjfr iQyHksn%A ^vkdk'kks oS uke uke:i;ksfuZoZfgrk] rs ;nUrjk rn~czã
rne`ra l vkRek* (Nkñ 8@14@1) bfr okD;a fopkjfo"k;%A fde=kkdk'k'kCnks
Hkwrkdk'k%] ija czã osfr la'k;s_ :<Rokr~* uke:ifuoZg.kL;kodk'knkusu r=k lkeF;kZr~
Ï"V`Rokns'p Li"VczãfyÄ~xL;kJo.kkPpkdk'k'kCnks Hkwrkdk'kij bfr iwoZ% i{k%A
fl¼kUrLrq ijeso czãkdk'k'kCna HkforqegZfrA dqr%\ vFkkZUrjRokfnO;ins'kkr~A ^rs
;nUrjk rn~czãs* R;kdk'kL; uke:ikH;keFkkZUrjRosu O;ins'kkr~] vkfnuk ^rnczã
rne`ra* ^l vkRekA* (Nkñ 8@14) bfr czãfyÄ~xn'kZukPp ijekReSokdk'k'kCn%A ,oa
.in
p Hkwrkdk'ks rL; :<Roefdf×pRdje~] uke:i;ksfuZogZ .ka fujad'q ka] czã.kks¿U;=kklEHk&
in d
t.
oe~] Ï"V`RokfnczãfyÄ~xefHkfgra psfr rL; czãijRokH;qixes dkj.kfefr Hkko%AA41AA
s
(31) (13 lq"kqIR;qRÿkUR;fËkdj.ke~ e
uA lwÒ 42&43)
q
iwo± uke:ikH;ka fHkUuRodFkuknkdk'k'kCnkstau Hkwrkdk'kij%] fdUrq czãij%
a n
v e d
Âkâúoarthântaratvâdivyapadeúât (41)
@
lideclared
Space is Brahman, fortu it is as something different from names and
forms.
d ra
e n means Brahman; for the Úruti’s declaration that all names and
The wordr‘Space’
n a in it, suggests that Space is something other than the name and form.
. that is known to be different from the name and form is Brahman, for
rentity
forms are contained
d
The only
everything else in this phenomenal world is but a manifestation of the name and form.
Moreover the Úruti (Ch. Up. 8.14.1)) contains the indicatory signs of Brahman, viz. the
mention of ‘Immortality’ and that of being the ‘Self’. Hence the meaning of the word
‘Space’ is Brahman only. (41)
Topic 13: Sus+uptyutkrântyadhikarana

(The Sleep and Death)
In the previous adhikarana the word ‘Space’ was assumed to mean Brahman, for
it (space) was spoken of as being different from name and form. The opponent argues
that such assumption is not correct, for even the embodied soul and Brahman, though are
bR;qDra] rUu_ izkKsukReuk lEifj"oDr%] bR;=kkfHkUus¿fi thos HksnksipkjkfnR;kf{kI;

lekèkkuknk{ksilaxR;snekgµ
(105) lq"kqIR;qRØkUR;ksHksZnsu AA42AA
v=k iwoZi{ks thokuqoknsu deZ'ks"kdrZ`Lrqfr% iQya] fl¼kUrs czãrknkRE;Kkua
iQyfefr Hksn%A ^;ks¿;a foKkue;% izk.ks"kq â|UrT;ksZfr%iq#"k%* (c`ñ 4@3@7)
identical in reality, yet are figuratively spoken of as being different. The current adhikarana
thus commences in response to such objection.
.in
Here in the opponent’s view the adhikarana concludes in explaining the nature of
d
i n
the embodied soul, whereas the vedântin asserts that it concludes in the knowledge of
t .
es
Brahman.
u
Doubt: The Úruti questions, ‘Which is that Self?’q(Br. Up. 4.3.7). Then the text
n taand is in the midst of the organs,
e d
the self-effulgent light within the heart’ (Br. Up. a4.3.7). Here arises a doubt whether the
says, ‘The Purus+a who is identified with the intellect,
@
text is concerned with elucidating the nature vof embodied soul, or it is concerned with the
Supreme Brahman?
tuli
d
Opponent: The Úruti ra refers to the embodied soul, for indicatory signs of the
r en organs etc. are mentioned throughout, from beginning to the
embodied soul like intellect,
n aself-effulgent
end. Starting with,
the organs,.the
‘The Purus+a who is identified with the intellect, and is in the midst of
r light within the heart’ (Br. Up. 4.3.7), and ending with,
d is this great birth-less Self’ (Br. Up. 4.4.22), it is certain that the transmigrating
‘That alone
embodied soul is indicated.
Sus+uptyutkrântyorbhedena (42)
Because of the declaration of being different (from the embodied soul) in the
states of deep-sleep and death, the Supreme Self is intended to be taught here.
The text speaks about the supreme Brahman; for in the state of deep sleep and at
the time of death, the individual soul is spoken of as different from the supreme Self.
bR;kfnokD;e=k fopkjfo"k;%A rfRda thokuqoknija] fdaok rnuqoknsuklalkfjczãLo:i&

izfriknuijfefr la'k;s_ lalkfjLo:iek=kfo"k;esoA dqr%\ ^;ks¿;afoKkue;% izk.ks"kq*
(c`ñ 4@3@7) ^l ok ,"k egkut vkRek ;ks¿;a foKkue;% izk.ks"kq* (c`ñ 4@4@22)
bR;qiØeksilagkjkH;kfefr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq ijes'ojksins'kijesosna okD;e~A dqr%\
lq"kqIR;qRØkUR;ks% 'kkjhjkn~Hksnsu ijes'ojL; O;ins'kkr~A lq"kqIrkS ^v;a iq#"k% izkKsukReuk
lEifj"oDrks u ckáa fd×pu osn ukUrjfe* (c`ñ 4@3@21) frA mRØkUrkS & ^v;a
'kkjhj vkRek izkKsukReukUok:< mRltZU;kfr* (c`ñ 4@3@& 35) bfr p thokn~Hksnsu
ijes'oja O;fn'kfrA miØes¿fi thoeuw|ijs.k czã.kk¿L;SD;a foo{kfr*] è;k;rho
ysyk;rho* bfr thoèkeZfujkdj.kJqfrn'kZukr~A rFkksilagkjs¿fi ^l ,"k egkut vkRek*
bR;=k izk.ks"kq y{;ek.kks thokReS"k egkut vkRek ijes'oj ,okLekfHk% izfrikfnr%A
.i n
rLekRijesosna okD;fefrAA42AA
in d
st .
(106) iR;kfn'kCnsH;% AA43AA u e
a q
Talking of deep-sleep, the Úruti says, ‘This Purus+an intdeep-sleep is fully embraced by the
e
supreme intelligent Self (prâjña-âtmâ), and doesd anot know anything external or internal’
(Br. Up. 4.3.21). Speaking about death, thevÚruti says, ‘At the time of death, this embodied
li @ Self (prâjña-âtmma), departs from this
tu Both these Úrutis speak of the embodied soul to be
soul, presided over by the supreme intelligent
separate from the supremer

d a
body making noises’ (Br. Up. 4.3.35).
Self. Hence the entity intended to be taught here is the Supreme
re n that the indicatory signs of the embodied soul are met with in
Lord. As for the assertion
n a
the start, mid and the end of the passage, we say that those signs are meant only to
r.
reiterate the characteristics of the embodied soul; the ultimate objective being the
d of its identicalness with the Supreme Brahman, for by the text, ‘it meditates
establishment
as it were etc.’ (Br. Up. 4.3.7), the Úruti is seen to purge those very attributes of the
embodied soul. Similarly by the text, ‘That alone is this great birth-less Self’ (Br. Up.
4.4.22), the same Purus+a who was spoken of as residing amidst the organs in the start of
the passage (Br. Up. 4.3.7), is now being propounded as the great birth-less Self, i.e. the
supreme Lord. Hence the text under consideration is meant to describe the Supreme
Lord, and not the embodied soul primarily. (42)
Further reason is being tendered in support of the aforesaid conclusion,
Patyâdiúabdebhyah+ (43)
br'p czãkHksnizfrikndfena okD;feR;oxUrO;e~A ^loZL; o'kh loZL;s'kku%

loZL;kfèkifr%] bfr iR;kfn'kCnk vlalkfjRoizfrikndk%A ^l u lkèkquk deZ.kk
Hkw;kUuks ,oklkèkquk duh;ku~* bR;soa:ik% lalkfjRofu"ksèkdk%A rsH;ks¿lalkfjczãkRe&
izfrikndfena okD;fefr lqlaxreAA43AA
AA foJke%4AA
d .in
;rhUædqyfryddSyklihBkèkh'ojLokfefo|kuUnfxfjfojfprk;ka fo|kuUno`ÙkkS izFkekè;k;L;
r`rh;% ikn% AA1&3AA
t .in
u es
t a q
Brahman is intended to be described here
a n on account of the terms like the
Ruler etc.
ved
The Úruti under considerationliis@
primarily meant to describe the Supreme Brahman
u
and not the embodied soul, for tin the concerned context, the text, ‘the ruler of all, the
a etc.’ (Br. Up. 4.4.22), points to the Supreme Lord, as an
controller of all, the lord ofrall
d
r e
entity beyond the domainn of the world. Also the text, ‘That Self neither gains by good
actions nor losesadue to bad ones’ (ibid.), negates any trace of worldliness in that entity.
r . n Lord is being spoken of here. (43)
Hence the Supreme
d
¨
izFkekË;k;s prqFkZ% ikn%
(v=k izèkkufo"k;Rosu lfUnáekukukeO;Drktkfninkuka fpUrue~)
iwoZeh{kR;fèkdj.ks xfrlkekU;e'kCnRoa p izfrKkre~A r=k osnkUrkuka czãf.k
xfrlkekU;a ikn=k;s.k izfrikfnre~A lEizfr izèkkuL;k'kCnRoekf{kI; lekèkkrqekjH;ek.ksu
prqFkZiknsu lg iwoZL;k{ksilaxfr%A
(32) (1 vkuqekfudkfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 1&7)
iwoZfLeUufèkdj.ks izfl¼thoksfDrHkÄ~xsukizfl¼czãksfDronizfl¼izèkkuijeso
êgr% ijeO;Drfe* R;kfndkBdokD;a L;kfnfr n`"VkUrlaxR;snekjH;rsµ
Chapter 1 Section 4
This section deliberates upon the inference of various terms like ‘Avyaktta’, ‘Ajâ’
etc. occurring in the Upanis+ads, as these terms are also used for ‘Pradhâna’ (Primordial
Nature). Thus being doubtful as regard their implications, a comprehensive deliberation
on these terms is necessary.
The first section of the present chapter established that all Úruti texts propound
the sentient Brahman to be the cause of the Universe, and not the insentient Pradhâna that
has been emphasized by the followers of the ‘Sânkhya’ school of philosophy. The first
three sections of this chapter also established as to how the various Úrutis attain their
eventual fulfillment by revealing that Absolute Brahman to be their unambiguous inference.
The opponent protests the assertion that Pradhâna is not mentioned in the Upanis+ads, to
clarify which is begun the present section. Hence the preceding section is related to the
current one by the way of protestation.
Topic 1: Ânumânikâdhikarana
(The surmised entity)
In the foregoing adhikarana it was declared that those Úruti texts that seem to
promulgate the well-known ‘embodied soul’ (jîva) should be inferred as being referring
to the lesser-known ‘Brahman’; similarly should be understood as regards the Kat+hopanis+ad
texts like – ‘the Unmanifest (Avyakta) is higher than the Mahat, Purus+a is higher than
(107) vkuqekfudeI;sds"kkfefr psUu_

'kjhj:idfoU;Lrx`ghrsnZ'kZ;fr p AA1AA
v=k iwoZi{ks czã.;so osnkUrkuka leUo;s fu;ekHkko%] fl¼kUrs rkn`Ä~fu;e%
bfr iQyHksn%A êgr% ijeO;DreO;DrkRiq#"k% ij%* (dñ 1@3@11) bR;kfn&
Unmanifest’ (Kath. Up. 1.3.11). The current adhikarna thus commences with reference
to such comparative illustration.
The opponent here rejects the dictum that all Úruti texts attain their ultimate
.in
fulfillment in revealing that Brahman, whereas the vedântin accepts this unreservedly.
d
t. n
This alone is the difference between their fruit. The Kat+hopanis+ad texts like – ‘the
i
Unmanifest (Avyakta) is higher than the Mahatattva, and the Purus+a is higher than the
Unmanifest’ (1.3.11), form the topic of deliberation.
ues
a
Doubt: Here arises a doubt whether the wordt‘Avyakta’
q refers to the ‘Pradhâna’
a nof philosophy, or does it refer to the
as imagined by the followers of the Sânkhya School
‘body’? v e d
u l i@here refers to ‘Pradhâna’ only, since, when viewed
t
Opponent: The word ‘Avyakta’
a
r
together with ‘Mahatattva’ and ‘Purus+a’, it occurs here in same sequence and appellation
dscriptures.
e n
as in the texts of Sânkhya Moreover the word ‘Avyaktta’ (na vyakta) can be
r of that which is not manifest, which can be construed to be referring
to ‘Pradhâna’n–a
derived in the sense
school. d r. it is specious to label ‘Pradhâna’ as an entity not supported by the

Therefore
an inferred entity, devoid of sound etc., as endorsed by the Sânkhya
Upanis+ads.
Aanumânikamapyekes+âmiti caenna;
úarîrarûpakavinyastagr+hîterdarúayati ca (1)
If asserted that even the inferred entity is mentioned in some recensions of the
Vedas; we say, not so, for the word there is mentioned in a simile referring to the body;
and the scripture also explains it.
okD;e=kfo"k;%A r=k fdeO;Dr'kCnsu izèkkuefHkèkh;rs] 'kjhja osfr la'k;s_ lka[;Le`rkS

;Uukekuks ;RØek'p egnO;Driq#"kk% izfl¼kLrs ,ok=k izR;fHkKk;UrsA vr%
Le` f riz f l¼Rokr~ ] 'kCnkfnghuRokr~ ] u O;DreO;Drfefr O;q R ifÙklEHkokPp
vkuqekfudeuqekuxE;a lka[;Le`frizfl¼a izèkkueI;sds"kka 'kkf[kuka izR;{keO;Dr'kCnsu
iB~;rs bfr rL;k'kCnRoefl¼fefr psUu_ izèkkua ukO;DrinokP;e~A dqr%\
'kjhj:idfoU;Lrx`ghrs%A 'kjhja á=k jFk:idfoU;LreO;Dr'kCnsu x`árs] izdj&
.kkRifj'ks"kkPpA rFkkfg r=k izdj.ks vkRe'kjhjknhuka jfFkjFkkfn:iddYiuka n'kZ;fr
^vkRekua jfFkua fof¼ 'kjhja jFkeso rqA* (dñ 1@3@3) bR;knkSA rL;kla;rSfjfUæ;S%
la;rSfjfUæ;S'p lalkjkfèkxeua fo".kqinizkfIra p n'kZ;frA rr% ^bfUæ;sH;% ijk áFkkZ%*
---- iq#"kkUu ija fdf×pr~ lk dk"Bk lk ijk xfr% (dñ 1@3@10&11) bR;knkS
. in
i n d
iw o ks Z D rkuka jFkkfn:is . k dYI;ekukukfefUæ;knhukeq i knkulekuRos ¿ fi ds o ya
st .
e
ifj'ks"kknO;DrinokP;a 'kjhjeso xzkáe~A vr% iwokZijkykspuk;ka ijdfYirL; izèkkuL;
u
ukLR;=k xzg.kkodk'k%AA1AA
t aq
a n
e d
v it indubitably refers to the ‘body’. In the
The word ‘Avyakta’ does not refer to the ‘Pradhâna’ as claimed by the Sânkhya
@
ia chariot, it (the body) alone has been referred to by
School, but seeing the context of its occurrence,
l
t u
context, after comparing the body to
the word ‘Avyakta’.
r a
d – ‘know the Self as the master of chariot and the body as the
e n
ar is the charioteer (sârthî) and the mind the reins (lagâm); the sense
The Úruti declares
n
.the horses and the sense-objects the roads’ (Kath. Up. 1.3.3-4). The Úruti also
chariot; the intellect
r
d
organs are
promulgates the attainment of liberation by one with disciplined senses, and the attainment
of world by one whose senses are unrestrained. Thereafter the Úruti says – ‘the sense-
objects are higher than the senses; the mind is higher than the sense-objects; the intellect
is higher than the mind; the Mahatattva (samas+t+i ahankâra i.e. cosmic intellect) is higher
than the intellect; beyond Mahatattva is Avyakta, and Purus+a is higher than Avyakta.
There is nothing beyond Purus+a. That is the ultimate state’ (Kath. Up. 1.3.10-11).
Comparing these Úrutis and then designating the likes together, the body alone is left
unpaired. Hence the body has been designated by the word ‘Avyakta’, and not the
‘Pradhâna’, as it is not possible to admit the latter in the current context. (1)
uuq LFkwy'kjhjL; O;Dr'kCnkgZL; dFkeO;DrinokP;RofeR;rvkg &

(108) lw{ea rq rngZRokr~ AA2AA
lkS=kLrq'kCn% 'kÄïkfujklkFkZ%A lw{ea fRog dkj.kkReuk 'kjhja foo{;rsA
'kjhjL;kjEHkda Hkwrlw{eeO;Dr'kCnkg± HkforqegZfrA izÑfrfodkj;ksjfHkUuRosu izÑfr&
'kCnL; fodkjs ^xksfHk% Jh.khr eRlje~* (Íñlañ 9@46@4) (xksfodkjS% lksea
fefJra dq;kZfnfr rnFkZ%) bR;knkS iz;Tq ;ekuRokr~A r}n=kkfi izÑfrokpdL;kO;Dr'kCnL;
rf}dkjs 'kjhjs iz;ksxks¿fo#¼% bfr Hkko%AA2AA
uUosoa rfgZ 'kjhjdkj.kL; Hkwrlw{eL;kO;DrinokP;RokÄ~xhdkjs rL; izèkkuRos
lka[;S% Lohd`rL; ro ers¿I;H;qixfrizlax% bR;r vkg & d .in
t. in
u esthen how can the Úruti
The gross (physical, sthûla) body is manifest (vyakta),
label it as ‘Avyakta’ (unmanifest) as is stated above?a
t q is answered by the second
This
aphorism:
a n
ed
Sûks+mam tuvtadarhatvât (2)
.
u li@
a
Rather the subtle causalt state of the body is meant, for it is appropriate to
designate it so.
ndr
are(but) is to dispel the above doubt. Here, by the word ‘avyakta’, the
r. n uncompounded (apancikr+ta) state, which are causal for the materialization
The word ‘tu’
d are being referred to; for the elements in this state remain subtle (sûks+ma)
elements in
of the body,
their
and beyond the domain of sensual perception. It is indeed common to denote the ‘effect’
and the ‘cause’ by the same word. For instance the scriptures declare, ‘Mix the Soma
with the cow’ (R+g. Veda. 9.46.4), wherein the word ‘cow’ indicates ‘cow’s milk’. Similarly,
though the body is manifest, but owing to it being the ‘effect’ of the causal uncompounded
subtle elements, is referred to by the word ‘avyakta’. (2)
If by the aforesaid logic the primordial state of the body is admitted to be the
implication of the word ‘avyakta’, then, since the Sânkhyas too acknowledge the primordial
state of the universe as Pradhâna, it amounts to recognizing the Sânkhya’s theory. To
refute this assertion commences the third aphorism,
(109) rnèkhRoknFkZor~ AA3AA

u o;a LorU=kizèkkudkj.kokneÄ~xhdqeZ%A dqr%\ rnèkhuRokr~A ijes'ojkèkhu&
RoknO;DrL;] LokrU=;s . k fg rL; txRdkj.kRokuH;q i xekr~ A u ps ' ojL;
txRdkj.kRoLohdkjs izèkkuL; oS;F;Zfefr okP;e~] êk;ka rq izÑfra fof¼ ekf;ua rq
egs'oje~* ('osñ 4@10) bfr eU=ko.kZs ek;k¿ijukEuks¿O;DrL; ijes'ojlgdk&
fjRosukFkZoÙkkH;qixekfnR;FkZ%AA3AA
(110) Ks;RokopukPp AA4AA
vO;DrL;kizèkkuRos gsRoUrjekgA izèkkuiq#"k;ksfoZosdKkukRdSoY;a onfn~Hk%
lka[;SK; n
Zs Rosu izèkkua Le;ZrAs fdfURog izèkkuL; LoKs;Rosukuqifn"VRokUu lka[;ifjdfYira
.i
n d
izèkkueO;Dr'kCnkgZeH;qis;e~A jFk:id'kjhjk|uqlj.ksu fo".kksjso ijea ina n'kZf;rq&
i
t.
Tadadhînatvâdarthavat (3) es
q u
Being dependent on the Lord, it suits ourn ta
e d a theory.
We, the vedântins, who only lookvto the Úrutis for drawing any conclusions, do
not acknowledge Pradhâna to be the li@
autonomous cause of the universe. The Primordial
uthe Lord, is not independent
Nature, being under the controltof
d a
rsuchtheassertion
asserted that on acknowledging
in creating the universe. If
Lord to be the cause of Universe, the need for Pradhâna
en
ceases to exist; we say that is wrong, for the Úruti declares, ‘Know Mâyâ
r the Lord to be the master of Mâyâ’ (Úv. Up. 4.10). Here ‘avyakta’ is
to be the nature,aand
r. n
the other name for Mâyâ, whose utility, as an aide to the Lord, cannot be refuted. Hence
d
the Lord, with the help of Mâyâ, creates this universe, and not Mâyâ independently. (3)
Jñeyatvâvachanâcca (4)
And because it (avyakta) is not declared as an entity to be known.
The word ‘avyakta’, in the Úruti under consideration (Kath. Up. 1.3.11), is not
Pradhâna, for the Sânkhya School declares Pradhâna as an entity to be known. They
assert that emancipation is only possible by the differential knowledge of Pradhâna
(Primordial Nature) and the Purus+a (soul). On the other hand, the Úrutis do not declare
‘avyakta’ as an entity to be known; the word being used simply as an epithet. By visualizing
eqiU;kl bR;uo|e~AA4AA
(111) onrhfr psUu_ izkKks fg izdj.kkr~ AA5AA
uuq Ks;Rokopukfnfr gsrqjfl¼%A dFke~\ ^v'kCne~--------vuk|uUra egr% ija
èkzqoa fupkÕ; ra e`R;qeq[kkRizeqP;rs* (dñ 1@3@15) bR;=kkfi egr% ijeO;Dr'kCnokP;a
izèkkua 'kCnkfnghua Ks;Rosu onrhfr psUu_ fg & ;Lekr~ izdj.kkRizkIr% ijekRek
fupkÕ;Rosuksifn"V%] u izèkkue~A dqr%\ îq#"kkUu ija fdf×pfn* R;knkS izkKL; ijekReu%
izdj.kL; fo|ekuRokr~A fda p izèkkuek=kKkukUe`R;qeq[kizeks{k.kiQya lka[;SusZ";rs]
fdUrq psrukRefoKkukr~A vrks u izèkkuL;k=k Ks;RoeO;Dr'kCnfufnZ"VRoa okH;qi;s fefrAA5AA
(112) =k;k.kkeso pSoeqiU;kl% iz'u'p AA6AAd.i
n
t. in
the body as a chariot etc., the Úruti essentially intends to revealsthe state of ‘Vis+nu’ (the
supreme state). (4)
q ue
n ta
Vadatîti caenna prâjño hiaprakaran+ât (5)
v ed
li@
If asserted that the scripture does mention it to be known; we say, not so, for
there the conscious Self is meantufrom the context.
a t
n dr that the Úruti does not promulgate ‘avyakta’ as an entity
Opponent: The assertion
a r e for the Úruti declares, “Knowing that ‘avyakta’, which is beyond

to be known is erroneous,
. n
the physical traits
r
as sound, touch, form, taste and smell etc., which is without beginning
d
and without an end and which is beyond ‘mahatattva’ one is freed from the jaws of
death” (Kat+h. Up. 1.3.5). Here the ‘Pradhâna’, designated by the word avyakta, is being
described by the Úruti as an entity to be known.
Vedântin: This is not correct, for from the authority of the context it is clear that
the sentient Self is being pointed to by the Úruti, and not the insentient Pradhâna. The
Úruti further declares, ‘There is nothing beyond the Purus+a. He is the highest goal’ (Kath.
Up. 1.3.11), thereby establishing that the context relates to the sentient Self. Moreover
according to the Sânkhya School one cannot escape from the jaws of death by the
knowledge of Pradhâna alone, the liberation being attained by the knowledge of the sentient
soul (Purus+a). Hence neither the word ‘avyakta’, occurring in the Úruti text under
consideration, refers to Pradhâna, nor has Pradhâna been described as an entity to be
known. (5)
br'p u izèkkuL;kO;Dr'kCnokP;Roa Ks;Roa okA ;LekR=k;k.kkesokfXuthoijekReuka

xzUFks¿fLeu~ ojiznkulkeF;kZ}DrO;r;ksiU;kl%] rf}"k;s iz'uks¿fi n`';rsA ukrks¿U;L;
iz'u%] miU;klks okfLrA rFkkfg & ^l RoefXua LoX;Ze~* (dñ 1@1@13) bR;fXuiz'u%A
^;s;a izrs s fofpfdRlk euq";s* (dñ 1@1@20) bfr thoiz'u%A ^vU;=kèkekZnU;=kkèkekZfn*
(dñ 1@2@14) fr ijekRefo"k;% iz'u%A izfropuefi ^yksdkfnefXufe (dñ
1@1@15) R;fXufo"k;e~] ^;ksfueU;s izi|Urs* (dñ 2@5@7) bfr thofo"k;e~] û
tk;rs fez;rs ok foif'pr~* (dñ 1@2@18) bR;kfncgqizi×pa ijekRefo"k;a p
Jw;rsA izèkkufo"k;s ukfLr iz'u%A vi`"VL; izfropueizklfÄ~xda L;kfnfr ukO;Dra
Trayân+âmeva caivamupanyâsah+ praúnaúca (6)

.in
i n d
st
And there the three only are presented, and the question too
. is concerned with
them only.
u e
a
Furthermore the word ‘avyakta’, occurring in tthe
qKath.
n Úruti, cannot be construed
to imply Pradhâna, for the Kat+ha Upanis+ad dealsaonly with the three boons that Naciketâ
v
asked from Yama viz. the knowledge of Fire, e d soul and the Supreme Self. Apart
embodied
li @
from these three topics, one does not come across any other question or an answer in this
tu of Fire,
Upanis+ad. As regards the knowledge
kindly enlighten me with theaknowledge
Naciketâ asked Yama, ‘O Yama the teacher,
r fear, where there is no dread of death and senility, where
heaven that is devoid ofdany
of Fire (agni vidyâ), which is the means to that
r e n defeating hunger and thirst’ (Kath. Up. 1.1.13). To this the

n athen the Yama imparted the knowledge of Fire, which is the cause of all
beings reside in all happiness,
dr.Naciketâ’ (Kath. Up. 1.1.15).

Úruti says, ‘And
worlds, to
The other question concerns the embodied soul, whereby Naciketâ asks, ‘O Yama,
the existence of the being after death remains doubtful. Some people acknowledge the
existence of the being as separate from body etc., whereas others don’t admit to such
existence. I want to know from you the truth in this matter’ (Kath. Up. 1.1.20). To this the
Yama replied, ‘The ignorant one, who has ego in the body, proceeds after death to attain
a new body according to one’s actions and desires’ (Kath. Up. 2.5.7).
In the third question Naciketâ enquires, ‘O teacher, tell me of that entity which is
beyond good and bad, beyond cause and effect, and beyond the present, past and future’
(Kath. Up. 1.2.14). To this the Yama replied, ‘That sentient Self which is neither born nor
izèkkufefrAA6AA
(113) eg}Pp AA7AA
JqR;qDrks¿I;O;Dr'kCnks u lka[;kfHkerizFketlÙkkek=kokpdks] oSfnd'kCnRokr~
egPNCnofnfr iz;ksx% lEHkofrA rFkkfg ;Fkk lka[;S% lÙkkek=ks izFkets iz;qT;ekuks
egPNCnks u oSfndS% iz;Tq ;rs] ^cq¼js kRek egkUij%* (dñ 1@3@10) egkUra foHkqekRekua
(dñ 1@2@22) bR;knkokRe'kCniz;ksxkr~A rFkkO;Dr'kCnks¿fi u oSfnds iz;ksxs
izèkkuefHkèkkrqegZfrA rLekUukLR;kuqekfudL; izèkkuL; 'kCnoÙofefr fl¼e~AA7AA
(33) (2 pelkfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 8&10)
d .in
n and ageless,
dies, neither does It ever take birth nor is anything born of It; thattis.ieternal
u
and does not die with the death of the body’ (Kath. Up. 1.2.18). es
Hence no question regarding the Pradhânanhas
q asked or answered in this
tabeen
Upanis+ad. Hence the word ‘avyakta’ does not d
e a Pradhâna. (6)
imply
@ v
u li
Mahadvacca (7)
a t Avyakta too does not refer to any Sânkhya category.

n dr
And like Mahat, the word
a
The SânkhyareSchool construes the meaning of the word ‘Mahat’ to be the first
r .
evolved effectnof Pradhâna (Primordial Nature). This first effect is supposed to be endowed
with thedpreponderance of the quality of ‘sattva’, with minimal presence of ‘raja’ and
‘tama’ in defusing proportions. But such implication of the word ‘Mahat’ has no Vedic
sanction, for the Úruti declares, ‘The Mahân-âtmâ (the great Self) is superior to intellect’
(Kath. Up. 1.3.10), ‘The wise do not grieve, having known that great (mahân) pervasive
Self (âtmâ), wherein the word ‘Self’ (âtmâ) is seen to be associated with ‘mahat’. Hence,
as the word ‘Mahat’, though occurring in the Vedas, cannot be construed to imply the
first evolved effect of Pradhâna, similarly the word ‘Avyakta’ too cannot be construed to
imply Pradhâna. Hence one does not come across any Vedic text that propounds ‘Pradhâna’,
an entity established by inference only (as per the Sânkhya’s theory). (7)
Topic 2: Camasâdhikarana
(The Ajâ and the Bowl)
iwoZeO;Dr'kCnek=ks.k ekHkwr~ izèkkuL; izR;fHkKkua] fdURo=k f=kxq.kRokfn&

fyÄ~xksisrkntk'kCnkÙkL; izR;fHkKkua L;kfnfr izR;qnkgj.klÄ~xR;snekgµ
(114) pelonfo'ks"kkr~ AA8AA
v=k iwoZi{ks czãf.k leUo;kflf¼%_ fl¼kUrs rfRlf¼fjfr iQyHksn%A ^vtkesdka
yksfgr'kqDyÑ".kkfe* ('osñ 4@5) R;kfnokD;e=k fopkjfo"k;%A r=kfdetk'kCn%
izèkkuokpd%] rstks¿cUukRedkokUrjizÑfrokpdks osfr la'k;s_ u tk;rs bR;tsfr
In the preceding adhikarana it was shown that the mere mention of the word
‘Avyaktta’ in the Kat+ha Úruti was not enough to establish it as ‘Pradhâna’ of the Sankhya
fame. However in the current adhikarana the opponent forwards further illustrations,
.i n
citing the Úvaetâshvatara Upanis+ad, in support of his viewpoint asserting Vedic support
in d
for Pradhâna. The word ‘Ajâ’, occurring in the Úvaetâshvatara text, can definitely be
st .
construed to imply Pradhâna, since the indicatory signs there unquestionably suggest so.
u e
The current adhikarana commences to examine the opponent’s illustration.
ta q
Doubt: In the Úvaetâshvatara Upanis+ad the
a n following text occurs, ‘There exists
an Ajâ (feminine of Aja) that has red, black anddwhite hues. She produces a large populace
v e
a@
akin to herself. One Aja remains tied to her indefinitely, while the other discards her after
u
enjoyment’ (Úv. Up. 4.5). Here arisesli doubt whether the word ‘Ajâ’ refers to ‘Pradhâna’,
or does it refer to the elements twater, fire and earth?
d ra
Opponent:eThe
r n word ‘Ajâ’ literally refers to one that is birthless; and as per the
Sânkhyas, the a
r . n
birthless. Hence
Primordial Nature (Pradhâna) is not the ‘effect’ of anything, and hence
the word ‘Ajâ’ refers to the Pradhâna which is of the nature of the three
d raja and tama) in equilibrium.
traits (sattva,
Camasavadaviúes+ât (8)
The word ‘Ajâ’ does not refer to Pradhâna, for no special attributes have been
stated, as in the case of the bowl.
It is not possible to establish the Sânkhya theory on the basis of the arguments put
forward by the opponent in respect of the word ‘Ajâ’ occurring in the Úruti under
O;qRiÙ;k êwyizÑfrjfoÑfrfjfr* lka[;kH;qixR;k p f=kxq.klkE;koLFkkizÑfrjso&

vtk'kCnokP;sfr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq uSrsu eU=ks.k lka[;oknL; JqfreÙoekJf;rqa
'kD;a] loZ=kkfi ;;k d;kfpRdYiu;k¿tkRokfnlEiknuksiiÙks%A rFkkfg u tk;rs
bR;tk'kCnL;kU;=kkfi lkèkkj.;kn=k fuèkkZj.kkHkkos n`"VkUr%] pelor~A ;Fkk &
^vokZfXcy'pel ÅèoZcqèu%* (c`ñ 2@2@3) bfr eU=ks LokrU=;s.kk;a pel bR;o&
èkkjf;rqe'kD;e~A ;Fkk dFkf×pnokZfXcyRokns% loZ=kkfi lEHkokr~A ,ofegkI;fo'ks"kkr~
^vtkesdkfe* fr eU=ks izèkkuesoktk'kCnkFkZ bfr fu;Urqe'kD;fefr Hkko%AA8AA
uuq r=k ^bna rfPNj% ,"k áokZfXcy'pel ÅèoZcqèu%* bfr okD;'ks"kkPpel&
fo'ks"kcksèkks HkofrA bg ds;etk izfriÙkO;sR;=kkgµ
d .in
(115) T;ksfr#iØek rq rFkk Þ;èkh;r ,ds t.i n
AA9AA
rq'kCnks¿oèkkj.kkFkZd%A czã.kks T;ksfrLrst miØes u;L;k% es rstks¿cUuy{k.kk;k%
lSo T;ksfr#iØek fuèkkZj.kh;k] u izèkkue~A dqr%\ta
q
a n rFkk ásds 'kkf[kuLrstks¿cUukuka
v
consideration, for the word in its literal sense
d
eof implication, viz. ‘one that is birthless’, is
li
generally used in varied contexts. Hence,@ in the absence of any specifications, such
u
t can isbeafurther
d r
(chamasa). The Úruti declares, a
conclusion cannot be drawn. This
‘There bowl
illustrated by an example of the bowl
that has its opening at the bottom and it
e n 2.2.3);
bulges at the top’ (Br. Up.
r
whereby no definite bowl can be identified on the basis
n aassert that the word refers to Pradhâna only. (8)

of such general information. Similarly by the mere occurrence of the word ‘Ajâ’, one
.
dButr in the illustration of the bowl, one can identify the particular bowl by the
cannot definitely
complementary Úruti text that says, ‘This bowl is our own head that bulges at the top and
opens below’ (Br. Up. 2.2.3). But what is the implication of the word ‘Ajâ’ here? The
next aphorism answers this,
Jyotirupakramâ tu tathâ hyadhîyata eke (9)
But the elements counting from fire are meant, for some read so.
The word ‘tu’ (lit. but) in the aphorism is used in the sense of emphasizing. The
emphasis being that the word ‘Ajâ’ certainly implies the three elements (fire, water and
ijes'ojknqRifÙkekEuk; rs"kkeso jksfgrkfn:irka ^;nXus jksfgra :ia rstlLrn~:ife*

R;keufUrA rkU;sosg jksfgrkfn'kCnlkekU;kÙkstks¿cUukfu izR;fHkKk;UrsA jksfgrkfn'kCnkuka
p :ifo'ks"ks"kq eq[;Rokn~HkkDrRokPp xq.kfo"k;RoL;klafnXèksu lfUnXèkL; fuxeua
U;kÕ;fefrAA9AA
uuq rstks¿cUukReuk =kS:I;s.k f=k:iktk izfriÙkqe'kD;k] rs"otk¿¿ÑfrRofojgkr~]
tkfrJo.kkPpsR;r vkgµ
(116) dYiuksins'kkPp eèokfnonfojksèk% AA10AA
p 'kCn%'kÄïkfujklkFkZ% uk;etk¿¿ÑfrfufeÙkks¿tk'kCn%] ukfi ;kSfxd%] fdUrq
.i n
earth), and does not refer to Primordial Nature with its three traits (sattva, raja and tama).
n d
The reason for such understanding being that the followers of a certain recension of the
i
st .
Vedas, after declaring the origin of fire, water and earth from the Supreme Lord, then
u e
read, ‘The red color visible in the gross fire (sthûla-agni, fire in its material compounded
t a q
form) is the color of the element Fire (teja) in its uncompounded form, the white color
a n
visible in the gross fire is that of the element Water and the black color seen in the gross
e d
fire is the color of the element Earth’ (Ch. Up. 6.4.1). These very elements viz. the Fire,
v
Water and Earth are being indicated here (Úv. Up. 4.5) by the three hues of the Ajâ, for the
li@
words ‘red’ etc. occur identically in both Úrutis. Moreover the primary inference of the
tu
d r a
words ‘red’ etc. is in the exposition of colors, and not in the exposition of the three
constituents of Pradhâna, to which their reference may at best be configurative only.
e n
Also, it is well accepted that any doubtful text should be interpreted with the help of
ar
something explicit. Hence the word ‘Ajâ’ refers to the three elements only. (9)
n
d r. it is difficult to comprehend that the three elements are the implication of the
Still
word ‘Ajâ’, for the elements do not conform to the meaning of the word ‘Ajâ’. The word
‘Ajâ’ literally means ‘the birthless’, whereas all the three elements are known to be created.
Also the other meaning of the word is ‘she-goat’, which also does not conform to the
elements inasmuch as the shape is concerned. This is being answered in the next aphorism,
Kalpanopadeúâcca madhvâdivadavirodhah+ (10)
And the instruction has been given through the simile, as in the case of honey
etc., and hence there is no contradiction.
dYiuksins'kkÙkstks¿cUukReizÑrkS uktkRokuqiifÙk%A ;Fkk fg yksds ;n`PN;k dkfpntk

yksfgrkfno.kkZ l:icgq'kkodtuf;=kh HkofrA rka df'pntks tq"kek.kks¿uqorZrs]
df'pPpSuka HkqDrHkksxka R;tfrA ,ofegkfi rstks¿cUu:ik Hkwrizd`frfL=ko.kkZ
l:icgqfodkjtuf;=kh {ks=kKsukfonq"kksiHkqT;rs] fonq"kk p ifjR;T;rsA u pSoa {ks=kKHksnL;
ikjekfFkZdRoek'kÄïuh;e~\ izfl¼Hksneuw|kSikfèkdHksna pknk; 'kkL=kL; cUèkeks{k&
O;oLFkkizfriknuijRokr~A ;Fkk eèkqfHkUukfnR;L; ^vlkS ok¿fnR;ks nsoeèkq* bfr
eèkqRoksins'k%* ;Fkk ok okp'pkèksuksèksZuqRoksins'k%A ,oeutk;k vtkRoksins'ks u
df'pf}jksèk%A rLekUukfLr izèkkuxzg.kkodk'kks¿=ksR;'kCnRoa izèkkuL;sfrAA10AA
.in
(34) (3 la[;ksilaxzgkfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 11&13)
d
t .in
The word ‘ca’ (and) in the aphorism is to dispel the above
e s doubt. The use of the
word ‘Ajâ’ to indicate the three elements is not on the basisu
a q of its literal meaning as ‘the
birthless one’, or from the point of view of the form oft‘she-goat’,
n
ato beofofthrough
but the word has rather
As in the common experience, a she-goat is e

v d
been used in the sense of the elements being spoken
seen
the simile of a she-goat.
red, white and black color, and
she gives birth to many offspring of the
for pleasure, and still some other u
@
li may discard her. Similarly the three elements viz.
same colors. An ‘Aja’ (he-goat) may follow her
a t ‘Aja’
the fire, water and earth are
r red, white and black in color respectively, and their
d transformations of similar colors. The ignorant embodied
r e n
amalgamation produces various
them. (It mustn a

soul is continuously engaged in enjoying these, whereas the enlightened one discards
d r. be understood here that though an apparent division of souls into ‘ignorant’

and ‘enlightened’ has been done, but no such division should be assumed transcendentally.
The apparent division, which is due to the limiting adjuncts consequent to false ignorance,
is meant only to explain the mechanisms of bondage and liberation.) As Sun, though
different from honey, is imagined as honey (Ch. Up. 3.1); or the speech, though not a
cow, is thought of as a cow (Br. Up. 5.8); similarly the elements fire, water etc., though
are not a she-goat, but are fancied to be so. Hence there is no contradiction in the implication
of the word ‘Ajâ’. The fact that the word ‘Ajâ’ does not refer to the ‘Pradhâna’, proves
that the latter has no scriptural sanction whatsoever. (10)
Topic 3: Sankhyopasangrahâdhikarana
(The Mention of Numbers)
iwoZekè;kfRedkfèkdkjs izfl¼PNkxxzg.kk;ksxkntk'kCnLrstks¿cUukfnij%A rFkk

^;fLeu~ i×ptuk%* bfr eU=ks i×ptu'kCnsu euq";kfnxzg.kk;ksxkRlka[;kfHker&
i×pfoa'kfrrÙoxzg.ka L;kfnfr n`"VkUrlaxR;snekgµ
(117) u la[;ksilaxzgknfi ukukHkkoknfrjsdkPp AA11AA
v=k iwiZi{ks czãf.k leUo;kflf¼%] fl¼kUrs rfRlf¼fjfr iQyHksn%A ^;fLeu~
In the previous adhikarana the word ‘Ajâ’ was construed to imply the three elements
to the exclusion of its other widespread implication viz. the she-goat. Similarly in the
Úruti text, ‘That in which panca-pancajanâh+ abide’ (Br. Up. 4.4.17), it is unreasonable to
admit the meaning of the word ‘panca-pancajana’ as humans etc. Hence it would be
. in
appropriate to admit the twenty-five elements of the Sânkhya School as the implication
in d
of the word. Thus this adhikarana commences in response to the aforementioned illustration
of the opponent.
st .
u e
Doubt: The Úruti declares, ‘That in which abideq
n a
t immortal’ (Br. Up. 4.4.17).
the panca-pancajanâ along with
e d a refers to the twenty-five categories

space, I know that Self; knowing the Self as thus one
Here arises a doubt whether the word ‘panca-pancajana’
becomes
@
as indicated in the Sânkhya theory, or doesv it refer to the vital-force (Prâna) etc. that
occur in the complementary text? li
a tu
Opponent: Since r
d the word ‘panca’ (five) has occurred twice in the Úruti, it is
nassume that it indicates the twenty-five categories of the Sânkhyas.
r e
therefore reasonable to
a
r.
modificationsn
These are - Primordial Nature (Pradhâna; it is not a modification of anything else); Seven
of Primordial Nature viz. Mahatattva (evolves from Pradhâna), ego
d evolves from Mahatattva) and the five elements (space, air, fire, water and
(ahankâra;
earth; they evolve from ego) in their subtle forms; sixteen evolved products (five elements
in their gross form and eleven organs); and the Purus+a (it is neither a source nor a
modification of anything).
Na sankhyopasangrahâdapi nânâbhâvâdatirekâcca (11)
Not even from the statement of numbers can Pradhâna be admitted to have
scriptural sanction, for the entities are different, and on account of excess.
i×pi×ptuk vkd'k'p izfrf"Br%A reso eU;s vkRekua fo}kUczãke`rks¿e`re~* (c`ñ

4@4@17) bR;kfnokD;e=k fopkjfo"k;%A r=k i×pi×ptu'kCnsu lka[;u;s izfl¼kfu
ewyizÑR;knhfu i×pfoa'kfrrÙokU;qP;Urs] mr okD;'ks"kxrizk.kkn; bfr la'k;s_
i×p'kCn};n'kZusu êwyizÑfrjfoÑfreZgnk|k% izÑfrfoÑr;% lIrA "kksM'kd'p
fodkjks u izÑfruZ foÑfr% iq#"k%AA* bfr lka[;Le`frizfl¼kfu i×pfoa'kfrrÙokfu
JqfreÙosu laxzkák.khfr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq ukfLeUeU=ks i×p'kCn};Jo.ksu
la[;ksilaxzgknfi lka[;Le`frizfl¼kuka i×pfoa'kfrrÙokuka JqfreÙoa izR;k'kk drZO;kA
ukukHkkokr~] ukukásrkfu i×pfoa'kfr% rÙokfuA uS"kka i×p'k% i×p'k% lkèkkj.kèkeks¿Z fLr]
.in
rRdFka lka[;Le`frizfl¼s i×pfoa'krsjUrjkys i×pi×pla[;k fufo'ksju~\ fda pk=k
d
t.in
ij% i×p'kCnks tu'kCnsu leLr% i×ptuk% bfr ikfjHkkf"kds.k Lojs.kSdinRofu'p;kr~
es
leLrRokPp u ohIlk î×p i×p* bfrA rLekRi×p i×ptuk bfr u i×pfoa'kfrrÙok&
u
taq
fHkizk;e~A vfrjsdkPp u i×pfoa'kfrrÙokfHkizk;e~A eU=ks¿fLeu~ i×pfoa'kfr&
an
rÙokfrfjDrRosukRekdk'k;ks% Jo.ksu lIrfoa'kfrrÙoizkIrkoifl¼kUrkifÙk%A rLekUuk=k
ved
lka[;u;izfl¼i×pfoa'kfrrÙoxzg.keqfprfefrAA11AA
li@
uuq ds iquLrs i×ptuk ukesR;r vkgµ
u
t
dra
Though by the usage of the word ‘pânca’ (five), twice in this Úruti, we admit to
ren
the mention of numbers, but it is inappropriate to acknowledge its implication in
na
delineation of the twenty-five categories of the Sânkhya fame and hoping for their scriptural
dr.
sanction. The word ‘panca-pancajanâ’ refers to five divisions of five each, which implies
five divisions of five similar groups; but the twenty-five categories of the Sânkhyas are
disparate. These twenty-five categories do not exhibit any similarity so as to enable them
to be placed in five groups of five similar objects. Hence the twenty-five categories of
Sankhyas are not implied here. Moreover the second ‘panca’ in the word ‘panca-pancajanâ’
cannot be separated from the word ‘janâ’ (panchajanâ being a compound word) to be
construed separately with the first ‘panca’ to make twenty-five.
Furthermore, in the Úruti under consideration, the number twenty-five is exceeded

due to the mention of ‘Space’ and ‘Self’ as separate from the five groups of five. This
takes the total number to twenty-seven. Hence the twenty-five categories of the Sânkhyas
are not implied. (11)
(118) izk.kkn;ks okD;'ks"kkr~ AA12AA

izk.k ,okfn;sZ"kka izk.kp{kq%Jks=kkÂeulka rs izk.kkn;% i×ptu'kCnsu xzkák%A
dqr%\ okD;'ks"kkr~A mÙkj=k okD;'ks"ks îzk.kL; izk.keqr p{kq"k'p{kq#rJks=kL; Jks=keÂL;kÂa
eulks ;s euks fonq%* (c`ñ 4@4@18) bR;=k lfÂfgrs rs"kka fo|ekuRokr~A uuq dFka
izk.kkfn"kq tu'kCniz;ksx% bfr psÂ_ rÙos"kq tu'kCnL; iz;ksxs¿fi izfl¼ÔfrØe.ks
lekus okD;'ks"ks.k rFkkoèkkj.kkTtulEcUèkkPpA nsofir`xUèkokZlqjj{klka] lfu"kknkuka
prqoZ.kkZuka ok i×ptu'kCnsu xzg.ks¿fi u fojksèk%] fdUrq i×pfoa'kfrrÙokuka uk=k
If the word ‘panca-pancajanâ’ does not refer to the twenty-five categories of the
in
Sânkhyas, then what is its implication? To answer this commences the next aphorism,
.
in d
Prân+âdayo vâkyaúes+ât (12)
st .
e
u this is known from the
The vital-force and the others are meant, for
ta q
complementary text.
n
ato vital-force, eye, ear, food and mind;
The word ‘Prânâdi’ in the aphorism e
v d
refers
and these very entities are referred@
consideration (Br. Up. 4.4.17), foru licomplementary passage of the Úruti declares, ‘Those
to by the word ‘pancajanâ’ in the Úruti under
t the
who know the Vital-force ofathe vital-force, Eye of the eye, Ear of the ear, Food of the
r
d mind’ (Br. Up. Mâdhyandina recension 4.4.21), wherein the
n
food and the Mind of the
e
word ‘jana’ n ar cannot
five mentioned earlier by the word ‘pancajanâ’ are clearly revealed. If objected that the
d . (people) be appositely applied to these five entities; we say that the

r true even for the twenty-five categories of the Sânkhyas too. Hence though
same holds
the word ‘pancajanâ’ (lit. five people) literally may not be apposite for the aforesaid five
entities, but the complementary passage of the Úruti under consideration justifies its above
usage. Moreover all five entities are known to be associated with the literal implication
of the word ‘jana’ - the people. Hence on the strength of the complementary passage, and
because of the association with ‘people’, the word ‘pancajanâ’ should be understood to
imply the five entities viz. the vital-force etc.
Or the word ‘pancajanâ’ may also be construed to imply the five namely – the
gods, manes, gandharvas, devils and demons. Or the word may imply – the Brâhmins,
the Ks+atriya, Veúya, Úûdra and the Nis+âdas (sons born out of Brâhmin father and Úûdra
ifjxzg bR;kpk;kZ.kka rkRi;Zfefr Hkko%AA12AA

(119) T;ksfr"kSds"kkelR;Âs AA13AA
uuq ekè;fUnuhuka izk.kkfn"oÂL; ikBknLrq i×pla[;kiwj.ke~] dk.okuka rq
r=kkÂ'kCnikBkHkkokr~ dFka izk.kkn;% i×ptuk% L;qfjfr psÂ_ ,ds"kka dk.okuke&
lR;Â'kCnikBs iwoeZ U=kksDrsu T;ksfr"kk i×pla[;kiwj.ks¿fojksèkkr~A vfLr fg r=k iwofZ LeUeU=ks
^rísok T;ksfr"kka T;ksfrfj* fr T;ksfr% 'kCnL; ikB%A lekus¿fi eU=ks T;ksfr"kks¿is{kk&
Hksnknsd=kxzg.keU;=kkxzg.kfeR;I;fojksèk%A vr% izèkkue'kCnfefr fl¼e~AA13AA
d .in
mother). These implications of the word are also acceptable as there is no contradiction,
t.in
but in no circumstance can the word refer to the twenty-five categories of Sânkhyas. (12)
s the five entities
eamongst
Though the Mâdhyandina recension mentions ‘food’ u
qEye of the eye, Ear of the ear,
ta
nMâdhyandina recension 4.4.21), but
viz. ‘Those who know the Vital-force of the vital-force,
d a
Food of the food and the Mind of the mind’ (Br. Up.
the text in the Kân+va recension contains no e
v mention of ‘food’ amongst vital-force etc.,
@ to four only. The next aphorism clarifies this
li
thereby reducing the number of the entities
u
position,
t
a aikes+âmasatyanne (13)
d rJyotis+
r e n
n a adds up to number five for the recension that does not mention food.
r.
The Light
dThough ‘food’ is not mentioned amidst vital-force etc. in the Kân+va text, still the
count of five is fulfilled by the mention of ‘Light’ (jyoti) in the verse immediately preceding
the text, ‘That in which panca-pancajanâ abide’. The Úruti there declares, ‘One who
knows the Light of lights’ (Br. Up. 4.4.16), wherein the Supreme Self is declared as the
Light of lights. If objected that since the text concerning the ‘Light’ occurs equally in
both the recensions, how can it be accepted amongst the five at one place (Kânva recension)
and left out at the other (Mâdhyandina recension); we say that in the Mâdhyandina
recension the quintuplet consisting of the vital-force and others are accepted as such
inasmuch as they occur in the same verse, and hence there is no need to turn to ‘Light’
that occurs in the different verse, but in the Kân+va Úruti such arrangement is not present.
Hence no Úruti text endorses the existence of Pradhâna of the Sânkhyas. (13)
(35) (4 dkj.kRokfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 14&15)

iwoZefèkdj.k=k;s.k izèkkuL;k'kCnRolkèkusu osnkUrkuka czãf.k leUo;efHkèkk;
lEizfr rs"kka feFkks fo#¼kFkZizfrikndRosu fu.ksZrqe'kD;Roknkuqekfudizèkkuij% iwoksZDr%
leUo;ks¿H;qis; bR;k{ksilaxfr%A vO;ofgrs p iwoZ=k fojksèkifjgkjs¿fiizÑrs fojksèks
lfr okD;kukeizkek.;fefr izR;qnkgj.k:ikokUrjlaxfr'pkLrhR;r vkgµ
(120) dkj.kRosu pkdk'kkfn"kq ;FkkO;ifn"VksDrs% AA14AA
v=k iw o Z i {ks leUo;kflf¼%] fl¼kUrs rfRlf¼fjfr iQyHks n %A v=k
Topic 4: Kâran+atvâdhikarana
.i n
(The cause of Creation)
i n d
s .
tof the Sânkhya School
e
In the last three adhikaranas it was shown that ‘Pradhâna’
u
demonstrated that all Úruti texts conclude harmoniously q
has no scriptural sanction inasmuch as no Úruti text concludes in this entity. It was also
ta in Brahman alone. Here the
opponent objects that due to mutual contradictionsainnthe vedântic texts, the aforementioned
v
harmonious conclusion of these texts in Brahmane d is inadmissible, and hence these texts
should be accepted as concluding in@
l i delineation of Pradhâna. The current adhikarana
tu
commences in response to such protestation.
a
r that deal with the creation etc. of the Universe are considered
Doubt: All Úrutidtexts
r e
in this adhikarana. Heren arises a doubt whether the Úrutis that propound Brahman as the
n a are valid or not?
r.
cause of the Universe
dOpponent: These Úruti texts are not admissible as proof for the causality of
Brahman due to their observable mutual contradictions.
Kâran+atvena câkâúâdis+u yathâvyapadis+t+okteh+ (14)
Brahman is the cause of space and the rest, for such is declared by all Upanis+ads
just as It is declared by any one of them.
txTtUekfndkj.kRokfnokD;kfu czãf.k izek.ka] u osfr fo'k;s_ rs"kka feFkksfojksèkn'kZukÂ

r=k ekufefr iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq pdkj% iwoZ'kÄïkO;ko`Ù;FkZ%A lR;fi izfrosnkUra
l`T;ekus"okdk'kkfn"kq Øekfnfojksèks u dkj.ks lz"Vfj d'pu fojksèkks¿fLrA dqr%\
;FkkO;ifn"VksDrs%A ;FkkásdfLeu~ osnkUrs ;FkkHkwr% loZK% losZ'oj% lokZReSdks¿f}rh;ks
txRdkj.kRosu O;ifn"VLrFkkHkwrL;Sos'ojL; osnkUrkUrjs"ofi txRdkj.kRosu
O;ifn"VksDrs%A rFkkfg & ^bna loZel`trA ;fnna fd×p* (rSñ 2@6) ^lnso lksE;snexz
vklhnsdesokf}rh;e~* (Nkñ 6@2@1) ^vkRek ok bnesd ,okxz vklhÂkU;fRd×pufe"kr~*
(,sñ 4@1@1) bR;soatkrh;dkuka okD;kukefo#¼kFkZdRokr~A û fo;nJqrsfj* R;=k
dk;Zfo"k;a fojksèka lekèkkL;fr lw=kdkj%A vLrq ok dk;Zfo"k;s fojksèk%] rL;kizfr&
d .in
t .i n
ik|RokÂnks"k%A rFkk p lEiznk;fon% ê`YyksgfoLiQqfyÄ~xk|S% l`f"V;kZ pksfnrkU;FkkA
mik;% lks¿orkjk; ukfLr Hksn% dFk×pu* (ekñ dkñ 3@15) bfr onfUrA vr%
u es
Jqfrizfrik|s¿f}rh;s czãf.k fojksèkkHkko bR;fHkizk;%AA14AA
ta q
a ndispel all doubts. It is true that each
The word ‘ca’ (and) in the aphorism is
v d
e of creation of elements like Space etc.
to
i@ as far as the cause of creation is concerned,

Úruti differs from the other inasmuch as the order
u l
are concerned, but still there is no contradiction
t in propounding the omniscient, omnipresent and
a
for all Úrutis unanimously conclude
omnipotent Brahman as therultimate cause of creation. The Úruti declares, ‘The Supreme
dexists’ (Tai. Up. 2.6), ‘O amiable one, before creation there was
e n
r one without a second’ (Ch. Up. 6.2.1), ‘Indeed there was nothing
Lord created all this that
a
n but the Self’ (Ait. Up. 4.1.1) etc., wherein there is no contradiction as far
but Existence alone,
r.
prior to creation
d is concerned. As far as the discrepancy amongst the Úrutis in elucidating
as the creator
the order of creation is concerned, we say that such difference in the order can well be
reconciled, as the aphorist Vyâsa would do in the coming Sûtras. Even if this discrepancy
in the order of creation be admitted, still there is no discrepancy as far as the creator
(Brahman) is concerned. Moreover the ultimate purport of the Úrutis is not to propound
the products, but the Úrutis eventually aim to demonstrate the causality of Brahman as
the first cause. The same has been declared by the teacher Gaud+apâda in his karikâs on
the Mând+ukya Upanis+ad, wherein he says, ‘The Úruti explains the process of creation in
diverse ways, with the help of illustrations of clay, iron, sparks etc., only to enable the
intellect to grasp the non-dual entity that is Brahman, but there is no diversity whatsoever.
(Ma. Ka. 3.15). Hence there is no contradiction as regards Brahman (the creator) amongst
the Úruti texts. (14)
(121) lekd"kkZr~ AA15AA

uuq ^vl}k bnexz vklhr~* (rSñ 2@7) ^vlnsons exz vklhr~* (Nkñ 3@19@1)
bR;knkS Dofpnlr%] ^lnso lksE;snexz vklhr~* (Nkñ 6@2@1) bR;=k Dofp&
Rlr'pksRifÙkJo.kkRdkj.kfo"k;s foxkua Jw;rs bfr psÂ_ r=k r=kkufHkO;Dr&
uke:iokpdsuklPNCnsu lr% dkj.kL;So lekd"kkZr~A uke:iO;kÑroLrqfo"k;s izk;s.k
lPNCn% iz;qT;rsA izkxqRiÙksLrnHkkokr~ lnso czãklfnoklhfnR;qip;Zrs bfr uklPNCnsu
dkj.kL;kR;UrkHkkoks¿H;qixUrO;%A vrks txRdkj.kRookfnosnkUrokD;kuka czãf.k
leUo;kH;qixes u fojksèk bfr fl¼e~ AA15AA
(36) (5 ckykD;fËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 16&18)
.in
n
Opponent: The Úruti declares, ‘This world, of the nature ofiname
d and form, was
s .
t On the other hand
e
but non-existence in the beginning’ (Tai. Up. 2.7.1, Ch. Up. 3.19.1).
the Chândogya Úruti declares, ‘This world before creationu
ta q was but existence only’ (Ch.
an
Up. 6.2.1); whereby one hears of creation from ‘existence’ at some places and ‘non-
ve d
existence’ at others. Hence an obvious contradiction persists.
Vedântin: To this we say, @

u li
a t Samâkars+ât (15)
d r
r e n
n a
Non-existence does not imply absolute non-existence, for there is an allusion
r
dThe.
to the text referring to Brahman.
word ‘non-existence’ refers to the unmanifested state of the name and form,
i.e. the state when the world had not yet differentiated into name and form. It does not, in
any way whatsoever, preclude the existence of Brahman in that state of unmanifested
name and form. The word ‘existence’ is commonly used to refer to any entity that has
explicit name and form. But since no such entity existed prior to creation, when Brahman
alone was present, and hence Brahman alone has been figuratively designated by the
word ‘non-existence’ in that state of non-manifestation of name and form. Hence, by the
word ‘non-existence’, none should presume the absolute absence of the cause in that
state. Hence there is no contradiction amongst Úrutis inasmuch as the first cause (Brahman)
is concerned. (15)
iwo± lekuokD;LFkRosuklPNCnks¿fi lPNCnkFkZ ij bR;qDre~A v=k rq dkS"khrfd&

czkã.ks okD;Hksnkr~ ^czã rs czok.khfrckykfdokD;LFkczã'kCnsu u izk.kkfn'kCnks usraq
'kD;% bfr izR;qnkgj.klÄ~xR;snekgµ
(122) tx}kfpRokr~ AA16AA
Topic 5: Bâlâkyadhikarana
(Bâlâki’s dialogue)
The word ‘non-existence’ in the last adhikarana was shown to imply ‘existence’
.in
due to its occurrence in similar texts, but here in the Kaus+îtaki Brâhmana, the text, ‘I will
d
t. n
speak to you of Brahman’ (Kau. Up. 4.1), the occurrence of word ‘Brahman’ in this
i
declaration by Bâlâki cannot be considered a basis for interpreting the word ‘Prân+a’ etc.
u es
as implying Brahman; the current adhikarana thus commences in response to such counter-
illustration by the opponent.
ta q
Here in the opponent’s view, on admittinga
n
meditation on Prâna etc., one cannot assertv d
ethe harmonious conclusion of all Vedântic
the Kaus+îtaki Úruti text as propounding
li@ endorses such harmonious conclusion in

texts into Brahman, whereas the Vedântin
u
Brahman.
a t
r “O Bâlâki, one should indeed know Him who is the
ddeclares,
n
re as’ (beings) and whose work this is” (Kau. Up. 4.19). Here arises a
Doubt: The Úruti
a
creator of these ‘purus+
doubt whether
soul, ord
. nthe entity to be known is Prâna (chief vital-force), or is it the individual
isrit Brahman?
Opponent: The entity to be known is Prâna indeed, for the text, ‘whose work this
is’, surely implies that only, for Prâna alone is the basis of all actions (movements).
Moreover Prâna is also mentioned in the complementary passage that declares, ‘Then it
becomes one with the Prâna alone’ (Kau. Up. 4.20)
Or the entity referred by the Úruti under consideration may be the individual soul,
for elsewhere it is declared, ‘and so feeds the conscious soul on these souls’ (Kau. Up.
4.20), wherein the indicatory sign of the individual soul is present.

v=k iwoZi{ks¿L; okD;L; izk.kk|qiklukijRokn~czãf.k leUo;kflf¼%] fl¼kUrs

rfRlf¼fjfr iQyHksn%A ^;ks oS ckykd! ,rs"kka iq#"kk.kka dÙkkZ ;L; oSrRdeZ l oS
osfnrO;%* (dkSñ czkñ 4@18) bR;kfnokD;e=k fopkjfo"k;%A r=k osfnrO;% dÙkkZ fda
izk.kks] thoks] czã osfr la'k;s_ ^;L; oSrRdesZ* fr pyukReddeZ.k% izk.kkJ;Rokr~
eq[;% izk.kks xzká%A ^,oeso"S k* îzKkResrjS kRefHkHkqƒ
Z *s (dkSñ czkñ 4@20) bfr thofyÄ~xkr~
thoks ok xzká%A vrks thoeq[;izk.k;ksjU;rj ,ok=k xzkáks] u ijekResfr iwoZ% i{k%A
fl¼kUrLrq ,"kka iq#"kk.kka dÙkkZ ijekReSo L;kr~A dqr%\ ^czã rs czok.kh* (dkSñ 4@1)
fr ijekReu ,oksiØekr~A vU;L; xzgs miØeks ckè;srA û p ;L; oSrRdesZ* R;=k
deZinsu ifjLiUnu:iL; èkekZèkeZy{k.kL; ok deZ.k% ijekRefu vlEHkforRofefr
okP;e~ r;ks j U;rjL;kiz Ñ rRoknla ' kfCnrRokPpA ^,rRdeZ * fØ;rs bfr deZ
.i n
loZukEuSrPNCnsu izR;{klfÂfgra txnso xzkáfefr ,rRdeZ'kCnL; izR;{kk|qiLFkk&
in d
s t .
u e
Jagadvâcitvât (16)
a q
t hence Brahman is implied
Because the word ‘this work’ implies a nworld,
ed
the
here.
@ v
li
Brahman alone is implied
begins with the text, ‘I will a tuto youtheofÚruti
by as the creator of beings, for the context
d r of the context cannot be reconciled. As for the assertion

speak Brahman’ (Kau. Up. 4.1). On accepting any
re nthe Úruti under deliberation points to either work involving some

other meaning, the beginning
n a or refers to some virtuous or non-virtuous action, both of which are not

that the word ‘work’ in
in. the Supreme Self; we say that such assertion is incorrect, for there is no
sort of movement
possible r
d
indicatory sign referring to the vital-force or the individual soul. The word ‘work’ in the
text is qualified by the pronoun ‘Aitat’ (This), which refers to work at hand (in proximity).
And such work is the creation of the Universe, the ability to accomplish which rests with
the Supreme Lord alone, and not with the vital-force or the individual soul. If asserted
that since the Universe has not been mentioned by name, then how can it be accepted as
the implication of the pronoun ‘aitat’; we say that since the Úruti doesn’t mention anything
specific at hand, hence the things in general are to be admitted; and the most proximate
general thing that can be construed from the context is the Universe. As far as the specific
mention of ‘purus+as’ is concerned, it has been made to demonstrate that the ‘beings’
spoken of as Brahman by Bâlâki, are not so. Hence, by both general and specific statements,
firtx}kfpRokr~ ijekReSok=k dr`Zinsuksikns;%A u p txnUr%ikfrRosu iq#"kk.kkefi

ijekRedrZ`dRoa fl¼eso] fdeFkZesrRi`Fkx~fo'ks"k.kfefr okP;e~_ ckykfduk
czãRosuksDriq#"kk.kkeczãRo[;kiuk; czkã.kifjozktdU;k;su lkekU;fo'ks"kkH;ka
txRdr`Zijes'ojL; osfnrO;Rosuksins'kkFkZRokfnfr Hkko%AA16AA
(123) thoeq[;izk.kfyÄ~xkÂsfr psÙk}Ôk[;kre~ AA17AA
uuq ^;nk lqIr% LoIua u d×pu i';R;FkkfLeUizk.ks ,oSdèkk Hkofr* (dkSñczkñ
4@19) bfr okD;'ks"ks eq[;izk.ks izfl¼L; izk.k'kCnL; n'kZusu ^;|Fkk Js"Bh
LoSHkqZÄ~Drs----,oesoS"k izKkReSrSjkRefHkHkqZÄ~Drs* (dkSñczkñ 4@20) bR;=k thookpd&
d .in
in
on the equivalence of the *‘Brâhman+aparivrâjaka nyâya’, the creator of the Universe is
t.
es
sermonized as the entity to be known. (16)
q u
ta
*The instruction, ‘feed the Brâhman+as and the mendicants’, wherein the word Brâhman+as denotes
n
a
all Brâhman+as who are not mendicants,even though it is acknowledged that only Brâhmans can become
v e d
mendicants. Similarly the word ‘work’ in the Úruti implies the creation of all except the ‘purus+as’, they
having been mentioned separately. This is ‘Brâhmanaparivrâjaka nyâya’, i.e. the logic of ‘Brâhmana and
the mendicant’.
u l i@
a
Jîvamukhyaprân+ t alingânneti cettadvyâkhyâtam (17)
d r
r e
If asserted thatnBrahman is not meant, for the indicatory marks of the embodied
n a are met with; then that has already been explained earlier.
soul and the vital-force
r.
dOpponent: It is not correct to state that the entity to be known is the Supreme
Self, for indicatory signs of Prâna (chief vital-force) and the Jîva (individual soul) are
explicitly met in the complementary passage. Hence either of the two should be admitted
as the entity to be known. The Úruti text, ‘Then it becomes one with the Prâna alone’
(Kau. Up. 4.20), wherein the indicatory sign of Prâna is clear; and the text, ‘and so feeds
the conscious soul on these souls’ (Kau. Up. 4.20), wherein occurs the sign of individual
soul.
Vedântin: This has already been explained in the aphorism (1.1.31). By admitting
the aforementioned complementary text there arises a situation of threefold meditation,
viz. the meditation on the Prâna, the meditation on the individual soul and the meditation
on Brahman. But such situation is not admissible, for going through the beginning and
izKkRe'kCnL; p n'kZusu okD;'ks"kxrkTthofyÄ~xkPp r;ksjU;rjL;Sosg xzg.ka U;k;a]

u ijes'ojL;sfr psÙk}Ôk[;kre~ izrnZukfèkdj.ks ûksiklk=kSfoè;knkfJrRokfng r|ksxkfnfr
(cz0 1@1@31) lw=ksA rFkkfoèkkH;qixes¿=k thoksiklua] eq[;izk.kksiklua] czãksiklua
psfr f=kfoèkeqiklua izlT;srA rPpSr}kD;L;ksiØeksilagkjkH;ka czãfo"k;RolEHkos¿U;kÕ;e~A
^czã rs czokf.k* (dkSñ czkñ 4@1) bR;qiØE; ^lokZUikIeuks¿igR; losZ"kka Hkwrkuka
JS"BÔa LokjkT;ekfèkiR;a i;sZfr ; ,oa osns* (dkSñ czkñ 4@20) R;qilagkjkr~A u p
rsuSoSrL; xrkFkZRofefr okP;e~_ r=k ^;L; oSrRdesZ* R;L; czãfo"k;RosukfuèkkZj.kkfnfr
Hkko% AA17AA
(124) vU;kFk± rq tSfefu% iz'uO;k[;kukH;kefi pSoesds AA18AA
.in
i n d
fda pk=k izdj.ks thoijke'kZeU;kFk± czãizfriÙ;Fk± tSfefujkpk;ksZ eU;rsA vrks
.
st is dealt with. The
e
the end of the text one can readily conclude that the subject of Brahman
u (Kau. Up. 4.1), and the
a q
beginning of the text declares, ‘I will speak to you of Brahman’
text concludes with, ‘He who knows the Brahman ast his own Self, destroys all the sins
a n amongst all beings’ (Kau. Up.
4.20). Hence Brahman alone has been talked v d
and attains the highest distinction, power and sovereignty
eof both in the start and the conclusion of the
passage.
l i@
a tu
aphorism (1.1.31); whyd
r
Opponent: If it be so, then the conclusion had already been reached in the earlier
r en the repetition here?
n a There in the earlier aphorism (1.1.31) no conclusion as regards the

r. work is this’ (Kau. Up. 4.19) was reached, but this has been the main subject
Vedântin:
d
text, ‘whose
of deliberation here. Hence the necessity of this adhikarana. (17)
Anyârtham tu jaiminih+ praúnavyâkhyânâbhyâmapi caivameke (18)
But Jaimini thinks that the reference here to the embodied soul is for a different
purpose, for such is known from the question and answer. Moreover some recension
mention it explicitly.
The consideration of the individual soul in this context is not aimed at describing
its nature, but is intended to enable the comprehension of Brahman; so feels the teacher
czãizèkkuesosna okD;a] u thoizèkkue~A dqr%\ iz'uO;k[;kukH;ke~A lqIriq#"kizfrcksèkusu

izk.kkfnfHkÂa izfrcksè; thoO;frfjDrfo"k;% iz'u% ^DoS"k ,r}kykds! iq#"kks¿'kf;"V]
Do ok ,rnHkwRdqr ,rnkxkfn* (dkS 4@19) R;=k n`';rsA rFkk ^^;nk lqIr% LoIua u
d×pu i';R;FkkfLeUizk.ks ,oSdèkk Hkofr** (dkSñ 4@19) bfr izfropuefi r=k
n`';rsA vrLrkH;ka lq"kqfIrdkys ijekReU;so thoL; Loki%] rr'pSokxeua Hkorhfr l
,ok=k osfnrO;r;k Jkfor%A vfi pSds oktlusf;uks ckykD;tkr'k=kqlaokns ^; ,"k
foKkue;% iq#"k% DoS"k rnkHkwRdqr ,rnkxkr~* (c`ñ 2@1@16) bfr iz'us ^^;
,"kks¿UrâZn;s vkdk'kLrfLe×Nsrs** (c`ñ 2@1@17) bR;k=kkdk'k'kfCnrs ijekReU;so
thoL; Lokia ^loZ ,rs vkReuks O;qPpjfUr* (c`ñ 2@1@20) bfr rrks O;qPpj.ka
d .in
pkeuUr% reso dkj.kRosukoxe;fUrA rLekRdkS"khrfdokD;efi ijekRekueso txRdkj&
t. in
.keoxe;Ùk=kSo lefUorfefrAA18AA
u es
(37) (6 okD;kUo;kfËkdj.ke~ a AqlwÒ 19&22)
n t
da
e isanswers
@ v
Jaimini. Hence the primary entity in this context not the individual soul, but is Brahman
i
only, for such is explicit from the questions and there. There the question asked
is, ‘O Bâlâki, where does this soul lgo during the deep-sleep? Where was it during this
uon awakening? (Kau. Up. 4.19). The answer given is,
t
ra where there are no dreams, it becomes unified with
state and from where did it emerge
‘When the soul enters theddeep-sleep,
n As it is all too well known, from the conclusions of various
the Prâna’ (Kau. Up.e4.19).
r
n a becomes unified with Brahman in deep-sleep and it awakens from It
.
Úrutis, that the soul
drnotonly.theHence
(Brahman) the above Úruti relates primarily to the knowledge of Supreme
Lord, and individual soul or the Prâna. Moreover the followers of the Vâjasaneyi
recension mention the discussion between Bâlâki and Ajâtaúatru as follows, ‘Where does
this soul, identified with intellect, go during the state of deep-sleep, and from where does
it emerge on waking up? (Br. Up. 2.1.16), this is the question. The reply is, ‘during deep-
sleep the soul dwells in the Space within the heart’ (Br. Up. 2.1.17), wherein the word
‘Space’ refers to the Supreme Brahman, with which merge the individual souls. Also the
Úruti further declares, ‘All emerge from the Self alone’ (Br. Up. 2.1.20), whereby the
Supreme Self has been propounded as the source of all manifestations. Hence the Kaus+îtiki
Úruti too propounds the Brahman alone as the source of all creation and none else. (18)
Topic 6: Vâkyânvayâdhikarana
(Correlation of Úruti texts)
iwo± ^czã rs czok.kh* R;qiØecykn~czãijRoa lfUnXèkokD;L;kfHkfgre~A ,oa

rfgZ ^û ok vjs iR;q% dkek;** bR;kfnthoksiØecykUeS=ks;hczkã.kL; thoijRoeH;qi;
s &
fefrn`"VkUrlaxR;snekgµ
(125) okD;kUo;kr~ AA19AA
v=k iwoZi{ks¿L; okD;L; foKkukReijRokn~ czãf.k leUo;kflf¼%] fl¼kUrs
rfRlf¼fjfr iQyHksn%A c`gnkj.;ds û ok vjs iR;q% dkek;* bR;qiØE; ^vkRek ok
In the previous adhikarana it was seen that on the strength of the inaugural text, ‘I
will speak to you of Brahman’ (Kau. Up. 4.1), the remaining doubtful text was shown to
conclude in Brahman; similarly on the strength of the introductory text, ‘O Maitreyi, the
.i n
husband is not dear for his sake, but is dear for one’s own sake’ (Br. Up. 2.4.5, 4.5.6),
in d
wherein the individual soul is referred to, the remaining passage of Maitreyi Brâhmana
st .
should also be inferred to conclude in Brahman. The current adhikarana commences
with such comparison.
u e
a q
t is not dear for his sake, but is
n
athe Úruti declares, ‘O Maitreyi, the Self
Doubt: Beginning with ‘O Maitreyi, the husband
e d
dear for one’s own sake’ (Br. Up. 2.4.5, 4.5.6),
v and contemplating’ (ibid.). Here arises a
@
alone is worthy of seeing, hearing, thinking
doubt whether the individual soulliis taught here as the entity to be seen, heard and
a tu Self?
contemplated upon or is it the Supreme
d r
Opponent:eThe
r n entities referred to by the Úruti like husband, wife and all other
n a to the soul
products of enjoyment
appositely.refers
befit the individual soul. Moreover the word ‘dear’ (priya)
r that enjoys these experiences. Hence, on the strength of the
d text it can be concluded that the individual soul has been referred to.
introductory
Vâkyânvayât (19)
The Supreme Lord alone has been taught here, for such is gathered from the
reconcilation of the texts.
The Supreme Lord alone has been taught here as the entity to be seen, heard etc.
This conclusion is drawn on the basis of consideration of the introductory and the
vjs æ"VO;% JksrO;ks eUrO;ks fufnè;kflrO;* bR;kfn Jw;rsA r=k fda æ"VO;Rokfnuk
thoks¿=kksifn';rs] ijekRek osfr la'k;s_ ifrtk;kfnda HkksX;Hkwra lo± txTthokFkZr;k
fiz;a Hkorhfr fiz;lalwfprsukReuk HkksD=kksiØelkeF;kZTthokReksins'k% izfrHkkrhfr iwoZ%
i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq ijekReSok=k æ"VO;Rokfnuksifn"Vks xzká%A dqr%\ miØekfn&
i;kZykspu;k¿L; okD;L; ijekReU;sokUo;kr~A rFkkfg ^;sukga uke`rk L;ka fdega rsu
dq;k± ;nso Hkxoku~ osn rnso es czwghfr] (c`ñ 2@4@3) bfr ve`rRok'kklku;k
eS=kÕ;k izkfFkZrks ;kKoYD;% ûkU;% iUFkk%* û deZ.kk* bR;kfnJqR;Urjs ^Kkuknso rq
dSoY;fe* fr Le`R;Urjs p izfl¼ee`rRolkèkuekRefoKkueqifn'kfrA vkRefoKkusu
loZfoKkua izfrKk; ^czã ra ijknk|ks¿U;=kkReuks czã osn* (c`ñ 2@4@6) bR;usu
d .in
t .i n
rnsoksiikn;frA ^nqUnqHksgUZ ;ekuL;* (c`ñ 2@4@7) bfr nqUnqH;kfnn`"VkUrSLresok¿O;frjsda
es
æ<+;frA ÍXosnkfndkj.kRoksins'ksu rL;So uke:ideZizi×pdkj.krka izfrikn;u~
u
t a q
,dk;uizfØ;k;ka pSua ijekRekueso xe;frA vr% ijekReSok=k æ"VO;Rokfnuksifn"V%
bfr xE;rsAA19AA
a n
v e d
concluding texts. Here Maitreyi says to@
u l i Yâjñavalkya, ‘What will I gain out of something
that cannot immortalize me. Hence
t you kindly teach me the means of immortality’ (Br.
ra seer‘Knowledge
Up. 2.4.3, 4.5.4). Hearing this,
Similarly other Úrutis tooddeclare,
Yâjñavalkya imparts to her the knowledge of Self.
r n alone is the means to emancipation, there

eNone can attain immortality through actions, wealth or progeny’.
a
being no other way.
nthepreach
d r.
The Smritis too
Úrutis declare
knowledge as the only means of emancipation. Moreover the
indispensability of the knowledge by saying, ‘One who knows the Self
to be different from Brahman is indeed defeated by Brahman’ (Br. Up. 2.4.6, 4.5.7).
Again in the same context the Úruti declares, ‘None can seize a musical note emerging
from a beating drum, but by seizing the drum one automatically seizes the note’ (Br. Up.
2.4.7, 4.5.8), whereby the same Self has been reinforced through the illustration of a
drum etc. Also the text, ‘R+g-Veda etc. are but the breath of that Supreme Lord’ (Br. Up.
4.5.11), whereby the Supreme Self has been declared as the source of the Vedas, and the
consequent names, forms, actions etc. that emerge from the Vedas. Similarly in the text
concerning the process of merger, wherein the merger of all rivers into the ocean etc. has
been illustrated, the Úruti again intends to propound the Supreme Self as the ultimate
goal of all manifestations. Hence the Supreme Lord alone is taught here in the concerned
passage, and not the individual soul. (19)
(126) izfrKkfl¼sfyZÄ~xek'ejF;% AA20AA

uUosoa lfr fiz;lalwfprksiØekf}KkukReuks æ"VO;Rokfnuksins'k% dFkeqii|srsfr\
v=k czwe% & ^vkRefu foKkrs lo± foKkra Hkofr** (c`ñ 2@4@6) bfr JqR;qDrk;k%
izfrKk;k% fl¼sfyZÄ~xesrn~] ;fRiz;lalwfprL; foKkukReuks æ"VO;RokfnladhrZu&
feR;k'ejF; vkpk;ksZ eU;rsA thoczã.kksjR;UrfHkÂRos ijekRefoKkus thokReuks
foKkrRokHkkosuSdfoKkusu loZfoKkuizfrKk gh;srA vr% izfrKkfl¼ÔFk± tho&
czã.kksjHksnka'keknk;ksiØe.kfefr Hkko%AA20AA
Opponent: But by the texts, ‘Everything is loved not for everything’s sake, but is
. in
loved for one’s own sake’, ‘the Self alone is to be seen, realized etc.’, ‘by knowing this
nd
Self all is known’ (Br. Up. 2.4.5, 4.5.6); the individual soul alone emerges as the entity
i
indicated to be seen, realized etc., and not the Supreme Self.
st .
e
uteacher Âúmarathya is now
Vedântin: The Bheda-abheda viewpoint of the
t a q
presented in the next aphorism,
a n
v e d
Pratijñâsiddherlingamaúmarathyah+ (20)
l @
i declaration of the non-difference between the
u
tSelf is an indicatory mark of the fulfillment of the
r a
Âúmarathya thinks that the
promissory assertion.nd
embodied soul and supreme
a re
n Âúmarathya says that the Úruti text, ‘All becomes known on knowing
The. teacher
r
d
the Self’ (Br. Up. 2.4.5, 4.5.6), makes a promissory declaration. If one acknowledges
absolute difference between the Supreme Self and the individual soul, then by the
knowledge of one (Supreme Self) the knowledge of other (individual soul) cannot be
attained, and the promise made by the Úruti remains unfulfilled. Hence the Supreme Self
and the individual soul are not different in the absolute sense, but have a cause-effect
relationship. They are different, but yet not different, akin to fire and the sparks (Bheda-
abheda theory). Hence the knowledge of the individual soul gives rise to the knowledge
of Brahman, and accordingly the knowledge of everything. Therefore, in the Úruti under
consideration, the reference to the individual self has been made in the beginning keeping
in mind those of its aspects that are not different from the Supreme Self. (20)
(127) mRØfe";r ,oaHkkokfnR;kSMqyksfe% AA21AA

vKkun'kk;ka nsgkfnla?kkrksifgrL; thoL; czã.kks fHkÂL; ^^,"k lEizlk&
nks¿LekPNjhjkRleqRFkk; ija T;ksfr#ilEi| Losu :is.kkfHkfu"i|rs** (Nkñ 8@12@3)
bfr JqfrizfrikfnrL; nsgkfndk;Zdj.kla?kkrknqRØfe";r% ,oaHkkokr~ & ijekReSD;&
Hkkokn~Hkfo";nHksneknk;sneHksnsuksiØe.kfefr vkSMqyksfejkpk;ksZ eU;rsAA21AA
uuq iwoZek'ejF;ers thoL; ijekReuks¿fHkÂRoa dk;Zdkj.k HkkokfHkizk;de~]
vkSMqyksfei{ks rq lalkjn'kk;ka Hksnks eqfDrn'kk;ka pkHksn bR;qDre~A r=k Dofpnfi r;ks%
d .in
The next aphorism presents the view-point of the teacher Aud+ulomi, of the School
of Satya-bheda,
t .in
u es(21)
Utkramis+yata evambhâvâdityaudulomih+
t a q
a n the identity of the individual soul
v
and the supreme Self refers to the state when d
Aud+ulomi says that the statement regarding
e the individual soul departs from the
body.
u li@
a t that the Úruti under consideration refers to the
dr for as long as the soul remains associated with the
The teacher Aud+ulomi opines
n
individual soul in the beginning,
rofeBrahman
n a
limiting adjuncts like the body, senses, mind, intellect etc., it is different from Brahman.
.
On the realization through the principle of knowledge, meditation etc., the
embodiedrsoul is purified and fit to be united with the Supreme Self, but only after
d
departing from the mind-body complex. Hence in the Úruti under consideration the initial
reference is to the embodied soul only, which on rising above the mind-body complex
becomes identical with Brahman. The other Úrutis too support this assertion, ‘The
embodied soul, during the state of deep sleep, rises above the body, and attaining the
Supreme Light gets established in its true nature’ (Ch. Up. 8.12.3). This School of thought
is referred to as the ‘Satya-bheda’ school, which propounds the difference between the
embodied soul and the Supreme Self as real, it being only annihilated after the former’s
departure from the assemblage of body and senses. (21)
The opinions of two different Schools of thought have been given in the last two
aphorisms. The teacher Âúmarathya propounds a cause-effect relation amongst the
ikjekfFkZdHksnkH;qixes¿oLFkkUrjs¿Hksnk;ksxkfnfr pjea lekèkkuekgµ

(128) vofLFkrsfjfr dk'kÑRLu% AA22AA
fo'kq¼L;So czã.kks¿fo|kdfYirsu thoHkkosukoLFkkuknqiiÂfeneHksnsuksi&
Øe.kfefr JqfrrkRi;ZK% dk'kÑRLu% vkpk;ksZ eU;rsA vrks æ"VO;s ijczãf.k
eS=ks;hczkã.kokD;a lefUorfefr fl¼e~AA22AA
(38) (7 izœR;fËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 23&27)
iwo± ^tUek|L; ;r%* bfr lw=ks txRdkj.kRokfnuk yf{kra czãA rr~ fda
.i n
Supreme Self and the Individual Self leading to the theory of Bheda-abheda, whereas the
i n d
teacher Aud+ulomi is of the opinion that the difference between the Supreme Self and the
.
Individual Self is real as long as the latter remains confined by the limiting adjuncts like
st
e
the body etc. (Satya-bheda theory). But both theories are at fault, for admitting any kind
u
ta q
of difference between the Supreme Self and the Individual Self in one state and the absence
of such disparity in another, is not justified. Hence the final conclusion is being given,
n
atsnah+ (22)
ve d
Avasthiteriti kâúakr+
l @
i of the non-difference between the embodied
u
t for the Supreme Self alone exists as the embodied
Kâúakr+tsna feels that the declaration
r a
soul and supreme Self is correct,
d
soul.
e n
n arto the teacher Kâúakr+tsna, the Supreme Self alone is delusively conjured
According
d r. soul due to Ignorance. There is absolutely no difference between the

as the embodied
two, the apparent difference being due to the limiting adjuncts that are consequent to
ignorance. These apparent differences between the two are hence imaginary and unreal
from the absolute view. Hence the Úruti (Br. Up. 2.4.5, 4.5.6) under consideration refers
to the Supreme Brahman, and not the embodied soul. (22)
Topic 7: Prakr+tyadhikarana
(The Cause of Universe)
Brahman was discussed in the first section of this chapter as ‘That from which
this Universe is born etc.’ (1.1.2). Here arises the question whether Brahman is the ‘material
cause’ of the Universe, akin to clay being the cause of a pot, or it is the ‘efficient cause’,
?kVknhuka e`nkfnonqiknkua] dqykykfnofÂfeÙkdkj.keqHk;dkj.ka osfr fo'ks"kfopkja

izfr lkekU;KkuL; gsrqRosu gsrqgsrqen~HkkolaxR;snekgµ
(129) izÑfr'p izfrKkn`"VkUrkuqijksèkkr~ AA23AA
v=k iwoZi{ks ,dfoKkukRloZfoKkuizfrKk;k xkS.kRoa] fl¼kUrs rUeq[;Rofefr
iQyHksn%A czã.kks txRdkj.krk¿=k fopkjfo"k;%A rfRda czã.k% dsoya fufeÙkdkj.kRoeso]
mrksiknkudkj.kRoeihfr la'k;s_ ^l bZ{kkapØs* (izñ 6@3) ^l izk.kel`tr* (izñ
6@4) bR;kfnJqR;k bZ{kkiwod Z a txRdrZR` oJo.ksu dsoya r=k fufeÙkdkj.kRoeso izfrHkkfr]
fufeÙkdkj.ks"kq dqykykfn"kq rFkkn'kZukfnfr iwo%Z i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq izÑfr'p miknkudkj.ka
d .in
. in
akin to the potter, or it is both – the material as well as the efficient cause. After gaining
the general information regarding the cause of Universe from thetaphorism (1.1.2), the
s
eknowledge
current adhikarana now commences with a view to gain specific
q u of this subject.
Doubt: A doubt arises whether Brahman isn

ta
e d a the ‘material’ or the ‘efficient’ cause
or both of the Universe?
@ v
i cause only, for from the Úruti text, ‘That
Opponent: Brahman is thelefficient
u
t
racreation is preceded by deliberation, which is only possible
Brahman deliberated’ (Pr. Up. 6.3), ‘He created the Prâna (vital-force)’ (Pr. Up. 6.4), one
d
r e n
can clearly see that the act
in the ‘efficient cause’.
of
n a
.
dr To this we say,
Vedântin:
Prakr+tiúca pratijñâdr+s+t+ântânuparodhât (23)
Brahman is the material cause as well, for no contradiction between the

proposition and the illustration arises by admitting so.
Brahman is the material cause as well, for by admitting so no contradiction arises

amongst the proposition and the illustration. The Úrutis declares, ‘Knowing which the
unheard becomes heard, the un-thought become thought and the unknown becomes known’
(Ch. Up. 6.1.2), ‘O Lord, knowing what all this becomes known’ (Mu. Up. 1.1.3),
‘Knowing the Self all becomes known’ (Br. Up. 4.5.6) etc., whereby these propositions
point to the One, knowing which all becomes known. The above propositions are backed
pdkjkfÂfeÙkdkj.ka p czãkH;qixUrO;e~A dqr%\ izfrKkn`"VkUrkuqijksèkkr~A ,oa pkH;qixes

JkSrkS izfrKkn`"VkUrkS uksi#è;srsA ^;sukJqra Jqra HkoR;era erefoKkra foKkra* (Nkñ
6@1@2) ^dfLeUuq Hkxoks foKkrs loZfena foKkra Hkofr* (eqñ 1@1@2) ^vkRefu
[kYojs n`"Vs Jqrs ers foKkrs bna lo± fofnre~** (c`ñ 4@5@6) bR;kfnJqfr"osdfoKkusu
loZfoKkuizfrKk izrh;rsA n`"VkUrks¿fi ^^;Fkk lksE;Sdsu e`fRi.Msu lo± e`.e;a foKkra
L;k}kpkjEHk.ka (Nkñ 6@1@4) ^^;Fkk i`fFkO;keks"kèk;% lEHkofUr** (eqñ 1@1@7)
^^l ;Fkk nqUnqHksgUZ ;ekuL; u ckák×NCnkU'kDuq;kn~ xzg.kk;** (c`ñ 4@5@8) bR;kfnJqfr"kq
n`';rsA ,rkS izfrKkn`"VkUrkS czã.kks txRizÑfrRolkèkdkS ;FkklEHkoa izfrosnkUra izR;srO;kSA
u áqiknkudkj.ks¿foKkrs loZfoKkulEHko%] fdUrq rf}ijhre~] miknkukfHkÂRokRdk;ZL;A
vr% izfrKkn`"VkUrkuqijksèkknqHk;dkj.kRoa czãf.k fl¼fefr Hkko%AA23AA
. in
(130) vfHkè;ksins'kkPp AA24AA .ind
e st
fda p ^lks¿dke;r* ^rnS{kr* bR;kfnuk vfHkè;ksinsu'kkÙk=kksHk;dkj.kRoeoxE;rsA
r=kkfi dkeukJo.ksu dr`ZRoa ^cgqL;kfefr izRt;xkRefo"k;dcgq a q HkoukfHkè;kusu
a n
e d
of it becomes known, for the effect (kârya)vis there only for namesake, the truth being the
by illustrations also. The Úrutis declare, ‘O dear, as on knowing the clay every modification
li @‘As herbs sprout from earth, so does the entire

u Up. 1.1.7), ‘None can seize a musical note emerging
t(Mu.
cause (kâran+a) only’ (Ch. Up. 6.1.4),
Universe sprout from Brahman’
from a beating drum, butdby
a
r seizing the drum one automatically seizes the note’ (Br. Up.
r e n the illustrations support the propositions. Both of these – the
2.4.7, 4.5.8) etc., whereby
n
propositions and athe illustrations – are pointing to Brahman as the material cause too. It
d r
is too well . known that without knowing the ‘material cause’ one cannot assert the
knowledge of all. The Úruti’s proposition of knowing all by the knowledge of Brahman
serves to reaffirm that Brahman is not only the efficient cause of the Universe, but is its
material cause also. (23)
Abhidhyopadeúâcca (24)
Also from the declaration about the will to create.
Moreover the fact that the Self is the material cause too becomes explicit from
the pronouncements about the will to create. The Úruti declares, “He deliberated, ‘I shall
be many, I shall be born’” (Ch. Up. 6.2.3), whereby the act of deliberation points to
izÑfrRofefr foospuh;fefrAA24AA
izÑfrRos gsRoUrjekgµ
(131) lk{kkPpksHk;kEukukr~ AA25AA
br'p txnqiknkua czãA dqr%\ lk{kkn~czãSo dkj.keH;qisR;ksHk;ks% izHkokI;&
;;ksjkEukukr~ ^lokZf.k g ok bekfu* HkwrkU;kdk'kknso leqRi|Urs vkdk'ka izR;Lra
;fUr** (Nkñ 1@9@1) bR;kfnJqfr"kqA ;r% izHkofr] ;=k p yh;rs rÙkL;ksiknkua
izfl¼e~A ;Fkk ;oknhuka i`fFkohR;FkZ%AA25AA
(132) vkReÑrs% ifj.kkekr~ AA26AA
d .in
brks¿fi czã txnqiknkue~A dqr%\ ^^rnkRekua Lo;edqi#n
bR;kRekufefr f}rh;;k r=k deZRoa Lo;edq#r bR;usu edr`
. r** (rSñ 2@7)
st ZRoa pkEuk;rsA rFkk
q u
n
Brahman being the ‘efficient cause’, and the consequence ta of such deliberation expressed
d a the ‘material cause’ also. (24)
as ‘I shall be many, I shall be born’ points to It being
e
@ v
li
Sâks+âccobhayâmnânât (25)
u It to be the direct cause.
t
ra
And since the Úruti declares
d
Brahman isrthee nmaterial cause of the Universe, for the Úruti declares, ‘All beings
a (Brahman), and in Space do they all merge’ (Ch. Up. 1.9.1), whereby
originate fromnSpace
the originr
d .
and the dissolution of the Universe is declared directly in Brahman only; and it
is too well known that the origin and dissolution of any entity can be in its material cause
only. For instance the earth is the material cause of paddy, barley etc., as they originate as
well as dissolve in earth only. Hence the Brahman is the material cause of Universe. (25)
Âtmakr+teh+ parin+âmât (26)
For It created Itself by undergoing modification.
Brahman is the material cause of the Universe for the Úruti declares, ‘That created
Itself by Itself’ (Tai. Up. 2.7); wherein it is clear that Brahman is acknowledged as both
the ‘subject’ as well as the ‘object’. The phrase ‘created Itself’ presents the object (karma),
whereas the text ‘created by Itself’ presents the subject (kartâ). If asserted that it is not
pSdfLeu~ czãf.k deZRoa drZ`Roa pkfo#¼e~A uuq iwo± fl¼L; drZ`Rosu O;ofLFkrL;
fØ;ek.kRokReda deZRoa nq%lEik|fefr psÂ_ ifj.kkekr~A ifj.kkeks¿=k foorZ% rFkk p
fl¼L;kfi 'kqfDrjtrkfnon~ foorkZReuk lkè;RokRdeZRoa laxPNrs bR;FkZ%AA26AA
(133) ;ksfu'p fg xh;rs AA27AA
br'p czãtxnqiknkue~] ;fRdy & ^;n~Hkwr;ksfua ifji';fUr èkhjk%* (eqñ
1@1@6) ^dÙkkZjeh'ka iq#"ka czã ;ksfufe* (eqñ 3@1@3) R;kfnJqfr"kq izÑfrokpdsu
;ksfu'kCnsukRek fg xh;rsA i`fFkoh;ksfujks"kfèkouLirhukfefr yksdksDR;k ;ksfu'kCn%
izÑfrokpd% lefèkxE;rsA vrks czã.k% izÑfrRoa drZ`Roa p fl¼fefrAA27AA
(39) (8 loZO;k[;kukfËkdj.ke~A lwÒ 28) n
d .i
possible for both, the subject (kartâ) and the object (karma), to .be
t i npresent in a single
isu
esonly comes to exist in the
entity, for the subject is a pre-existing entity whereas the object
future through some action; we say that such assertion q
ta and forms, and presents as an
wrong, for Brahman, though
pre-existing, undergoes modification into various names
object. Hence the creation is referred to as thea
n
(material cause) undergoing modifications v e d
into
modification of Brahman, akin to clay
various forms. These modifications of
Brahman are accepted as real by various
li@Dualistic Schools of thought, but are admitted to
t u
be apparent (unreal) by the Vedântins. The phrase ‘by Itself’ rules out any dependence on
d
any other cause. Hence Brahmanra is the material cause of the creation. (26)
r e n
a Yoniúca hi gîyate (27)
nbecause It is referred to as the ‘yoni’ of all beings.
d r
And
.
Further reason as to Brahman being the material cause of the Universe is for the
Úruti declares, ‘That, which the wise consider as the source (yoni) of all beings’ (Mu. Up.
1.1.6), ‘Those who see the creator of the world, the source of all beings, and their ordainer’
(Mu. Up. 3.1.3), wherein by the word ‘source’ (yoni) implying the material cause, Brahman
alone has been indicated. For instance, earth is called the source (yoni) of all herbs,
thereby the word ‘yoni’ signifies the material cause. Hence Brahman is the efficient and
the material cause of the world. (27)
Topic 8: Sarvavyâkhyânâdhikarana
(Explanation of All)
iwoZe~ ^bZ{krsukZ'kCnfe* R;kjH;iqu%iquj'kCnRokfngsrqfHk% lw=kSjso izèkkudkj.koknks

fujkÑrks ;Fkk] u rFkk¿.okfndkj.koknks fujkÑr%A rs"kkefi txRdkj.kRocksèkd'kCnkuka
JqrRokfnfr izR;qnkgj.klaxR;snekgµ
(134) ,rsu losZ O;k[;krk O;k[;krk% AA28AA
v=kkfi iwoiZ {ks czãf.k osnkUrkuka leUo;kflf¼%] fl¼kUrs rfRlf¼fjfr iQyHksn%A
v=k lkekU;r;k losZ osnkUrk% fopkjfo"k;k%A r=k czã.k bo ijek.kq'kwU;knhukefi
DofpRdkj.kRoa Jw;rs] u osfr la'k;s_ ^ra gksokp ;a oS lksE;sref.kekua u fuHkky;ls
.in
,rL; oS lksE;S"kks¿f.kEu ,oa egkUU;xzksèkfLr"Bfr* (Nkñ 6@12@2) ^vlnsosnexz
The Sânkhyas viewpoint has been repeatedly refuted by.ivarious

d
n aphorisms
e t
s but refutation of the
u
beginning with, ‘Because of the attribution of visualization’ (1.1.5),
q
n a
other Schools that propound creation from different sources like the atoms (paramânu)
t in response to such counter-
etc. has not been resorted to. This adhikarana commences
illustration.
ed a
v
@ there exist Úrutis that propound creation
Doubt: Here arises a doubt iwhether
from sources other than Brahman tu l
too?
a
darer such Úrutis that propound creation from other sources too.
n
rewas indeed non-existence at the beginning’ (Ch. Up. 6.2.1), indicates
Opponent: There
a
The declaration, ‘This
r. nnon-existence
creation from
that youddon’t
(shûnya, void). Similarly the text, ‘The infinitesimal seeds
perceive’ (Ch. Up. 6.12.2), point to creation from the atoms.
Vedântin: to this we say,
Etena sarve vyâkhyâtâ vyâkhyâtâh+ (28)
Hereby all stand explained. They stand explained.
By extension of the arguments that were forwarded to refute the causality of

‘Pradhâna’ in the creation of Universe, all other theories (like the atoms, void etc.) about
the cause are deemed to be explained too, and rejected due to similar defects. The word
‘explained’ has been repeated by the way of demonstrating the conclusion of this chapter.
As for the assertion that by not admitting any other causes the aforesaid Úrutis propounding
vklhr~* (Nkñ 6@2@1) bR;=kk.oknhukefi dkj.kRoJo.kkÙk=kkfi dkj.kRoeH;qi; s fefr

iwoZ% i{k%A fl¼kUrLrq ,rsu izèkkudkj.koknfujklsu r=kksDrkuke'kCnRokpsruRoSd&
foKkuizfrKkuqiiÙkhuka gsrwuke.okfndkj.kokns¿fi lkE;kRlosZ ijek.okfndkj.koknk
fujkÑrRosu osfnrO;k%A u pk=kk.okfn'kCnfojksèk bfr okP;e~_ lw{eRokfHkizk;s&
.kkReU;.kq'kCniz;ksxknufHkO;Druke:ikfHkizk;s.k r=kklPNCniz;ksxkPpA O;k[;krk bfr
inkH;klks¿è;k;ifjlekIR;FkZ%A vrks txRdkj.ks loZKs ftKkL;s ijekReU;so Jqrhuka
leUo;ks] ukU;=ksfr fl¼e~AA28AA
AA foJke%5AA
. in
in d
bfr Jhczãlw=k'kkÄïjHkk";koyfEcU;ka st .
u efo|kuUno`ÙkkS izFkekè;k;L;
;rhUædqyfryddSyklihBkèkh'ojLokfefo|kuUnfxfjfojfprk;ka
prqFkZ% ikn% AA1&4AAta
q
a n
AA bfrizFvkeks d
e Ë;k;% AA
l i@
a tu
r then it is not so, for the Self alone has been designated by
them would be rendereddfutile;
re
the word ‘an+u’ (atom)n keeping in view its subtleness. Also the term ‘non-existence’,
n a above Úruti, indicates the Self alone in Its undifferentiated form. Hence
referred to by the
the Úrutisr.conclude in propounding Brahman as the cause of Universe. (28)
d

Brahmasutra 1

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Brahmasutra 1

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

¨

bg [kyq fuf[kyfo'odY;k.kk; prqyZ{k.kheqÙkjehekalkekjHkek.kks Hkxoku~

‘Sangati’ (association) is a well-known characteristic of the scriptures. If, in a

'kkL=klaxfrjè;k;laxfr%] iknlaxfrjfèkdj.klaxfr% lw=klaxfr'psfrA rklq Jqfrlax&

The ‘topic’ (vis+aya) under consideration in this ‘adhikarana’ is the contemplation

iz;kstua pkfLr] u rf}pkjfo"k;ks Hkofr] ;Fkk LiQhrkyksdeè;orhZ ?kV% dkdnUrks

Vedântin: Apparently though the Self is perceived by everyone as the content of

uFkZfuo`fÙkijekuUnkokfIry{k.keks{k:iiz;kstuoÙokPpA rFkk p ^rjfr'kksdekRefor~*]

ronathe Self due to Ignorance. The knowledge, of the form of

Athâto Brahmajijñâsâ (1)

Hence, subsequently, an enquiry into the nature of Brahman.

^r|Fksg deZfprks yksd% {kh;rs] ,oesokeq=kiq.;fprks yksd% {kh;rs* (Nkñ 8@1@6)

u li@means direct knowledge of Brahman. The word

t means the ‘deliberation resulting from the wish’. Hence

fu%'ks"klalkjchtkfo|k|uFkZtkyfuorZda u ijks{kKkue~ rL;kijks{kHkzeL;kfuorZd&

Opponent: A characteristic (lakúana) is defined as a special attribute that remains

(2) tUek|L; ;r% AA2AA

loZKkRloZ'kDrs% dkj.kkn~Hkofr] rn~czãsfrA ,rPp czã.kLrVLFka y{k.ka ^;rks ok

uuq fuf[kytxRdkj.kRosu czã.k% loZKRoa ;nqDra_ rnlaxra] txnUr%ikfruks

Brahman is omniscient since It is the source of scriptures.

la'k;s_ ^okpk fo:ifuR;;k* bR;kfnokD;s osnL; fuR;RoJo.ksu rRdrZ`Rosu r=k

nar Topic 3: Úâstrayonitvâdhikarana

fo"k;%] r¯Rd czã.k% 'kkL=kSdlefèkxE;Roa leiZ;fr u osfr lUnsgs_ czã.kks

Here, in the opponents view, only ‘inference’, as a means of valid knowledge,

The scriptures being the valid means of Its knowledge.

^v'kCneLi'kZfe* R;kfnJqfrfl¼%A bfr f}ñ o.kZde~AA3AA

n aHere arises a doubt that whether the Upanis+ads serve as an ancillary to

Opponent: Brahman is not an entity that can be abandoned or accepted. Hence if

Vedântin: To this we say,

(4) rÙkq leUo;kr~ AA4AA

'kkL=ks.kSokoxE;rsA dqr%\ leUo;kr~ & lE;DrkRi;sZ.k r=k czã.;sokUo;kr~ & lEcUèkkr~A

re realization of the Self - of the nature of Brahman, also results

(bZ'kkñ 7) bR;=k lokZuFkZfuo`fÙkiz;kstuL; Jo.kkr~A vrks osnkUrk% fl¼czãijk%] u

d rathat Brahman can be known through the scriptures alone,

n athe ‘wooden sacrificial stake’ (yûpa) and ‘sacrificial fire’ (âhavanîya

Here in the opponent’s view emancipation is attained through meditation on

izorZ;Rdqrf'pfUuorZ;Pp 'kkL=keFkZon~Hkorhfr izo`R;kfnijL;So 'kkL=kRosu rs"kka

Opponent: Persuasion or dissuasion from activity is considered to be the indicator

g"kkZfnfyÄ~xsu fl¼kFksZ¿fi 'kfDrxzglEHkokr~A uuq izo`Ù;kfnijL;So 'kkL=kRoeqDrfefr

a t to the previous one by way of protestation. Here, in the

Doubt: The previous four aphorisms describe Brahman, which an aspirant

y;dkj.ka loZKa loZosnkUrizfrik|fefr izfrikfnre~A r=k lka[;k% eUors] ;fRdy

cause of the universe. v e d

Opponent: The world isu

It is not correct to attribute the causality of the Universe to Pradhâna as there is no

fl¼kUrLrq bZ{krsukZ'kCne~A u [kyq lka[;'kkL=kifjdfYirepsrua izèkkua txr% dkj.ka

vIrstlksfjo izèkkus bZf{kr`'kCnks xkS.k bfr psUu_ vkRe'kCnkr~A ^lnso* bR;qiØE;

uuq jkK% lokZFkZdkfjf.k Hk`R;s eekRek Hkælsu bfriz;ksxonpsrusfi izèkkus

rfn~HkUuekRekua u izfri|sr] rFkk lfr eks{kklEHkoks¿uFkZizkfIr'p L;krke~A rLeknkRe&

upSoeokspr~] lUek=kkRekoxfrfu"BSo "k"BizikdifjlekfIrn`Z';rsA vrks gs;Rokopukr~

reihrksHkoR;fixrks HkofrA vfiiwoLZ ;sry s ;

And because the Upanis+ads propound Brahman as such.

JqrRokPpA Jw;rs fg 'osrk'orjk.kka eU=kksifu"kfn loZKeh'oja izÑR; ^l dkj.ka

bRFka ^tUek|L; ;r%* bR;kjH; ^JqrRokPp* bR;UrS% lw=kS% lfo'ks"kfufoZ'ks"k&

is being referred to as ‘Truth, Knowledge and Infinite’, or is it some other entity?

txRdkj.kRofu'pk;da] u rFkk ^vkRek¿uUne;* bR;=k e;Vks fodkjkFkZRos

r en one’ the Úruti declares, ‘This embodied soul attains happiness

rkRi;ZoRosu izfriknuijRokr~A rLeknkuUne;% ijekReSoAA12AA

tu with reference to the gross body (sthoola úarîra), i.e.

p r=k ekuq"kkuUnknkjH;ksÙkj=k'krxq.kkuUnkfèkD;su czãkuUnL; fujfr'k;Rokoèkkj.kkr~A

l @Brahman is mentioned as the source of all

Mântravarn+ikameva ca gîyate (15)

;RizÑra czã lR;kfnfo'ks"k.kSfuZèkkZfjre~]rr~ ekU=kof.kZdeso czã ^vU;ks¿Urj vkRekuUne;*