365bet娱乐

[Full title: Other Commentators and their Works (3) Vijnana Bhikshu]

Vijnana Bhikshu and His System of Vedanta. The next commentator on the Sutras of Badarayana was Vijnana Bhikshu, who is more famously known as the commentator on the Sankhya-Sutras. He has been assigned to about the middle of the 17 th century. His commentary on the Badarayana Sutras is known as Vijnanamrita

Bhashya, which is written from the Sankhya standpoint. He is more inclined to theistic than to atheistic Sankhya. His other works, the Sankhyapravachana-bhashya, which has been translated by Garbe, the Yogavarttika, the Yogasara, the Sankhyasara, Upanishad-bhashya, etc., show that he agrees with the Sankhya doctrine as propounded in the Puranas, where both the diverse purushas and the prakriti are said to be merged in the end in Isvara, by whose will the creative process again begins in the prakriti at the end of each pralaya. He could not avoid the distinctively atheistic arguments of the Sankhya Sutras, but he remarks that these were used only with a view to showing that the Sankhya system gave such a rational explanation that even without the intervention of an Isvara it could explain all facts. (See Dasgupta, History of Indian Philosophy, I. 222-223 ; see also page 220.) He is independent and rational in his interpretation of the Sutras of Badarayana. Thus, as we have seen his interpretation of "atha" in I. 1.1 that it occurs in Sutra works and indicates the commencement of a new subject, is a thoroughly natural one and one to be expected from him. Though like Vallabha he interprets I. 1. 4 in such a manner as to make Brahman the material cause of the universe, his material cause is wholly different from that of Vallabha. If he treats the Sankhya as an aspect of Vedanta, he makes the Vedanta itself square with the rationalism of the Sankhya. He refuses to admit the maya theory of Sankara, for as an ardent exponent of the Sankhya, he adheres to the personal individuality of souls. He, indeed, protests against Sankara's view which, he says, makes Brahman nothing more than the sunya of the Buddhist School. Vijnana Bhikshu is described as an ascetic who belonged to the Gauda country, corresponding to the modern Northern Bengal. Before he became a sanyasin, he is said to have belonged to the Karnakarnika caste. 38 38 Karnakarnika : A Kayastha Brahman. A Brahman who followed the occupation of a Kayastha is called a Karnika. A Karnika means one in a Karana or office, i.e., an official. (Epigraphia Indica ,

In the colophons found in his Bhashya, he calls himself sometimes as Vijnanayati and sometimes as Vijnanabhikshu, the terms yati and bhikshu being synonymous and meaning an ascetic. He calls his work Brahma Mimamsa and not Sariraka Mimamsa. He describes his Bhashya as ruju Bhashya, i.e., true Bhashya. The term Vijnanamrita-Bhashya would seem to indicate a Bhashya of undoubted brilliance and wisdom by Vijnana Bhikshu, there being a play on the word Vijnana, the title of the work. In this Bhashya which has been printed in the Chowkhamba Series (Nos. 30, 31, 34, 35, 37 and 40), Vijnana Bhikshu refers to another work of his named Upadesaratnamala, which he calls a prakaranam. 39 (See his Brahmasutra Bhashya, Part I, page 62, line 20.) Copies of this work have not so far been traced. Pandit Mukunda Shastri, the editor of his Bhashya, states that it is inferrable from his works that he wrote a Gita-Bhashya as well, but copies of it have not so far been found. From the opening verse of his Bhashya, we learn that Vijnana Bhikshu was the disciple of a guru whom he honoured as his Supreme Preceptor (Antaryami Guru). From this guru, Vijnana Bhikshu received enlightenment in Vedanta. At this feet he places his Bhashya as his guru- 1, 77; Epigraphia Indica , IV, 104; Epigraphia Indica , VIII, 153.) Brahman Kayasthas are even to-day in the majority in Upper India. (See Sherring's Hindu Tribes end Castes, 305; 308.) In Bombay, the Kayasthas are described as a sub-caste of Brahmanas. (Revised Lists of Antiquarian Remains in Bombay Presidency, VIII, 369.) For Kayastha Brahmanas, see Bombay Gazetteer, XVI, 41. A Kayastha-Brahmana grantee of a gift made by Govindachandra of Kanauj in Samvat 1171 (or A.D. 1115), describes himself thus: "The illustrious Jalhana, the learned, born of a Karnika and resembling Chitragupta in worth, wrote the grant with delight for his fame." (Epigraphia Indica , IV. 104.) On the subject of the Origin and Status of the Kayasthas see Man in India, XI, 116-159, where the whole evidence is set out and discussed; also D. R. Bhandarkar's article on What is a Kayastha in the Puja Numbers of the Amrita Bazaar Patrika for 1930 and 1931. 39 Lit. a topic; in modern parlance, it might be more properly described as a monograph, as it deals with a single topic.

aakshina. He churned, he says, the Sruti, Smriti and Nyaya Sastra with the aid of Brahmans 40 and the result was the great nectar of knowledge-jnanamrita- (Vijnanamrita Bhashya) which he placed before his guru to win his grace. Kutarkins and Pakhandas (who are compared to danavas and asuras of old) are said to have been deceived and defeated by the confusion (moha) caused among them by those who had partaken of the nectar of his Bhashya. Vijnana Bhikshu prays that these also may attain the feet of his guru, for their work-like his own-was equally meritorious. Who are the Kutarkins and Pakhandas 41 whom his Bhashya helped to confound? The false logicians and heretics referred to are obviously those whom he stigmatizes as those who postulate akhandataya.42 According to the Sruti texts Brahmavidapnoti param, Brahmaveda Brahmaiva Brahmaiva Bhavati, Bhavati, Tamevam viditva atimrutyumeti, etc., Brahmajnana is the chief factor for realizing Paramapurushartha. And the Sruti 40 Bhudevebhyo is the word used. 41 Cf. Pakhanda Chandala yoho-paparambhakayo-mrigiva vrikayobhirurgatagocharam. Kalidasa, Malavikagnimitra, V. 24. 42 The following is a condensed rendering of the opening verses of Vijnana Bhikshu's Bhashya :My prostrations are due to him who pervades the universe and in whom everything has its being and by whom all is created. I bow to him who is in the Supreme form of Chidachidsakti. I, Vijnana Bhikshu, who having been taught by my holy preceptor (antaryami guru), who ever remains in my heart of hearts and from whom I received this great enlightenment, to him I tender this Bhashya on the Brahma-Sutra as guru-dakshina. After having churned the milk ocean of Sruti, Smriti and Nyaya, with the aid of all Brahmans, the nectar of knowledge (grunamrita) came into being. That I place before my guru to win nis grace. Let those who partake of this nectar by deceiving the array of danavas in the shape of false arguers (Kutarkins) by moha (i.e., confounding them by arguments) and winning (victory) over the large array of asuras who masquerade in the guise of pakhandas, swallowing it through their meditation and wisdom, attain the feet of my guru.

texts Atmetyevopasitha sama atmeti vidyath tameva dhiro vignaya pragyam kuruvita Brahmana itt, etc., declare that Brahman should be meditated upon in the form of atma according to the vidhi prescribed in Srutis. Then arise the questions: (1) What is Brahman (Kim Brahma)? (2) What is the state of Brahman (Kim Brahmata)? Is it beyond conception? What is Brahmajnana? And what is the result of realizing Brahmajnana? These questions. engage the minds of all Mumukshus (i.e., those in search of Moksha). In the Srutis, however, there are seeming contradictions, perhaps due to the differences in the opinions of the Rishis who belonged to different Sakhas. And, therefore, in order to determine that jnana, the help of Brahma Mimamsa is desired. Verily, it may be said that in Purva Mimamsa alone, Dharmajijnasa and the ways and means of determining Brahmajnana are dealt with. This is the most important Dharma (ayantu paramo dharmah) : Yoga from which, according to the Sruti, atmadarsana is attained. The acharya says that throughout the Vedanta, what is expounded in the Sutra sarva vedanta pratyayam chodanadya viseshat, etc. (If you want to attain Brahmajnana, you should examine the whole of the Vedanta) is what is chiefly dealt with in it-the means for the attainment of Brahmajnana. Here some Kutarkins, while acknowledging the Vedanta for the purpose of attaining jnana, afterwards discard it. This should not be so. Though generally speaking Dharma has been clearly explained in the Purva Mimamsa in order to fix Brahmajnana, the Kalpa Sutras set out in brief and in detail the manner of effectuating Brahmajnana (Brahmajnana Sadhana). The Sruti texts Satyam jnanamanantam Brahma, Vijnanam anandam Brahma, etc., determine Brahmasvarupatva which can be realized by jijnasa. It is only in Sankhya Sastra that jiva chaitanya principles (siddham) are clearly explained. If it is asked what is this chaitanyam and what is its form, the reply is that that is verily the beginning of the Brahma Mimamsa Sastram, wherein Bhagavan Vedavyasa formulated the Sruti text Athatho Brahmajijnasa.

In commenting on Sutra, I. 1. 1., Athatho Brahmajijnasa, Vijnana Bhikshu says that Aththa indicates by mere utterance authority and auspiciousness (adhikaravachaka and mangalarupa). Authority shows the exact subject that it deals with in particular. Brahma is the only subject for discussion as agreed to by others also; and this is to be proved and established as realized. And all other subsidiary discussions lead to the same Brahman, beyond which there is none other. Hence, finally, Brahma alone is realized (Brahmaiva labdham). Therefore, realization of Brahman is the sole use for the word Atha (i.e., the use of the word Atha is to indicate the realization of Brahman). Atha denotes "in the present one" and signifies that the realization of Brahman is fixed as its avadhi (limit). Since its avadhi is Brahman, the sutras have nothing to do with Parabrahma. The word Athaha is in the panchami vibhakti and since it is in that vibhakti, it shows here the limit (avadhi). (This is so according to Panini.) Even prior to the realization of Brahmajnana, the word Athaha is placed in the Sutra to cast a reflection of the final objective in view, i.e., the realization of the Brahmajnana. Verily at the end of the work, the Sutra Anavritti Sabdat Anavritti Sabdat, concludes with an emphatic application of the word Anavritti, repeated twice over, Showing that the limit (avadhi) of the Sutra has been reached. Therefore, athaha shows the purva avadhi or starting limit and anavritti, the uttara or final limit. Thus, by viewing the starting and final limits (purva and paranta dvaya avadharane sati), there can be no hesitation on the part of disciples to understand the whole gist of the mahavakyas of the Mimamsa Satra as accurately limited by the venerable author of the Sutras by the first and the last Sutras (adyantavadhi). The words athatho and atha as stated in the Smriti texts, as declared by Gobhila, well indicate the ways and intentions and the procedural method to be followed in the carrying out of karma, just as a torch shows the way out of darkness. That they show anything beyond this adhikara is not correct.

Brahmajijnasa means Brahmanahajijnasa: discussion about Brahman and therefore athaha indicates the starting point for those disciples who are earnest in their quest for Brahmajnana. Brahman in its secondary sense means Veda, Hiranyagarbha, etc. It must not be said that Brahmajijnasa is the discussion of Vedic interpretation or discussion of Hiranyagarbha, etc. Jijnasa here primarily means the discussion and establishing of the Mimamsa Sastra. For jijnasa is very commonly applied in practice to the discussion of the Mimamsa Sastra as is seen in Athatho Dharma jijnasa which is the pratignasutra of the Purva-Mimamsa. Jijnasa suggests that the discussion should go on until the realization of Brahman is attained and this should be done with the aid of the evidence afforded by the Vedanta and that with the aid of tattu samanvayat. From this Sutra begins Brahmajnana jijnasa. We should not go beyond the limits thus laid down in this and the succeeding Sutras; if we did so, we would not attain the realization of the Brahman we aim at as our objective. While this is so, modern Vedantins, who are well versed, by reason of their vast knowledge, postulate that karma alone will not do, depending on the Sruti text avidyaya mrutyum tirthva vidyayamrutamasnute iti (absolve yourself of avidya by karma and then, being liberated from the clutches of death, pass into the region of celestial bliss through the realization of vidya, i.e., Brahmavidya). They say that after getting freed from the hands of death by the performance of karma, one should begin the discussion of Brahma in order to realize Brahmajnana. Therefore it is, they add, that Brahmajijnasa should be undertaken. And they further state that the word kartavya should be understood in the Sutra, which they would read fully thus: Athatho Brahmajijnasa kartavya iti.43 43 Vijnana Bhikshu quotes Upakramopasamhara, etc., appearing in Anandatirtha, I. 1. 4. He refers also to Sadhanachatushtaya and considers Sanyasa at length. Sanyasa is, he says, the giving up of sixty-four karmas; but a man wishing a son should follow them. If so, how to reconcile these statements? According to Vijnana Bhikshu,

At the end of I. 1. 1. Vijnana Bhikshu says that in the Brahmasutras there are no data for jiva-Brahmaikya, for it is said in the Bhagavad-Gita. 'Brahmasutra padaischaiva hetu madbhihi vinischitaihi iti (Bhagavad-Gita, XIII. 4), from which it will be seen that it declares that in the Brahmasutras the subject-matter dealt with is only Brahman, which is its chief topic of discussion. While this is so, to postulate Jiva Brahmaikya as its chief subject of discussion would be contradictory to the meaning attaching to the Mahavakya (I. 1. 1.). In the shape of Sutras, in certain Adhikaranas, it has been aptly stated, without ambiguity, that Brahman is the residue left over (Brahmaseshatayaiva). In all the adhikaranas of the Brahmasutras, Jivatatva is clearly explained with adequate proofs, until the jivatatva reaches Brahmatatva (Brahmaseshatayaiva) as its final stage. And in the adhikaranas explaining the pranatatva, the jivatatva is discussed at length. At any rate, even though the meaning of the Mahavakya is that Brahman is declared as equal to Atman (Brahmatmataiva), the Atman being spoken of in terms of Brahman, yet the argument is overthrown that Atman is Brahman itself (Brahmatvenaiva atmatvamakshiptvam ityasayaha). Though in the Sruti text Brihatvat Brahmanatvatcha atma Brahmeti giyata iti, the words Atma and Brahma are used to denote the same meaning this is the Pratigna Sutra which begins the work. It fixes the vidhi (samadamadi, etc.). It states how Brahmajnana is to be attained. It should not be interpreted in a manner not warranted by the wording (viparitarthakalpana). It does not suggest we should give up all karmas-Sarvakarmatyaga-and then begin jijnasa. Vijnana Bhikshu defines Bhikshu as Atmannevatmanabhudhya nastya. He quotes: Sarvaparigraha avyaktalingo vyaktascha charet bhikshu sama hitaha. Tridandam kundikamchaiva sutram chapi kapalikam Jantunam varanam vastram sarvam bhikshu idam tyajet. (Vishnu Dharma Vakya, Paramahamsa Prakarana.) A Paramahamsa should abandon the following:-tridanda, kundika (kamandalu, i.e., waterpot), yagnopavita, kapalika (begging bowl made of skull), and raiments of cloth worn (already) by others. (See Vijnana Bhikshu's Brahmasutra-Bhashya, I. 1. 1.)

(arthaikya), in our opinion (asmin mate) the defect in the Sutra cannot be doubted. (As in the Sutra Athatho Brahmajijnasa, the word Brahma is only used, without either jiva or atma, the defect cannot be doubted.) Because the subject dealt with is only Brahman; the intention being to obtain Brahmajnana, though there be a residue of karma left over. As is propounded in the Bhagavad-Gita: Brahmanyadhaya karmani sangam tyaktva karoti yaha lipyate na sa papena padmapatramivambhasa, V. 10.),-he who assigning all karma in Brahman, without desire of any fruit, will be quite free from all misery, just as the lotus leaf, though in the midst of water, does not stick to any particle of it. This affords support to our statement. Commenting on Sutra I. 1. 2, Vijnana Bhikshu states that Jagat is nitya and that Parabrahman is possessed of Sakti and that he has no vikara. Parabrahman joins Prakriti and Purusha and creates. He is the author of vikara but is not himself touched by vikara. Jagat is upadanakarana, which Prakriti and Purusha utilize for creation through Parabrahman. Parabrahma rupa has many gunas (atyanta sammisrarupena), far removed from Prakriti and Purusha. Parabrahman is akhanda; and Brahman is different from vyavahara. There is no Sruti text for ekatva. It cannot be accepted that abheda is merely for upadana purposes and that after Brahmajnana is obtained, there is no beda. There is bheda. Kevala aikyatva is nowhere postulated. In Bheda vakyas, there is considerable means to moksha promised. If moksha is to be gained, that is to be obtained only by the person who has the sense of bheda. Moksha is only for such a gnani. Abheda vakyas are all included in the bheda vakyas and not independent of them. Avidya cannot be removed by abheda jnana by itself. Abheda jnana can by itself never remove avidya, which is the cause of misery. By bheda being abused, Vijnana Bhikshu may be briefly described as Atma-Brahmaikya Bhedavadin. He may also be spoken of as Samavadabhedin, i.e., one who holds that Jiva and Brahman are sama; but he holds that the Jiva does not find aikya with Brahman, 48 11

By Sruti texts declaring bheda are not lost. Some are for bimbavada; while others are for pratibimbavada. ajnana, it is said, bheda is seen; this is wrong. Srutis also declare doubt. Svapna and jagrata are terms in opposition; similarly, bandha and moksha are also in opposition in Srutis and Smritis. That which jnana signifies is akhanda Jiva and Brahma akhanda; it is a means to bandha and not to moksha. However much the Mukta may think of Brahman by himself-ekanthakarana-a Mukta is an amsa and not amsi. There is space in a pot (ghata); if it is broken, it becomes one with the space without it. There can be no difference between the two. Though ghata looks separate, amsa and amsi are not different; similarly, jiva is always keeping the Paramatma in his mind and can meditate on him and not become aikya with Paramatma. The antahkarana of jiva is Paramatma; the Paramatma is different. Jiva cannot therefore become one with Paramatma. Even Kapila and others have expressed in bheda form what is declared definitely as bheda in the Sruti. The following texts are taken from the Kapila Sutras :- (1) Janmadi vyavasthatha purushabahutvam. (2) Upadhibhedhe apekasya nanayoga akasasyeva ghatadibhihi. (3) Upadhirbhidyate natu tadvan. (4) Evamekatvena dharmadhyasaha. parivartamunasya naviruddhya (5) Na-advaita sruti virodho jatiparatvat iti. 44 44 The following is a translation of the above Sutras :- (1) Since Janma, etc., are eternal; so jivas are innumerable. (2) On account of a certain disguise which is not true, the same is seen in many forms with different combinations just as the space in a pot is seen as different from the space outside. (3) When disguise is removed, the real is seen to undergo no change. (4) When the real one undergoes several series of changes, there can be no change for the real one. (5) The virodhas seen in the Advaita srutis do not refer to class (jati) distinctions.

Atma is one. Though the various disguises (upadhis), in the form of janma and marana, do not refer to unaffected chaitanyas, as proved by the Srutis and the Smritis, these chaitanyas are always in their respective places. The terms "He is born", "He is dead", etc., do not refer to them. The chaitanyas are innumerable and are not undivided like continuous Akasa. This is the meaning of the Sutra. In the Srutis, bheda is declared and if abheda is also to be declared from them, then it must be settled by tarka. In bheda if we are to understand abheda, it (that matter) can only be decided by tarka, says Kapilacharya. But you should not postulate upadhi to Brahma and lightly discuss abheda. Of course, the Srutis afford much ground for doubt. From the second Sutra, we infer that though upadhi is true, it gives no change for the atma by its combination. The Real is always above upadhi (i.e. upadhi cannot affect the Real). From the third Sutra, we learn that upadhi is itself different in nature; upadhi itself cannot in any way affect the jiva towards its birth, death, etc. The idea that "I am included in all " belongs to the jiva. The difference seen through upadhi is transitory and of a viruddha (contradictory) nature, because on the destruction of upadhi, the real becomes undisputedly manifested. In the fifth Sutra, the chief atma is throughout declared one. The Srutis say that the jivas are many as seen in their classes and are different; but atma is throughout one. In order to declare the mutual differences inherent in jivas, their ordinary qualities (lakshanas) are mentioned by the Srutis. Finally, the Srutis declare the lakshana of the Supreme (Parairlakshnaya) as being the same. Similarly, throughout the Sankhya, this vishesha (peculiarity) is maintained. Sankhya like the Brahma Mimamsa plainly declares the vibhaga lakshana in terms of amsa and amsi as a constant one, just as sparks of fire are to the fire itself (agni visphulingavat amsamsi bheda vibhagalakshano vakshyate). In the Sutras avibhagani drishtatvat, etc., though the unity (aikya) of atma is considered to be of an

insignificant kind, at the time of final realization (bandha mokshadi vyavastha) the atma is given a higher place than the jiva (i.e., a greater weight than the jiva). Though the Srutis point to difference on account of upadhi to the jiva, yet in the Sruti text Niranjanah paramamsamyamupaiti yathagniragnau sanskshiptah samanatvam anuvrajet, it is also declared that the jiva will attain a position of paramasamyatva, just as fire when thrown into fire assumes an equal form. In the same way, even though the iivatma is equal to the Paramatma, the yogis declare that at the time of Moksha, difference will still exist in the form of equality (mokshakalepi bheda ghatitam samyam sruyate) and there is nothing more of the upaadhi. As we have seen, Vijnana Bhikshu couples the first and the last Sutras of the Brahma-Sutras when commenting on IV. 4. 22. In commenting on the latter, Anavritti sabdat anavritti sabdat, he again insists on the limit (avadhi) prescribed by it. Those who realize Karya Brahma or enter that Parabrahma form in order to enjoy everlasting bliss do not return to birth (i.e., they have no re-birth) because they have no further re-births. If it is asked why, the reply is Sabdat Brahmaloka abhisampadyate na cha punaravartate iti, etc., which is a clear authority (for the position). The previous statement that the jiva would have to experience further misery is untrue, because he has no other thing to enjoy except endless bliss in Brahmaloka, which is eternal and free from all misery. Those who meditate upon Karana Brahma also will at once realize Brahman and there will not be the remotest cause for their coming into existence again. This is declared in the bruti texts. For it is said in the Bhagavad-Gita by Sri Krishna :- abrahmabhuvanallokah punaravartino'rjuna | mamupetya tu kaunteya punarjanma na vidyate || (bhagavadgita -8-16 .) Abrahmabhuvanallokah punaravartinorjuna | Miumupetya tu Kaunteya punarjanma na vidyate || (Bhagavad-Gita, VIII, 16.)

(Oh Arjuna! When one reaches the home of bliss finally in order to realize Me, there is to him no such thing as a return to birth.) It must not be apprehended that there will be further cause of birth after reaching Vishnuloka, for it is said by Sri Krishna himself to Arjuna that there would be no such further cause for birth. Therefore, there is no contradiction. Hence it is that Badarayana expressly uses the words Anavritti sabdat anavritti sabdat in a comprehensive and emphatic manner repeating the words twice over. The whole of the Brahma Mimamsa has been here brought to an end in a very sententious manner by Badarayana. The quality of chetana (consciousness) is that it is always desirous of seeking jnana and it consists of mayakhya nija sakti (i.e., it possesses an inherent power called maya), by which Sarvesvara Brahman manifests himself to the world in the form upadhi consisting of klesa and karma and their results. With this, he, in combination with Prakriti and Purusha and their mutual interactions, brings into existence Mahat and the rest of the creation, though in the same way as a spider, which puts out from its body its finest fabrics and finally inheres into itself the whole of what it has put forth; he himself entering into creation, sustains it by his power; through Prakriti establishes it; through Karma gives the fruits thereof just like a Maharaja, who doles out the fruits of their labour to his servants, gifts for meritorious service rendered or punishment for mistakes committed by them; and finally at the end draws everything into himself in the form of upasamhara (i.e., destruction) and remains alone himself just as a vast ocean is seen with its series of waves undergoing change every moment in the form of transformation effected by Mahendrajala. So in pralaya, though the universe is seen in the vast ocean as a mere speck, thus proving that the world is different (bhinnam) from the vast sheet of water, yet the Sruti says Sarvam khalvidam Brahma tatjalani iti, meaning thereby that there is no difference between them. The apparent difference that is seen is mere Vacharambhana (i.e., mere

expression and no more) just as the waves of the ocean and bubbles in the water which last but a moment. This is like mahendrajala (i.e., jugglery). All living creatures in the world are so many rays of the sun, so many particles (amsa) of the Brahman, and are therefore subordinate in character to him. Therefore, Prakriti and jiva behave as quite subordinate in character to Brahman and are both unreal and unrealizable just like things seen in the dreams and hence untrue. Also, Brahman himself being environed by Maya and being both separate and combined with jiva, manifests himself in an extraordinary manner and yet is unaffected by faults. Hence he behaves quite independently and as the chief Atma of the panchavimsati tattvas in the jiva. Like the threads which woven lengthwise and breadthwise form a cloth, he (Brahman) having joined the Jiva, as Karya and Karana, makes the Jiva the bhoktatma (the enjoyer of the fruits). Jiva being a lifeless jada, he remains manifest in the jada in the form of prana under the name of anatma. This same Paramatma is termed Parabrahman throughout the whole of the Vedanta, as the essence of all its truths and he is realizable through samadamadi sadhana by wise men, who keep mentally meditating on him -samamatma iti, so aham iti. Finally, realizing that it is not jiva but only an illusion created by Maya which pervaded him, he on the disappearance of the influence created by Maya, enjoys Brahmasakshatkara. Then avidya, karma, dharma and adharma and all other causes of worldly miseries entirely leave him and he becomes a Mukta, as the Sruti says: Nathasya prana utkramanti iti (to him there is no expiration of life). 43 45 Literally, the twenty-five elementary principles of creation. The Sankhya philosophy so-called enumerates twenty-five tattvas or true principles. Its chief object is the final emancipation of the twenty-fifth tattva, i.e., the Purusha or Soul, from the bonds of this worldly existence by conveying a correct knowledge of the twenty-four other tattvas and by properly discriminating the soul from them.

On the other hand, the jiva who is environed by Maya (Maya jiva) meditates upon that same (Maya) form of Brahman. He who out of his incapacity is unable to meditate upon that form of Mayatirikta Brahma (Brahman form free from Maya) has to go through archaradi marga through the merit of his meditation upon apratikalambana upasana and thereby reach out of the environments of Brahmanda and go to Maya Sabala form of Karana Brahman, who is Hiranyagarbha, and entering in him, out of the grace of Paramesvara, assume the lilavatara form in the end and enter into Parabrahma form, for it is said: upakramopasamhara vabhyasapurvataphalam | arthavadopapattisca lingam tatparya nisraye || iti brhatsamhitayam . Upakramopasamhara vabhyasa apurvata phalam Arthavado papattischa lingam tatparya nischaye |} (Brihatsamhita.) 46 This is the gist of all the Vedanta in its symbolic devotion. Since Brahman is the one that remains in the end, it has to be held that it is what is proved by the whole Sankhya Sutra, in which is embodied the jivatattva in its entirety, without whose help Purvamimamsa and its proofs would be rendered useless. It must not be said here that Brahman being stated to be akhanda, that it contradicts the principles of juvatattvanirupana.40 For if it were so, the Pratigna Sutra at the beginning (Athatho Brahma jijnasa) ought to have been athatho Jiva-Brahmaikya jijnasa iti. There would have been no necessity for a second pratigna to consider Brahman and jiva as akhanda (i.e., undivided). For what is this akhandata in Brahman (i.e., indivisibility of Brahman)? If Brahman and jiva were akhanda, why is it that throughout the Sutras it is nowhere seen clearly (that it is so). How could such a thing be invented as a matter of grace (daya)? And therefore such an an invention is 46 This is the Advaita argument. If Brahman is akhanda, then the Advaitin would say that there is no place for the jiva. This cannot be conceded, says Vijnana Bhikshu. In that case I. 1. 1. would have been, he suggests, differently worded.

contradicted by Mumukshus, who accept only what is clearly enunciated in the Sruti and leave off that which is left unsaid as contrary to it (Katham sraddhadhiran iti dik). Commenting on Sutra I. 1. 1, Vijnana Bhikshu discusses at length the main principles of his interpretation. He says that abheda is avibhaga that abheda is avibhaga lakshana; there is therefore samya between jiva and Brahman. The Sutra does not clearly state that jiva is one with Brahman in the akhanda form. But it clearly states that jiva and Brahman are radically different, as acceded to by the Sutras adhikantu bhedanirdesat, etc. Even the Amsa Sutras treat of the terms jiva and Brahman in terms of Amsa and Amsi (the part and the whole). And, therefore, we have also to understand in the same way in the Brahma Mimamsa siddhanta. Even the Sutrakara Bhagavan Vyasa holds in the Sutra that Brahman and jiva are in the same relation as the father is to the son in the Amsi bhava and Amsa. And, therefore, jiva and Brahman can never be said to be one like akasa. No more According to the The Sankhya says that Moksha is the result of the jnana which the jiva attains in recognizing the svarupa of Brahman when it loses the sense of aham. am I (ahambuddyadi nivartitobhavati). Sankhya Sutra, the ego (I) vanishes and the jiva sees Brahman before him and says "I am before that Brahman who is my Atma and therefore I see him alone as my Atma; I see no other." According to the Sankhya Sutra, the jiva realizes that form of atmatua whereby it enables it to call itself "I am in the same form as Brahman. I can enjoy bliss as Brahman I am a subordinate of Isvara" (Isvaraparatantrah). This is the fundamental difference that exists between the present day wrong interpreters (Kukalpakanam) who state that jiva and Brahman form a single akhandatma, and the followers of the Sankhya and Naiyayika schools who consider that jiva and Brahman are different from each other in the forms of sesha and seshi (the remainder and the whole) in two (different) forms.

In the same way, according to the reasoning in the Yama Purana, the Sruti texts yeshata atmantaryamyamrutah; sama atmeti vidyat; tatvamasi; etc., are thus interpreted Jiva and Brahman differ so far as to be divided as amsa and amsi. Therefore, how can these two be called as one and the same? Being amsa and amsi in their true forms, the words tat and tvam remain different from each other. According to the Sruti text Tantvopanishadam purusham prichchami (I ask that Aupanishad purusha thus), the Vedas deal with Brahman and atma as their subject; so also declare the Smritis. Thus while Brahman and atma differ from each other as amsi and amsa, how can atma become finally one with Brahman (Brahmatmatavagati phalakatvat)? Atma results in attaining Brahmata as the result of jnana. But not as the Sruti says:-Na cha tadatmyamidam sarvam sa atmeti: I am not one with Brahman but have attained a state of equality with Brahman; for the equality with Brahman has already been obtained. According to the Sruti texts Aitadatmyam iti, etc., which say that Brahman is the ultimate form of prapancha in its svarupa, the question arises whether the character of Brahman is divided from prapancha. Take ghata (pot) and the mrid (earth), which it is in another form; it cannot be said that mrid is the ghata form. The answer is that mrid is not the form of ghata, in its character. Similarly chetana is not of the form of atma; because chetana represents the whole and atma a part. Therefore in the expression tatvamasi, the word tat denotes the all-pervading form of Brahman, and tvam denotes merely the part (i.e., the jiva); this shows the division of the part from the whole. This is the difference that prevails in the expression tatvamasi and shows the difference between tvam and aham (yourself and myself)*7 both in their form and in their meaning (sabdarthatvat). The terms "Myself" and "My" (aham and mama) do not convey the relationship of master " " 47 Cf. with Sankara Bhashya, I. 1. 1.

170 " INTRODUCTION " " and "servant (svasvami) as between them and therefore in the Patanjali Sutras in the Sutra, Svasvami sakhyossvarupopalabdhihetu samyoga iti, the term samyoga means the result of combining one with the other, sva with svami. And therefore in the Sruti texts, Aththatha atma desa, aththatho ahamkara desa, etc., a repetition is seen. In the Sankhya Karika, such a repetition is not seen-nasmi, name, naham, etc.,-which plainly shows a clear difference between sva and svami. According to the Sankhya Karika, atma in its entirety is prohibited from becoming one with Brahman (sva svamyasya pratishedhat iti). But atma claims equality with Brahman (tesham atmatochchate). The fact of the jiva addressing Isvara in terms of "You and "I") cannot possibly maintain the unity of jiva with Brahman as it would be a clear contradiction. By using the terms "You" and I" (Tvam and Aham) in addressing Isvara, a meaning contradictory to unity is implied. If the jiva gives utterance through its mouth to the words (Tvam and Aham), it is clear that the jiva addresses one before him (Brahman) who is quite different from himself. Such addressing establishes the truth that Brahman and jiva are different. To indicate this difference between Brahman and jiva, the terms tvam and aham were used by the Guru in the text tatvamasi. The Sruti texts Nanyatosti drashta srota manta bodhya, etc., point out that it is none other than Paramatma that the jiva perceives before him and that it is none other from whom he hears. All this clearly shows that jiva and Brahman are as servant (karthru) and master (svasvami). While this is so, adhunikas (modern teachers) while determining the meaning of the expression tatvamasi say that the expressions tam and aham denote jiva only; and on the basis of the Sruti texts like kona atma, etc., interpret the meaning just as they please, following in this the common usage, though the interpretation is not one warranted (by the text). In this world, if one asks, "koham "koham " (who am I), the answer appears to be "amukasthvam asi" (thou art this self) and nothing more. In our opinion, the expressions

tvam and aham, from the very nature of the meanings attaching to them, without contradicting (nahiyate), imply two different agencies, similar in form (samanyarupenaiva), conveying to the understanding two different beings with their respective characteristics. This is in conformity with the general usage current in the world. However, though the expressions tattvameva (That thou art) and tvamevatat (Thou art that) are expressions mutually interchangeable (paras para vyatihara vakyam) and appear to expel a conclusive dissimilarity in meaning (vaidharmya) and a clear difference (bheda), still in order to release the jiva from all the burdens of the samsara, through meditation and upasana, and to realize Paramatma svarupa, the two different forms of atma and Brahman are clearly explained without contradiction in sva and svasvarupa, as postulated in the Smriti texts Echchapyevam sakalam jatam api sarvam pratishthitam; sa eva jivaha sukha duhkha bhokta, etc., which plainly indicate that it is the result of the meditation on Brahman in his undivided form (avibhagenopasanam vidadhati). This is in accordance with the Smriti texts* Vibheda janake gnane nasam atyantikam gate; atmanobrahmanabhedam asantam kimkarishyati, etc., which declare that one who meditates upon God with the knowledge that he and Brahman are different from each other and who by his knowledge is able to distinguish between dharma and adharma and who, by his attachment to his carnal body, which attachment is completely expelled by the true knowledge of Brahman, which he gains in the end, will at no time again speak of the jiva and Brahman as avibhaga (undivided), all cause (for such postulating) having been removed. Again, in the Gautami Tantra is the declaration Yadi jivah parat bhinnaha karyatameti suvrata, achitvameha prasajjeta ghatavat pandito mata, which says that if the jiva is entirely different from Parabrahman, para meaning ananta 48 position. Vijnana Bhikshu quotes the Vishnu Purana in support of his

172 49 INTRODUCTION or unending, then at the time of pralaya, according to the declaration of the Advaita Sruti texts, even a lifeless ghata (jar) would behave like an animate jiva and become capable of independent action. In such a case, according to the Smriti texts Kshetragnam chapi mam viddhi 19 (understand that I am the knower of all the source of origin) etc., amsa and amsi would then have to be interpreted as indivisible. This results in a great contradiction inasmuch as the difference between the terms amsi and amsa, as explained in I. 1. 3 in terms of Brahman and atma will be rendered meaningless and we will have to interpret sakti and sakta as indivisible and this is obviously contradictory (dik). Those who are Tarkikas (logicians) usually ignore that characteristic of indivisible unity (avibhaga lakshana bhedamapi), and consider only for the sake of meditation that atma and Brahman are different terms (Bheda vakyani) and thus in their opinion the Sruti texts which censure bheda (difference between atma and Brahman) are rendered inapplicable. A mutual contradiction is thereby made to arise, so that finally in the Paramarthika stage, where meditation enables the realization of Brahman, the position reached is one of Bhedabheda, which renders the meaning of the Sruti texts fruitless; and for this reason, the bheda Sutras which champion the bheda position (bhedasadhaka) 50 Adhikantu bheda nirdesat, etc., which declare bheda, conclusively prove that jiva and Brahman assume the divided condition (vibhaga rupa) of amsa and amsi. And therefore throughout, from the beginning to the end, continuously, the jiva and Brahman prove to be two distinct forms naturally, eternally and truthfully, divided from each other and the idea that jiva and Brahman are one and indivisible (i.e., without a division between them) and that the jiva becomes one with the Brahman through an accidental change, is only a characteristic mode of expression (Vacharambhana matramiti viseshaha). This is generally what the defenders of 49 Bhagavad-Gita, XIII, 3. 50 Bhedasadhaka bheda sutreshu, etc.

Brahmadvaita declare when they speak of "atma being one with Brahman". This is further dealt with in the third Sutra (Tattu samanvayat) where the difference caused by the mutual contradictions of the Brahmadvaitins is clearly explained and the fact that the jiva is absolutely different from Isvara (Jivad atyanta bhinna eva Isvaraha Brahmasabdartha iti) is the meaning conveyed by the term Brahman. This is the final conclusion (iti siddhaha). And in that this is the greater peculiarity, viz., maya, which is quite different from jiva, is the chief cause of creation, etc., of the world. And accordingly it is always Brahman's will to inculcate into Maya the power of such creation. And therefore the word aisvarya implies the prime meaning of the term Brahman in which exists the state of his being the Lord (Isasya Isatvam) (over Prakriti, Jiva, Srishti, etc.). This sakti is the distinguishing property of Brahman, which he controls in ananta aisvarya. All these peculiarities are the characteristics of Brahman. The Sruti texts Satyam jnanam anantam Brahma; tadeva Brahmatvam viddhi; nedam yadidamupasate; sakshicheta kevalo nirgunasya; athata adeso neti neti; akartachaitanyam chinmatram sat; etc. declare the above truth. In the Smriti texts jnanameva parambrahma jnanam bandhaya neshyate, jnanatmaka midam visvam najnanat bhidyate param, etc., 51 according to Audulomi, in the Sutra that will be referred to below, the chit in atma forms but a part of the whole Parabrahman and therefore jiva and Brahman are relatively as tanmatra and atma² i.e., the part and the whole. Some logicians hold the invented view that atma is enveloped in Sakti (upadhi visishte saktim), from which they argue that on account of vyavahara, Brahman is independent of his will 01 jnana is Parabrahman himself; jnana desires absolution from bandha (ties of this world); this universe is of the form of jnana; there is nothing else greater than jnana. 52 A primary or rudimentary atom. Cf. Jivo alpaha in contradistinction to Brahma stula,

and atma is subordinate. In this way, the jiva and Brahman behave in the relationship of sva and svami (servant and Lord). This idea is the result of foolishness (aviveka). In the same way, the terms paramatma, paramesvara and other (similar) expressions are said to mean peculiar states of Chaitanya with varied sakti; for it is said in the Smriti 53 texts- badanti tattattvavidah tatvam yadjnanamadvayam | brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavaniti sabdayate iti, etc. I anadirupascinmatram iti, etc. || Vadanti tat tatvavidaha tatvam yadjnanamadvayam; Brahmeti Paramatmeti Bhagavan iti sabdayate iti, etc.; Anadirupaschinmatra ili, etc. These texts declare that the very idea of birth as being due to any cause is contradictory to the Smritis. Chaitanya is not a mere characteristic of atma; but it exists in an indivisible manner as substance and its property (dharma and dharmi) and is called Chaitanya (dharma dharmi vibhaga sunyaschetanah) just as a luminous body is connected with its luminosity (tejodravyam prakasikam prakasa iti), always co-existing with each other in such a manner as to be declared to be almost one, agreeably to the maxim "So significantly small as to merit being ignored" (laghavadekatvasyaiva nyayatvat). Briefly put, the viewpoint of Vijnana Bhikshu is that the Brahma-Sutras do not aim at establishing the aikya of jiva except to state his relationship to Brahman as its final goal. It starts with jijnasa and ends with anavritti (idam sastram jiva nirupana param na bhavati). As the work starts with the Sutra Athatho Brahmajijnasa, it relates purely to The discussion of attaining Brahmavadhi. It is for this reason that the last Sutra also discusses the Brahman in bringing the argument to a close. All those who are experts in differentiating atma from Brahman (tatparya grahaka linganam) realize that in order to know Brahman, the aid of the Sankhya Sastra is necessary. It is only Sankhya 53 Srimad Bhagavata, I. 2. 11.

Sastra that expounds the theory of juvatattva and in that Sastra alone, can it be studied and understood. That would also enable us to get a proper insight into the Purva Mimamsa. But for these purposes, a knowledge of the Sankhya Sastra would be of little use. If the Sankhya Sastra is neglected, Purva Mimamsa also becomes useless. If the Purva Mimamsa treats of karma, the Sankhya treats of jnana; the one being complementary to the other. According to Sankhya Sastra, at the end, the Adhikari attains sayujya by achieving Brahma rupa and not by Brahma aikya. Brahma sabda is imbedded, says Vijnana Bhikshu, in the Sankhya Sastra; when that word is used, it should, he says, be understood as indicating jivatattva according to the Sankhya Sastra. 55 Therefore, it must not be held that the jiva should be understood in terms of Brahmanda in its entirety (akhandataya); for such an interpretation would become contradictory (vaiyarthyam). This is, he says, the whole gist of the Brahma-Sutras taken as a whole. This being so, to interpret the first Sutra Aththatho Brahmajijnasa as meaning jiva-Brahmaikya jijnasa would be against the avowed object of the Sutras (pratigna sutram yujyate). Mumukshus cannot go any other way than this; in fact it is unthinkable that they should. Aikya being taboo, then, Brahmatva is obtained, according to Vijnana Bhikshu, by salokya and sayujya by sahavasa bhoga matra. This is rendered clear by his comments on IV. 4. 21, Bhogamatra samyalingachcha, which he interprets as postulating only sahavasa bhogamatra, 54 C). Bhagavad-Gita, II. 39:- Yesha te abhihita sankhye buddhiryoge tvimam srunu | Budhya yukto yaya Partha karmabandham prahasyasi >> Commenting on this sloka, Anandatirtha, in his Gita-Bhashya, explains the word Sankhyam as meaning jnanam and quotes the following Bhagavadvachana from the Vyasa Smriti as his authority. for this interpretation :- 55 Suddhatma tatva vijnanam sankhya mityabhidhiyata iti. In Sankhya, Brahma stands for 2; Pranava for 1; Veda for 4 路 Tattva for 25; and so on.

i.e., the happiness of living nearby. He suggests that Brahmatva is attained by sarvavyapakatva. This is the phala aimed at by jijnasa. This Sutra says beyond this point he cannot attain to the great powers of creation, etc. Those are reserved to Paramesvara only. According to Sruti text, Sosnute sarvan kaman saha Brahmana, Parabrahman is an object of adoration by those who attain Brahmatva (Srutau Brahmana parabrahmanopasyena ityarthaha). Vijnana Bhikshu approvingly quotes the Bhagavad-Gita text, Sarvam samapnoshi thathosi sarvaha (Bhagavad-Gita, XI. 40). It is not said, he says, that Parabrahma murti (svarupa) has been attained and that : 50 Bhagavata, II. 9. 20, wherein the avadhi is thus fixed :pumsam maddarsanavadhihi. The full text is as follows:- varam varaya bhadram varesam mabhivamchitam | sarva sreyah parisramah pumsam maddarsanavadhih || 29-20 . Varam varaya bhadramte varesam mabhivamchchitam | Sarva sreyah parisramah pumsam maddarsanavadhih || This may be translated thus:-"The highest object that one should aim at to attain eternal bliss as the result of his exalted penance is to obtain my grace in my very presence, which is the limit of the highest reward." The avadhi is the attaining of the presence of Brahman. Vijayadhwaja, the commentator on the Bhagavata, comments thus: maddarsanameva sarvasreyasam phalam iti. It is "labhate Brahmadarsanam" and not "labhate Parabrahmadarsanam" that fixes the avadhi. Vijayadhwaja belonged to the l'ejawar Mutt, one of the eight Udupi mutts. He was eighth in succession to Sri Madhvacharya in that mutt, his predecessors being Adhokshaja, Kamalaksha, Pushkaraksha, Amarendra, Vijaya and Mahendra. From Mahendra there were twenty successors, the svami in 1923 being Visvamanya. Visvamanya died during the life-time of his guru. Vis ajna. His disciple is now the svami of this mutt. Since Vijayadhwaja was eighth in succession from Madhvacharya, allowing twenty years for each successor of his, Vijayadhwaja should have come about 160 years after Madhvacharya. Since Madhvacharya was still living about 1276 A.D., we may have to set down Vijayadhwaja to about 1436 A.D. This would bring him down to the middle of the fifteenth century A.D. We may not be far wrong if we set down Vijayadhwaja to about the beginning of the sixteenth century.

akhilakarya karanatva has been attained by the mumukshu. Hence, jagadvyapara is denied to him (jagadvyapara nasti). Isvara rupa is of two kinds-Brahman and Parabrahman. While Brahmatva may be reached, Parabrahmatva cannot be reached by the mumukshu. And Brahmatva is attained by salokya and sayujya, by enjoyment in company with Brahman (sahavasa bhoga matra). After the completion of that bhoga by such karya Brahmani (i.e., those that have attained to Brahman status through work-such work having been accomplished for the purpose of obtaining such bhoga)-tatbhoga samaptyanantaram-they secure release, i.e., absolution from returning to re-birth (punaravritti janma nasti). Because, it is so declared: Brahmalokamabhisampadyate na cha punaravartate na cha punaravartate iti sabda pramanyat. But a karana Brahmani who thinks that there is a greater bliss to which he is entitled commits sin, as the result of which, he will have to return to re-birth, being ousted out from the status of Brahman (utsargiki). This is the prime difference-between kurya Brahmani and karana Brahmani. Those that attain karana Brahmatva, to them there is no punaravritti. This is a settled fact (apunaravrittir niyata). According to Vijnana Bhikshu, therefore, there are two two kinds of Brahmatva-karya and karana. Those who attain the first, attain to bliss only temporarily; and those who attain the second, enjoy eternal bliss. Vijnanabhikshu's settled view is that jiva may attain to Brahmatva but not to Parabrahmatva. He postulates two kinds of Brahmatva: karya and karana. He describes the jiva in terms of Brahman. Anandatirtha, the other great teacher who postulates duality, holds that from Brahman to the barest green grass (Brahmadi trinantha paryantam) belong to the class of jivarasi dependent on Parabrahman. These jivarasis are further divided off into different classes, which may, through the grace of Parabrahman, attain to Brahmatva. Anandatirtha describes jiva under three heads: (1) Deva, (2) Manusha, and (3) Danavah. 12

trividha jivasamghastu deva manusa danavah | tatradevamuktiyogya manusesuttamastatha || madhyamamanusa yetu srtiyogyasadeva hi | srani facai ga zilaglegaHiban: 11 ( mahabharata tatparya nirnaye, 1 .87 - 88 . ) Trividha jivasanghastu deva manusha danavah Tatra devaha muktiyogya manusheshu uttamasthatha || Madhyama manusha etu sritiyogyah sadaivahi Adhama niraya yaiva danavastu tamolayah || (Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya, I. 87-88.) Jivas are divided into three classes: devas, men and rakshasas of these, devas are always fit for mukti; superior men are also so; those of the middle class are subject to srishti, sthithi and laya in succession; and inferior men will continue for ever in tamas.57 Vijnana Bhikshu in commenting on IV. 4. 22 Anavritti sabdat anavrittisabdat further quotes the following verse from the Bhagavad-Gita :- abrahmabhuvana klokah punaravrttino'rjuna | mamupetya tu kaunteya punarjanma na vidyate || Abrahma bhuvanallokah punaravartino Arjuna Mamu petya tu Kaunteya punarjanma na vidyate \\ and says that naturally there is no avritti from Vishnuloka. But there is avritti (yet) from Vishnuloka to those who did not believe the confidential word (vissmaranena aptavakye) mamu petya, i.e., that they are near me.58 By mam, etc., here is meant that the jiva has reached Paramatma and is near him. To those who believe that they 57 In Vishnu Tattva Nirnaya, Jayatirtha designates the two posing theorists of Dvaitins and Advaitins as Bahujiva vadins and Ekajiva vadins. See T. R. Krishnachar's Vishnu Tattva Nirnaya, Kumbakonam Edition, page 12, line 1. 58 61 Mamupetya: This is interpreted by Vijnana Bhikshu mamityanena Paramatmana eva uktatvat, i.e., what is meant by me" is Paramatma. Mamupetya is thus taken in its literal sense mam+upat yetya, i.c., approaches near to me, i.e., having reached me, he shall not have any return. Vijnana Bhikshu is for salokya and samipya and not sayujya in the sense of aikya.

are near Paramatma, there is no avritti; but to those who disbelieve in being near me but assume that they are one with me (by aikya) there is avritti. aikya) there is avritti. These are disbelievers in the apta vakya pronounced by Sri Krishna. The Karana Brahmani of Vijnana Bhikshu fall under this category of disbelievers in the apta vakya; and the Karya Brahmani are believers in the apta vakya. Vijnana Bhikshu is thus a dualist: he postulates jiva and Parabrahman; he denounces aikya; he suggests that moksha is attaining salokya and samipya; and he limits the import of sayujya to samipya and not aikya. In keeping with these views are the sentiments expressed by him in the mangalacharana slokas appearing at the end of his work. These may be thus set down :While Brahman and the rest have been unable to explain clearly Brahma-tattva in this Vedanta Sastra, my attempt and labour in trying to expound it clearly is a daring attempt (sahasam), which "Lord, I beseech you to overlook" (Bhagavan chchantumarhasi). But my attempt cannot afflict my spiritual intellect with misery even to the smallest extent, while my mind is all engaged in meditating upon Thee who is ever revelling in the ocean of bliss free from all worldly fever and who is without beginning or end. Even if it is said that some amount of fault (aparadha) is attaching to me, whether I am conscious of it or not, because of making this attempt, even in that case, Thou art the sole agent in me for all that, for we are like so many puppets moved by strings (daruyantra sama vayam).59 Even if I acknowledge that I have committed any fault I disown it because the doer of it is the chidatmaka (pure consciousness) in me, who, lacking wisdom, has prompted me to that which consists of dharma and adharma. I pray that the Lord may grant me absolute absolution from all misery for this holy service of mine-in trying to expound the sastras, out of my pure will. 59 Cf. Anandatirtha: yatha darumayi yosa narasthira samahitah | ingayatyangamangani tatharajannimah prajah || ( anandatirtha - brahmasutrabhasya ) Ingayati angamangani thatha rajan imah prajaha || Yatha darumayi yosha narasthira samahitaha | (Brahma-Sutra-Bhashya quoting from Mahabharata, Santiparva, Mokshadharma.)

It will be seen from the above that Vijnana Bhikshu writes as a confirmed dualist. He does not pray for moksha but only for the absolute remission of all misery. This is entirely in keeping with his repudiation of the Jiva-Brahmaikya theory. Vijnana Bhikshu refers to Purvacharyas when commenting on I. I. 2, where he propounds the view that Purvacharyas hold that Paramatma is bhokta-purusha. As already remarked in the same context, he adversely criticises the Advaita teachers by describing them as kukalpakas (I. 1. 2). In this connection he refers to them as "present-day people" and disapproves of their representation that mukhya-atma and gauna-atma, which according to him are fundamentally different, are one. He styles their argument as a wrongly invented one. He claims that the followers of the Sankhya and Naiyayika systems consider and hold as proved that atmatva consists, in its essence, in the acquired grade of quality attained by the atma-chaitanya phala yogyata rupa matram. There can, he remarks, be no contradiction to this statement.