2

Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara To praise any god in the beginning of the text, He

should have three essential qualifications. 1) If God
E"{{""w <E"<R"e""f""liw whom we prostrate should have distinguished glory, then
only he can solve all the possible obstacles. It is obvious
<E"l{ifk""{"|""""<R"e# C""{"# $ that Shree Narayana, who is the creator of this world and
C"{i"{<ll"U"ik"<"U"ik"|"{i&<" is full of infinite attributes and free from flaws, has this
"Ew C"l{ <""|"""w "" C"""{<" $$ capacity. 2) If the God whom we pray is described by this
text, He will bless us with spiritual inspiration needed to
NarayaNam nikhilapuurNaguNaikadeham compose the text. Since Shree Narayana is the purport
Nirdoshham appyatamamapi akhilaiH suvaakyaiH I of all the Shaastraas He is capable of giving us this
Asyodbavaadidam ashesha visheshhatopi required knowledge. 3) To praise any God, we should have
Vandyam sadaa priyatamam mama sannamaami II immense devotion for such God. Shree Narayana is the
Shree Madvacharya always has the direct most beloved of the composer, Shree Madhvacharya.
knowledge and never encounters any obstacles in his Shree Aacharya is extremely devoted to God. He is a great
endeavors. However, in the beginning of Anuvyakhyaana soul who loves Shree Narayana all the time without any
he has written Mangala Shloka in praise of selfishness. Thus this Mangala Shloka has clarified by
ShreemannaraayaNa.* This is intended to teach his describing all the qualities of the Lord which indicate
disciples that one should pray before one composes any that He is worthy to be praised.
text so that it can be completed without any obstruction. This Mangala Shloka has described greatness of the
ShreemanNarayana is the cause of creation, sustenance Lord who is possessing all auspicious qualities and is
etc., of the world and is free from all defects. He is the absolutely free from defects. By this it is easy for us to
embodiment of all infinite auspicious qualities. Unlike know the Lord as different from us. It is convenient to
us, He does not have physical inanimate body. He is identify a person different from others by describing His
described in Vedaas and Shaastraas directly and is praised qualities. Hence this Mangala Shloka has described the
by all. I prostrate with special devotion to Him who is Lord as possessing infinite auspicious qualities, etc.,
always my most beloved. which differentiate the Lord from the other animate and
* Itrans - To help the readers to identify and pronounce non- inanimate entities.
English words correctly A key note to the ITRANS has been
added in the page number xxiii This Shloka has also clarified the means of
 3 4

knowledge to know the Lord. Only Vedaas are the possessing all auspicious qualities and free from any
PramaaNaas regarding the existence of God. The creation defect*. The word naara means Veda, which are flawless
and other activities of the world are wonderful and since they are apourusheya("{Pk"i"), non-authored by
systematic require a person who has wonderful any human. So Narayana means the one who is described
knowledge and great powers. He must be the Lord. Thus in the Vedaas. naara means creation, sustenance etc.,
is the logic. The Shloka has indicated two PramaaNaas relating to human beings. He is called Narayana because
by describing two qualities of the Lord such as akhila he is the cause for creation etc. Narayana also means who
veda pratipaadya(<R"e "il "<|""{) and jagajjanmaadi is worshiped by nara samuuha(E"C""), meaning all
kaaraNa("""E"{<l{") that is the one who is described human beings. naara(E"{), means God of wind who is
in all the Vedaas and the cause for the creation, supreme among human beings. Because He is the most
sustenance, etc., of the world. beloved of God of wind, He is called Narayana. Thus the
If the Lord is the creator of this world, a question Shloka indicates that the word Narayana for the Lord is
arises whether He has a physical body like us. If He does meaningful.
not have physical body, He cannot create the world. If He This invocation Shloka is essence of the entire
has it, will he not have all the pains and defects related to BrahmaSuutra. The scripture declares that supreme
the body? This objection has been resolved by the Brahman is the creator of this world. Discussion of
Shloka through an adjective of nikhila puurNa guNaika Brahman has to be conducted. When it is critically
deham (<E"<R"e""f""liw) who is the embodiment of examined it will be proved that all the Vedaas describe
infinite and perfect attributes. He does not have inert Brahman as possessing infinite qualities. This is the
physical body like us. Therefore there is no chance for essence of the first chapter of Brahmasuuutra. The same
any physical defects. He can create this world with his purport is briefed in the first Shloka by the adjectives
natural and transcendental body, which is the embodiment nikhila puurna guNa(<E"<R"e""f"") (who is possessing
of infinite auspicious qualities. infinite attributes), jagat kaaraNa(""|{") (creator of
All the glories of the Lord which are described in *
Doshaara chidrashabdaanaam paryaayatvam yatastataH,
the Mangala Shloka of Anuvyaakhyaana(E""{R"{E") are gunaaH naaraaH iti JneyaaH tadvaan NarayanasmrutaH||
embedded in the word Narayana. ara means defect. l{ik"{>U"l{E"{w ""{f"|"w "|"C|"|"# $
naara means quality. Narayana means the one who is ""{# E"{{ <|" "i"{# |"{E" E"{{""# C"D|"# $$
 5 6

this world), akhila veda pratipaadya (<R"e "il "<|""{|") Shree Madhvacharya has worshipped Shree
(who is described in all the Vedaas ), vandya ("E) Narayana in the first Shloka. In the second Shloka, he
invokes the blessings of Veda Vyaasa who is the teacher
(worshipped by all). vandana ("ElE") means contem- of the entire universe and his special Guru. Though Shree
plation in the mind. Discussion is also a kind of contem- Veda Vyaasa is the incarnation of Narayana, Shree
plation. Hence vandana also means discussion. The Madhvacharya has prayers in two ways to the Lord as God
adjective vandya ("E) in the Shloka indicates that and as Guru. The purpose of this is to teach his disciples
enquiry into Brahman should be conducted. to worship both their Guru and the Lord who are different
for others.
In the second chapter the Lord is established as free
from defects by solving all other objections. The meaning The Validity of BrahmaSuutra
of the second chapter of BrahmaSuutra is briefed by an
Shree Madhvacharya after the invocation Shloka and
adjective nirdoshha (<E"l{ifk") in the Shloka. The essence
before interpreting the BrahmaSuutra, establishes its
of third chapter is that one has to contemplate on Brahman validity and describes its greatness. For any text to be
through dispassion and devotion, and through valid, the author of the text should have thorough
contemplation one should realize Brahman. The words knowledge of the subject. Also he should have concern
asheshha visheshatopi priyatamam (U"ik" <"U"ik"|"{i&<" to teach that truth. He should also have perfect senses
<""|""") aapyatamam({"|""") have briefly explained along with intellectual brilliance. Even if Guru knows the
the meaning of third chapter. The meaning of these words truth, he may not teach the disciples if they are not worthy.
is that by giving up all worldly fancies one has to make If the disciples are qualified to learn the teachings and if
efforts to see the Lord through devotion. Moksha means they are beloved of the Guru then there is no reason to
approaching the Lord in a special way, though He is all hide the truth. Even if teacher and students have these
qualifications, for the sake of fun, there are occasions
pervading. The forth chapter is the description of Moksha.
where untruth is entertained. A teacher who knows the
The word aapyatama ({"|"")in the Shloka, by indicating truth will not deceive worthy and beloved disciple on the
attaining the Lord in a special way is Moksha, has briefed occasion of serious discussion of the philosophical truth.
the meaning of the forth chapter. Thus the invocation That text which is preached in order to reveal the truth
Shloka has attempted to teach all the essence of this whole without any deception should be a valid PramaaNa. This
BrahmaSuutra. beautiful combination of teacher, student and the occasion
 7 8

is called vaktRi-shrotRi prasakti aanukuulya. ("D o{i|"D together. Moreover this text explains the subjects dealt
"C"<). There cannot be any chance for ignorance, illusion in Vedaas using logic. Hence it has the support of Veda
and deception. Such a text is called aaptavaakya and logic. Thus Brahmasutra can be regarded as supreme
({""{"). BrahmaSuutra is regarded as such a great valid for three reasons; it is Aaptavaakya({""{"), and
aaptavaakya ({""{"). The author of this text Shree it has the support of Veda and logic.
Veda Vyaasa, is the incarnation of omniscient God. Shree
Even in the Upanishads this BrahmaSuutra is
Veda Vyaasa, who taught Vedaas to Brahma and other demi-
recognized as Paravidya("<"{). All the Vedic statements,
gods and who wrote the great scriptures like Mahabhaarata
which are apparently dealing with karma when there is no
etc., cannot have ignorance and doubt. He must have
connection to the logic that is mentioned in
perfect philosophical knowledge. We can understand his BrahmaSuutra, are categorized in the group Aparavidya
concerns in preaching the truth since he has written all
("<"{) . Subsequently Upanishad has described
such great texts. Is there any possibility for defective
paravidya as a means of knowledge of God. When all the
senses for such a great soul? Brahma and other gods who
scriptures other than BrahmaSuutra belong to the category
were taught by Veda Vyaasa are themselves the teachers of aparavidya, the one which is described as paravidya
of the world. There cannot be any doubt of their should be only BrahmaSuutra. The BrahmaSuutra alone
qualifications as students. They are also popular as most which is determining the meaning of the Vedaas is called
beloved of God. When there was a chaos in the world paravidya. Similarly Vedaas which are expounding reality
due to lack of knowledge, Brahma and other gods prayed of Brahman with the help of BrahmaSuutra are also
to the Lord because of their mercy of the virtuous people. considered as Paravidya. Thus BrahmaSuutra is regarded
As a result, the stream of teachings flowed from the Lord as paravidya because it is supporting Vedaas which are
Veda Vyaasa. Therefore it is not an occasion for paravidya. Even Vedaas become aparavidya when there is
entertainment for the world. Is there any chance for a no support of BrahmaSuutra. Paravidya means supreme
doubt in the validity of such great teachings of a perfect PramaaNa since it deals with supreme Brahman. This is
teacher of the world to the most deserving gods at the the characteristic of BrahmaSuutra. Thus we can establish
important occasion of blessing the world? A perfect validity of BrahmaSuutra on the basis of Upanishads and
teacher, qualified students and great occasion are joined logic.
 9 10

Invoaction Prayer in the Sutra:(C"") * futile. As the medicine is not effective due to not
The wise perform invocation prayer in the beginning following required diet our religious acts prescribed in
of any task for its successful completion. Sometimes the Vedaas may not give us the desired results due to our
even when invocation prayer is done, the task may not be commissions and omissions in performing the acts. Some
completed. We have so many examples where the work people, without performing such religious acts in this
is completed without the invocation. But it is not correct life, may be enjoying the benefits due to their virtuous
to decide that the invocation prayer is not necessary. There acts in the past lives. By experience and experiments when
are several instances that even if we take medicines, the it is proved that medicine cures diseases, successes and
physical disease may not be cured due to some other failures in specific cases should be accounted to other
defects in the body. Even when medicines are not taken a reasons. Similarly when the validity of Shaastraas is
disease may be cured due to some reasons. By this can confirmed, if there are no results even after the acts are
we decide that medicine does not cure the disease? performed according to Vedaas, they should be accounted
Similarly even if many religious disciplinary actions such as due to other factors. Thus wise have been performing
as vows and sacrifices which are mentioned in Vedaas invocation prayers for the successful completion of their
and Puraanaa-s for gaining some worldly benefits, those works even if the results are not obtained at times. Hence
results may not be achieved. Those who have not we should do invocation prayer for the successful
performed religious acts and live freely without completion of the work. The author of BrahmaSuutra does
following any religious discipline attain such benefits. not have any fear of failure. But he has to do invocation
By this example one should not come to conclusion that prayer in order to follow the tradition. If that is so, why
all the religious activities mentioned in scriptures are has he not done the invocation prayer in the beginning of
BrahmaSuutra? But Shree Madhvacharya has revealed that
* "{A""C"El"w C"{"<X"|"{i"R"" $ in the beginning of BrahmaSuutra there is an invocation
C|"{i""E""w " C""w C""<"l{i <"ls# $$ prayer.

A Suutra can be defined as it should have the minimum This text has begun with Om({i") and atha(").
words without which the intended meaning cannot be revealed These two highly auspicious words constitute the
and should not give room for doubts (clear). It should be meaningful invocation prayer in the text. These words also describe
and capable to determine the meaning of several branches of Veda
by covering all aspects of the points mentioned by it. It should be
the subject of the first sutra briefly. Thus Om({i") and
free from unnecessary words and faultless in all ways. atha("). are related to the first Suutra also. They are
 11 12

also in the form of invocation prayer for the successful the commencement of the study of the text. Without
completion of the entire text. knowing the subject and the purpose of the text no one
will be interested to study the text. But only after starting
When this Om({i") is pronounced separately in the study one can learn the subject and purpose etc., from
the beginning of the Suutra without joining the next word, the first sutra. However a question will arise how one
does it belong to the first Suutra? Such a question may can start to study even the first sutra as he does not have
arise. But we have to accept that it is part of the Suutra, the required knowledge. Without knowing the subject and
since traditionally it has been pronounced in the the purpose etc. one cannot get involved in its study.
beginning of the Suutra. Om-kaara has to be pronounced Without studying the text one cannot know the subject
in the beginning and at the end of any paravidya. There is and purpose. Is it not mutual dependence? Before
also proof that Brahmavidya will be protected when Om- answering this question one should know what PravRitti
kaara is pronounced in the beginning and in the end. Thus (""D<y") is. Either the knowledge of an object or longing
by rendering the meaning of the Suutra, Omkaara has for happiness is not PravRitti (""D<y"). We dont require
become part of the first sutra. Therefore it should be any knowledge of benefit to have experience or the desire
pronounced along with Sutra. To indicate that Om-kaara for benefit. Whether there is benefit or not we perceive
should be pronounced in the beginning of all other an object in front of us. We perceive even the undesired
Suutraas to protect Brahmavidyaa it has been objects. Therefore to have experience, the knowledge of
pronounced separately in the first sutra without joining the benefit is not required. To get happiness, we desire
it. The purpose of it is to indicate that Om-kaara should for means such as fruits, milk, etc. But happiness is not
be added for all sutra-s of BrahmaSuutra. desired to get some other benefit. That itself is
Purushaartha ("Pk"{"f). The desire for happiness arises in
The Four Requirements of Scriptural Text:
us naturally. Thus the knowledge and the desire for
This text begins with the analysis of objections and happiness arise in us without depending on any other
establishment of truths
benefits. These are not called PravRitti. PravRitti means
The first sutra explains 1) the subject of the text, desiring for instruments or means of happiness and
2) the purpose of the text, 3) qualification of the student making efforts to achieve them. For this type of PravRitti
and 4) the interrelationships among the subject, benefit one should know the purpose. We desire for means of
and the student. It is necessary to know all these before happiness only out of the need for happiness. We make
 13 14

efforts for that. To make such efforts in the study of the the purpose etc., that are mentioned in Vedaas and
text we should know the subject and purpose of the text. PuraaNa-s. This is similar to gold using a polishing stone.
But there is a possibility to know them even without Since Lord Veda Vyaasa is a great trustworthy teacher,
making any efforts. One can know the subject and the his statements have much more value.
purpose which are indicated in the first sutra by
The objection with regard to subject, purpose and
accidentally hearing a lecture or discourse on philosophy.
student as follows :
Subsequently he will develop deep interest and will make
attempt to study the scripture properly. We have already The discussion that is conducted in this text is
explained that to derive knowledge from a statement one unnecessary. It does not have any subject matter and no
need not know the purpose. Therefore one can know the purpose at all. No one will be fascinated to this
subject of the first sutra without having any knowledge discussion. This text is not meant to examine inanimate
of the purpose by hearing some discourse accidentally. objects which are perceivable. The self is always
Thus without having any mutual dependence, we can experienced by us. Hence the discussion of the self is
account for both the knowledge of the subject and the not required. There is no supreme Brahman different from
purpose of the text without PravRitti, and subsequently the self.
making serious efforts to study.
We are always experiencing the self with the
attributes such as doership, enjoyership, happiness and
How does BrahmaSuutra teach us these subject and
unhappiness etc. Hence which new aspect remains to be
Purpose ?
known in the self? Therefore there is no need of this text
Lord Veda Vyaasa, who is omniscient and to establish the self.
compassionate, is supremely trustworthy. But Though the self is always being experienced by us,
BrahmaSuutra is regarded as NyaayaSuutra. It was not He is entirely different than what we know him. We
intended to convey us the subjects and the purpose, unlike experience the following attributes such as Jnaana("{E"),
pouraaNic statements which are just aaptavaakya-s. Shree knowledge, happiness, unhappiness and doer-ship etc. in
Veda Vyaasa has written BrahmaSuutra to establish every the self. But He is pure existence without any such
prameya (""i") (object of the knowledge) by using logic. attributes. This text is meant to explain such pure
By using logic his intention was to analyze critically to consciousness as the self. This is the subject of
give us clear and firm knowledge of every subject and BrahmSuutra; thus some Vedantins contend. In that case
 15 16

the Shaastra will be contradictory to the experience. is the benefit of this Shaastra there is no scope for any
Experience recognizes the self with attributes and contact between physical body and the senses. There
qualities. But Shaastra will be declaring that the self is cannot be any experience of happiness where there are
devoid of such qualities. Can we accept the statement of no body and senses. We are observing that to experience
the scripture which says against our experience. The happiness body and senses are required. No one will
Pratyaksha and that too experience of ones own self is desire for Moksha, which does not give any happiness.
superior to all other means of knowledge. How can we Giving up all the means of happiness which are available
believe the scripture, which describes the self as in this life, no balanced seeker will go after Moksha
attributeless against the experience? If Shaastra says that where there is no happiness. This is the essence of
which is already experienced by Pratyaksha, then it is a objections of the first sutra.
waste. If it says something against Pratyaksha then also
it becomes invalid. Therefore it is impossible for Shaastra The first sutra begins as an answer to all these
to deal with the self, which is already experienced by objections.
Pratyaksha.
$$ r "{|"{i "h"<""{C"{ r $$
What is the purpose of the discussion of the self?
To achieve Moksha contemplation and direct perception Om! Athaato Brahmajijnaasaa Om!
are not required. There is no necessity of knowledge to
attain Moksha, since Shaastra has declared that it can be The word Om({i") and Brahman("h"E") describe
attained even by ritual acts such as sacrifice etc. the Lord possessing infinite qualities. It is neither Jeeva
nor inanimate objects that are going to be discussed in
In addition, it is also difficult to believe one can
the Shaastra. This text is meant to discuss about the
attain Moksha by self realization. So far we have not
supreme Brahman. An entity which is full of infinite
attained Moksha though we have constant experience of
attributes, is called supreme Brahman. Thus this Shaastra
the self. We have been experiencing Samsaara(C"wC"{) from deals with Brahman who is unknown and is distinctively
the beginningless. Hence it is only a dream that in future different from Jeevas.
one will be liberated through self-realization. Thus no
qualified student will be available to read this text since Only if supreme Brahman is not different from the
it has no subject and purpose. In the state of Moksha which self, there may be some scope for previous objection
 17 18

that there is no object to be known from this Shaastra known through critical analysis and discussions. Thus
since we know the self always. But the Upanishads have discussions, meditation, direct perception, supreme
emphasized that the knowable object from the Shaastra devotion and grace are the sequential means for Moksha.
is only supreme Brahman who is full of infinite attributes. Therefore to attain Moksha discussion and enquiry into,
There is no room for any objection to accept that ever- who is possessing all attributes is essential. Vedas
new Paramaatmaa can be the subject of the Shaastra for repeatedly declare that Moksha is impossible without the
two reasons : 1) He is entirely different from Jeevaas-s grace of the Lord. Though it is stated in some passages
who are limited. And 2) the perfect knowledge of of the Vedaas that one can get Moksha by ritualistic acts,
Paramaatmaa has not obtained so far. The objection that they will not be direct means for Moksha. By ritualistic
this Shaastra does not have a purpose is also incorrect. acts the purity of the mind is achieved which helps to
We can attain the great Purushhaartha that is Moksha acquire in turn knowledge, meditation, direct perception,
through the knowledge of Brahman who is possessing grace and Moksha. Hence the discussion of Brahman is
infinite qualities. The seekers achieve Saakshaatkaara by very essential to obtain liberation.
knowledge of Brahman, through that they earn His
Supreme Grace, which alone leads them to Moksha. The Need of Grace of God
Lord who is the cause for Samsaara is also the cause for
liberation, only through His blessings Jiivas will be Where is the need for grace to attain Moksha? Can
liberated from Samsaara. After getting the knowledge of we not attain that by knowledge alone? Having got into
Brahman our devotion for Him increases substantially. illusion that he is the body and without proper knowledge
When the devotion reaches its peak, Jiivaas will earn His of the self one gets attachment and aversion for the object
complete grace. This leads them to Moksha. The which are agreeable and non-agreeable to the body,
realization of Brahman is essential to reach that level of respectively. We engage in the various activities of the
devotion. When we directly perceive any object we will world due to this attachment and hat-redness. This results
develop increased love for that. We cannot love any in merits and demerits. Because of that we got into the
object, which is not experienced but just heard. Therefore cycle of birth and death, and sorrow and joy. We can get
to achieve real devotion direct perception of the Lord is out of this whirlpool of illusion by the real knowledge of
essential. To perceive the Lord directly one should the self. By the knowledge that one is not the body, he
constantly meditate on the form of the Lord. This knows that he has no relation with the objects, which are
meditation is possible only when the object is properly agreeable and non-agreeable to the body. Hence after this
 19 20

realization, where is the room for attachments or to accept some beginningless Anaadi(E"{<l) entity
aversion? He will not get engaged in any activities of the which covers the divine light of the self Aatma({|"{)
world once he is free from attachment and hat-redness.
as the lid conceals the light. That is called concealment
Therefore he will not commit any new merits or demerits.
He exhausts the merits and demerits of the past by of PrakRiti ("D<|")Because of this PrakRiti the self
experiencing in this life itself. Devoid of merits and is unable to experience his own consciousness and
demerits, the self does not get into the new bondage of blissful form. The great power of God has an important
worldly life. He gets rid of the bondage of life, when his role behind this concealment of this PrkRiti Without
present body is totally deteriorated. Then will he not be the support of conscious entity nothing can be done by
liberated permanently from this sorrowful life? Why does insentient object alone. Hence we have to depend on the
one require the blessings of the Lord and need to pray grace of the Lord who is the great power of consciousness
God, possessed all attributes for this process that occurs to get rid of concealment of PrakRiti which is beyond
naturally? There is an old saying, why does the river our capacity.
require anyones permission to flow down the mountain?
Why should we strive for the grace of God when it is Even if the child has an orange in its hand it cannot
possible for us to get Moksha by our own self- enjoy it. The child can enjoy that fruit only when its skin
knowledge? Thus some philosophers raise objections. We is removed by the mother. Similarly the Jeevas are
get answer for this problem when we deeply analyze the conscious blissful forms. We cannot experience our own
real cause for our bondage of worldly life. Let us accept bliss, unless the concealment of PrakRiti is destroyed
that we have got into this chain of troubles in life due to by God for that we have to depend on the mercy of God.
illusion that he is the body, which occurs because of Without the grace of God, we cannot realize our own self
absence of proper knowledge of the self. But we have to nor experience our own bliss. For that reason we have to
carefully examine how the ignorance, which is the cause depend on the grace of God.
for all these troubles, came into existence. We have to
examine how the self Aatmaa ({|"{) who is the How can even the grace of God destroy the bondage
embodiment of knowledge from the beginningless time, of PrakRiti as it is beginningless? Such a question does
got into delusion. Can the darkness cover the light? How arise. Space and souls are also beginningless. They do
did the self who is nothing but knowledge got entangled not have destruction at all. If the bondage of PrakRiti can
in the whirlpool of world of illusion? Therefore we have be destroyed even though it is beginningless, why not
 21 22

space and souls, which are also beginningless get realized souls who have gained perfect knowledge are
destroyed? Such an objection also does arise. But for an still guiding the world through their knowledge of truth.
object to remain indestructible beginninglessness is not If Moksha is available only by knowledge, why not these
the only reason. All born objects need to be destroyed Jiivan-Muktaas are liberated soon after they got
immediately. The cloths and pots remain for a longer realization? Why delay for their liberation?
period though they are born. But they get destroyed only
when the cause of destruction is available. Pot will be "<">{"E"|"{ E"{i "i|" <"e"# <wD|"{i ""i|"
broken when it is hit. Cloth gets burnt when we set fire to Pumicchadheenata no cet vilambaH kim kRito bhaveth?
it. The grace of God and His knowledge, which are Thus if realized souls are liberated soon after their
instruments of destruction, take place why not the direct perception of the Lord there will not be any link
beginningless objects be destroyed by them? It is a general between the world and realized souls. They will not be
rule that an object, which is either born or beginningless, available to share their experience after they perceive
gets destroyed when the cause of destruction exists. God directly. They will disappear from us immediately
Darkness, though it is thousands of years old gets after they realize. We will have to get teachings only from
destroyed in a fraction of a second when light comes in. the ignorant who have not realized Brahman. Thus all
Similarly the bondage of PrakRit, which is beginningless philosophical teachings become hollow. They may not
can be destroyed by the direct perception and grace of have the basis of experience. Therefore the realization
God. There is absolutely no problem at all. alone is not the cause for Moksha. It is only after the
direct perception the real spiritual pursuits begin. A
Only the theory of Shree Madhvacharya gives such devotee who has perceived God directly will be engaged
a great importance for the grace of God. All other intensively in devotional acts. He will also give the
philosophers have established that Moksha is attainable message of the reality to the world. He will play the role
only by the knowledge. The knowledge alone is not of bridge between God and His devotees. He will attain
sufficient to get rid off the concealment of PrakRiti which Moksha when his spiritual pursuit is completed and
is the root cause for bondage. Shree Madhvacharya has become a great blessed-soul of the Lord. Till then the
established that it is only grace of God, which can destroy Jiivanmuktas play the role of mediators for the devotees
the bondage of PrakRit. If knowledge alone gives Moksha of God to make contact with the Lord. In this way the
the Jiivan-Muktaas, the liberated souls, cannot be available Moksha can be attained by the grace of God only, solves
in the world. All philosophers have accepted that some all philosophical problems.
 23 24

Thus the word atah in the Brahmasutra indicates determine the meaning and purport of scriptures, which
that the discussion of Brahman should be conducted to are valid, by using logic. A question arises as to which is
attain Moksha through knowledge, meditation, direct
the valid text to be used as a base for the discussions of
perception and grace.
Brahman? This is answered by the word Om ({i")in
If bondage is real, the grace of God will be required the sutra. Om-Kaara is the abridged form of all the Vedaas.
to get rid of that. But the bondage itself is an illusion.
Due to ignorance Jiiva has superimposed on himself all The interpretation of Om-Kaara which consists of
sorrows and joy. The knowledge alone is sufficient to three letters a, u, and m (,,")is called VyaahRiti
destroy the illusion. Nobodys grace is required. By the which consists of three words. The words of VyaahRiti
knowledge alone the illusory world destroyed, just as the ("{<|")- bhuuH, (":) bhuvaH (""#) and swaH (C"#)
illusion of snake in rope gets destroyed when one describe the Lord alone. The word bhuuH means perfect.
recognizes the rope as a rope. Therefore to attain Moksha The meaning of bhuvaH is creator. Another meaning of
there is absolutely no need of grace of God. This bhuvaH (""#) is supreme entity endowed with richness
objection is also resolved by the Lord Veda- Vyaasa by
(Bhuthi ("<|") means glory and vara means supreme
using the word atah(|"#) in the first Brahmsutra. This
bondage of Samsaara is not illusory. We may have many entity). The word swaH (C"#)says that Brahman is full
illusions in this world. But the body, mind senses, of bliss and joy. The Gayatri Mantra ("{"""E")which
knowledge, sorrow, pleasure and PrakRiti, which are the consists of three words, is the interpretation of VyahRiti,
cause for illusion by covering the self, are not unreal. describe the qualities of Brahman. There is a popular
The grace of God is required to get rid of this real belief that Gayatri ("{"") describes the Godess Devi
bondage of life. This is what is implied by the word atah or the Sun God. But the Gayatri Mantra also describes
(|"#) meaning therefore. Hence we have to discuss, Shree Narayana only. The words such as Savitaa (C"<"|"{)
meditate and realize the Lord. and BhargaH (""f#) in the Gayatri ("{"") describe the
Vedaas prove Brahman : qualities of God. The word Bharga (""f) describe two
To conduct logical discussion of Brahman, some qualities that are Bharana ("") and Gamana (""E").
basic proof is required. No object can be determined by Since He is the protector of the world He is called
logic alone. The discussion of Brahman means to Bharan (""). Also as he knows the whole universe He
 25 26

is called Gamana. Hence He is called Bharga(""f). He Analysis of Karyataavaada:*({"f|"{"{l)

is called Savitaa(C"<"|"{) since He is the creator of the
Some Meemaamsakaas object that Brahman
world. We meditate on the divine and all pervading form
cannot be discussed by Vedaas. Their arguments are as
of God, who is the God of Gods. Let him propel our noble
follows: They accept that any sentence should
thoughts. This is the meaning of Gayatri Mantra.
communicate some action implying some doing or going.
Purushasuukta is the expansion of Gayatri. If Gayatri has
If the sentence does not involve any instruction, the
three Paadaas, the Purushasuukta has three divisions. The
sentence will not prompt the listener to act. We use the
Purusha("Pk") who is described in Purushasuukta is the sentences only for the purpose of some instruction.
Lord alone. Since He is full He is called Purusha("Pk"). Where action is not involved one need not make any
The body, which is abode of Gods and Jiiva is called directive statement. In the beginning children get the
Pura(") since God is pervading in all the bodies He is meaning of the words only when the sentence is of
called Purusha. He alone is the knowable object in the instructional nature. When the elderly people order the
Purushasuukta. All the Vedaas are expansion of this young using statements like bring the book, drink the
Purushasuukta (" P k"C" ) . Three Vedaas are the water, etc., the young follows the instructions
accordingly. A boy, observing all these actions,
interpretation of three divisions of Purushasuukta. Thus
understands the meaning for such sentences. For
the supreme Brahman, who is described by Om-Kaara
example, when elderly people instruct the young., eat
({i{), is only described by VyahRiti ("{<|"), Gayatri this fruit, the young one eats the fruit. A boy who has
("{""), Purushasuukta and all the Vedaas which are observed this action understands the meaning of the word
interpretations of Om-Kaara ({i{). These Vedaas are of fruit. Thus a child learns the meaning of the words by
supreme valid means of knowledge of God. only observing the action. Therefore all the statements
BrahmaSuutraas are meant to interpret Vedaas logically. primarily instruct some action. But action alone cannot
This is what is indicated by letter Om ({i") in the * According to Meemaamsakaas there are two types of statements:
BrahmaSuutra ("h"C""). 1.The statements of facts, which describe the objects as they
exist without implying any action. These are called
Siddhavaakyaas.
2.The statements of commandments which are injunctions
persuading the the listeners to act and involve imperative and
potential moods. These are called Kaaryaparavaakyaas.
 27 28

be instructed. We will have to instruct any action in is considered as Akaarya({"f). Therefore an object
relation to some definitive object. If there is no water, which is instrument for happiness is called Kaarya.
how can it be brought? Therefore, tie up the cow, drink Because drinking of alcohol results in an undesirable
the water, such instructional statements have to point effects it is considered as Akaarya(not to be done). In
out objects also. Thus how can vedaas primarily expound this view, though God does not involve any action, He is
Brahman independently, since Brahman is not action- most desirable and provider of benefits like Moksha. (He
oriented? Therefore Brahman cannot be discussed by is Parameshta and ishTasaadhaka). Therefore He should
Vedaas. This is the objection raised by Meemaamsakaas be considered as Kaarya. Even the instructive
(""{wC"{#). statements of Vedaas, which prescribe any object, declare
only objects, which cause beneficial effects, Do
As an answer to this objection, Shree Veda Vyaasa
sandhyavandana (C"E"{"ElE"") means doing sandhya-
used the word Atah(|"#). There is no such rule that any
vandana which is a cause for beneficial effects. Therefore
word should involve action. It can give the meaning of a
there is no objection for Vedaas to describe God who is
definitive object. A child need not be taught the meaning
the cause for all benefits for humans.
of the words by instructing action alone. We can teach
the meaning of the words, where the objects are in front If isTassadhana (>C"{"E"), action that results in
of us, such as father, mother, sugar, fruits etc. This is the desired effects, is considered as Kaarya ({"f), the
easiest method to teach the meaning of the words for the impossible actions such as bringing moon to the earth
child in the primary stage. It is not practical for a child to and going to the heaven in the very same body can also be
remember the words of the elderly people till the young considered as Kaarya. They are also isTasaadhana-
one does his job. Instead one can show the directly sisTassadhana (>C"{"E"). we make efforts only after
perceived objects and teach the meaning of the associated knowing that some thing is Kaarya. Let one make
words. Therefore it is incorrect to say that the words attempt in such impossible actions. Such objections may
should only be action oriented. arise in this interpretation of Kaarya.
What does Kaarya ({"f) mean? Let us examine But for anyone to make attempt to achieve the
it. The object, which is involved in action, cannot be goal, the knowledge that it is Kaarya or means to achieve
Kaarya. Many people take alcohol. It is evident of beneficial effects is not sufficient. Though we know so
action. But nobody says it is Kaarya. Drinking alcohol many things as Kaarya we will not make efforts in
 29 30

achieving it. The desire that we will get some benefit by in spiritual pursuits for realization of God. The scriptures
doing some certain action is also required. Also we would point out the Lord as prime knowable object. They instruct
not be interested in any action when we have a feeling religious acts, which are helpful for realization of God.
that the object is impossible to achieve though it is a This alone is the real purport of Vedaas.
means of beneficial effects. Do this by this statement
What is the purpose of the statements of facts
we will know that this is isTasaadhana(>C"{"E"). The which just reveal the objects as they are? By this neither
statements Do this points out only that much. We pravRitti nor nivRitti takes place. This kind of
should decide by using our discretion whether it is objection is also not correct. The purpose of any
possible or impossible. One need not be taught separately
statements is not only pravRitti and nivRitti(""D<y",
whether it is achievable or not. Therefore all the
instructional Vedic statements point out only <E""D<y") that is making efforts to achieve some desirable
isTasaadhana. But people make efforts after thorough objects and making efforts to avoid some undesirable
examination whether it is possible to achieve it or not. objects, respectively.
God who is Siddhavastu(<C""C|") does not get involved The statement will be purposeful by describing an
in our action. But he is very much the means to achieve object, which is desirable. When the father is introduced
beneficial effects. He himself is the means of to the son who got separated from his father, he feels
Parameshhta(""i>) because we get all the important extremely happy. Similarly all the virtuous seekers, having
object in life including Moksha which is supreme given up all the sensuous objects, are eagerly waiting to
desirable goal of life. God himself is prime desirable perceive the Lord desperately, who is the father of the
object for Ekaanta Bhakta-s({E|""{#). Pleasure is not world. As the trustworthy relative the Vedaas describe
desired by us for another benefit. That itself is desirable the Lord to the seekers. The seekers feel extremely happy
goal. Similarly Ekanta Bhakta-s do not love God for the as the son feeling very happy about the information of
sake of Moksha. They desire Moksha for the sake of God. his father. Then they begin all spiritual pursuits to realize
God alone is their prime desirable object. Moksha is God. They get engaged in meditation. You cannot see the
meant for them to reach God and not God for attaining reflection of the sun in disturbed water. We can see the
Moksha. Thus God Himself isTa (>) desirable for some reflection only in pure and still water. Similarly God
devotees and isTassadhana for other devotees. We can cannot be reflected in polluted mind. We can meditate
enjoy complete joy by realising the Lord. We get engaged on God only with a pure mind. Only for the purity of mind,
 31 32

Vedaas have prescribed religious acts. Thus Karma-s are object is not necessary. It can even be done by imagining
meant for the knowledge of God. They are not the prime the object. Therefore even if Vedaas talk about Upaasanaas
subject of the Vedaas. Vedaas disclose the Lord for they need not have to explain Brahman. This is a baseless
Ekaantabhaktas like the father to the child. And for the objection. In that case for Meemaamsakaas the fire and
rest of the devotees God is described in the Vedaas to havis (<"C")(objects of offering to the fire) which are
attain supreme bliss. The devotees, who are suffering in components of sacrifice, cannot be established. Can they
different ways in this worldly life and want to get rid of not sacrifice imagining such objects? Thus there is no
these troubles, desire for Moksha, which is nothing but objection for Vedaas to describe Brahman either
experience of total bliss. Vedaas teach that God alone primarily or along with the action.
can give Moksha when He is pleased. They describe
Validity of Vedaas:
different religious acts to achieve realization and grace
of God. Thus in the Vedaas God alone is described Another doubt arises when it is instructed that the
primarily as the prime knowable object and the discussion of Brahman should be conducted on the basis
description of all Karma-s is secondary. of Vedaas. Pratyaksha ("|"A") direct percption and
Anumana (E""{E") logic are the only two valid means
Even if we accept that Vedaas instruct only
Kaaryaas and do not describe any other objects of siddha of knowledge. Shabda (U"l)is not at all valid means of
(objects of fact) there is no problem for Vedaas to teach knowledge. Due to appropriate contact between objects
about the Lord. As we have already explained that Vedaas and senses, knowledge is derived from sense-organs.
have to mention other objects while instructing Kaarya There is no contact between objects and senses. If
when Vedaas prescribe to pour ghee in the sacrificial fire, shabda (U"l) (sound) is present in the space objects
it has to mention about fire and ghee also. Or else the exist somewhere. When there is no proper contact
entire action becomes incomplete. Instead of ghee in the between them, how is it possible for the knowledge to be
fire something else has to be offered somewhere. There derived from the Shabda-s? Thus when Shabda(U"l)
it should be accepted that those Vedic statements explain itself is not PramaaNa or source of knowledge, how
other objects also along with the action. When Vedaas can Veda which is the form of Shabda become PramaaNa?
are instructing the Kriyaas such as discussion and Therefore why should we discuss anything that is
meditation of Brahman, it has to explain what Brahman mentioned in the Vedaas? This doubt is also cleared by
is. For meditation or contemplation the existence of the the word AtaH(|"#) in the Suutra. Like Pratyaksha and
 33 34

Anumaana (Logic) Shabda is also a PramaaNa i.e. valid. understand when they hear them. Just as the fire burns
We have experienced of knowledge derived from even those who do not know its power, words should also
Shabda-s. We also experienced that the objects of that give the meaning to those who do not have the knowledge
knowledge are real. Sometimes we may get illusion due of power of the words. Some may ask such questions.
to defects. We get erroneous knowledge even from We can give many examples in this regard. Though we
Pratyaksha ("|"A") and Logic. Yet if they are accepted as have eye and ear we need not get the knowledge of colour
PramaaNaas (" "{"{<E") , why not Shabda be a and sound always. The knowledge of fire need occure
PramaaNa?It is also incorrect to say that there is no just because smoke exists. The knowledge occurs only
contact between the words and objects they indicate. when the appropriate contact between the sense organs
Even they can have link. We infer fire by perceiving the and their objects takes place. To know the fire the
smoke in the space above the hill. We also deduce the presence of smoke is not is not sufficient. We should
occurrence of rain on the hill by perceiving the flood perceive the smoke. Also we should know the
down the hill. This is what is called Yukti("<). concomitant relationship between the smoke and fire.
Therefore there need not be any contact between the For any knowledge to take place different rules are there
smoke in the space above and the fire on the hill. But the in different situations. Hence it is not correct to say that
invariable concomitance of fire with the smoke is some one should get knowledge as soon as we hear the
established. Similarly shabda and its objects do have some words, unlike in the case of fire burning without having
kind of natural relation. The sanskrit words, which are its knowledge. Only when we know the Arthashakti
beginningless, have such a natural contact with their ("fU"<)(the capacity to give the meaning) in the words
objects. This is called Padashakti("lU"<), the intrinsic we will get knowledge of the objects. Any cause has a
power of the word. Even in other languages the words natural power to produce the effects. As the worldly
have such power which are made. Hence like Pratyaksha objects have different natural power we are able to see
and logic, Shabda is also a PramaaNa. different variety of effects. Similarly words also have
natural power. It will be proved later that Vedaas are
If words have natural power of describing the Apourushheya("{Pk"i") (not composed by any human).
objects, then why dont we understand the objects after All the words in the Vedaas have such natural power. A
we hear the words? Why is that only those who have the person who knows that power, Vedaas disclose themselves
prior knowledge of the objects of the words can to him. Similarly the Sanskrit language, which is
 35 36

beginningless has natural Arthashakti subsequently some logic to determine the validity of the knowledge
different languages of the world that are born at different and some other logic to determine the validity of the first
times indicate objects using word symbols, made by a logic,- thus endless regression. Therefore it should be
man. The born languages are expressing their meanings accepted that we can determine the validity of knowledge
by symbols whereas the beginningless Sankrit language when it is recognized by Saakshi. Hence we need not
gives the meaning of the objects by its own power. As search for any proof to determine the validity of the
the Vedaas are not composed either by any human or God, Vedaas. If this system is followed an objection may arise
the arthashakti in those words it also natural and is not naturally that no knowledge in the world can be
symbol made by God. By knowing that power one should ApramaaNa(""{"). Even illusory perception of smoke
recognize the meaning of the Vedaas. It is not right to in the water or the delusion that there is no God, can also
deny natural Power of the words only, when it is accepted be PramaaNaas. If saakshi alone recognizes the validity
that all the other physical objects have that natural power. of every knowledge, why not the illusory perceptions are
not valid? But there is some method to separate pramaaNa
PraamaaNyam SwataH (Validity is Natural) from ApramaaNa(""{"). The knowledge derived from
("{"{"C"|"C|"") defective sense organs, logic and vaakyaas is not valid,
Saakshi does not recognize the validity of the knowledge
The question may arise even if Shabda is
derived from defective means because it can be negated
PrammaNa, how can we decide that Veda is Valid? The
by a contradictory knowledge. The illusory knowledge
answer is very simple. To determine any PramaaNa as
of snake in the rope occurs due to similarities between
valid, one does not require any other base.
the rope and the snake. This is not PramaaNa. It is only
Saakshi(C"{A") alone when it compreh the knowledge illusory knowledge. When proper examination is
also recognizes the validity of that knowledge. Every time conducted the knowledge of the snake is negated by the
to know the validity one need not analyze or exercise any contradictory knowledge that it is not snake. Therefore
logic. While we are traveling, we do not get any doubt
Saakshi does not recognize the validity of that
about the house, tree and plants that we perceive. When
knowledge. There is no room for any doubt regarding
we buy a new cloth in the shop, we do not get any doubt
Vedaas. Vedaas are regarded as Apourushheyaa-s
whether it is cloth or not. We will not be able to recognize
the validity of the knowledge only when there is a special ("{Pk"i"). If anything composed by human, there can be
feature that negates the knowledge. Otherwise we require errors due to defects in his mind. There cannot be any
 37 38

chance for such defects in the Vedaas since they are not How can we decide that these profounders of different
at all composed by any human. Hence there is no room doctrines are not having natural human weaknesses? Thus
for any doubt of invalidity of the Vedaas. without any basis we have to imagine all the qualifications
required to preach the truth on some person. Instead of
Non-Human Authorship of Vedas: ("il{"{Pk"i"|") this, is it not easy method to accept that Vedaas are
We may get some doubt as to why we should accept Apourashheya-s? Can we not know the dharmas from the
that Vedaas are not composed by any human. The Vedaas accepting that they are written by Omniscient
followers of Vedaas and even some philosophers who do God? One may question why should we make a new
not follow Vedaas, generally accept super sensuous concept for Vedaas that they are not composed by anyone?
entities such as dharma, adharma, heaven, hell etc. On Is not God a new imagination? How is the presence of
what basis we should know these super sensuous entities? Omniscient God, who is the regulator of all the activities
It is not possible to know dharma and adharma by only of the world without having any physical body, is proved?
logic. Without arriving at any conclusion, in the disputes If one can believe such God, why should anyone hesitate
of arguments and counter-arguments one may only get to believe that Vedaas are not composed by anyone? In
confused with the help of logic, though we can prove the reality God is also established only by Vedaas just as the
existence of dharma or adharma as cause for happiness super sensuous entities like dharma and adharma. Hence
and unhappiness and the differences in the personalities only after Vedaas are established as PramaaNaas, we can
of the beings, we cannot get specific information only prove the presence of God by Vedaas only. If that is the
through logic. It can be known only through the scriptures case, how can we know that Vedaas are PramaaNa because
and the words of the wise. But it is also impossible to they are authored by the Lord, when the existence of Him
believe who is realized and who is not. There are several itself is not proved before? Only when we accept that
different schools of thought and different religious Vedaas are Apourushheyaas we can get answer to all
traditions. Every follower of his school of thought questions.
believes that his profounder of his school of thought is Who has written Vedaas? and when were they
only a realized soul. All the doctrines of these schools written? No answer is available still now. Veda itself
are not uniform and consistent. If that is the case how declares that Vedas- are beginningless. According to the
can we know who the really realized souls are and who tradition also it is believed that Vedaas are being recited
have genuine concerns to preach the truth to the seekers. which were already existing. If there is an author for such
 39 40

a great text like Veda, is it possible for Vaidikaas or possible to determine that Dharma and Adharma, which
followers of Vedaas to forget him? It is not possible to have been accepted by all philosophers as super sensuous
believe that the followers of Vedaas, who have maintained entities, are not there just because they are not perceived?
meter, intonation and sequence without any error, have The senses can recognize the absence of the objects which
forgotten the author. Thus when it is impossible to know are appropriate for perception by the respective senses.
Dharma (""f) and Adharma(""f) through the advice of It is beyond the capacity of the Pratyaksha to prove or
any founder of doctrine, there is no other way than to disprove the super sensuous entities such as God,
accept Vedaas as apourushheya and accept religious and righteousness etc. Hence it is not possible to know by
spiritual truths discussed in the Vedaas. Pratyaksha the absence of God, Dharma, etc., though they
are not perceived. Attempts have to be made to disprove
The super-sensuous religious and spiritual truths them only by logic. But logic alone cannot determine
themselves are imaginary. We do not accept entities, them. We cannot confirm that super sensuous entities
which are beyond our direct perception. The atheism may are not at all there, just because they are not perceived
argue that there is no necessity of accepting by our senses for the following reasons:
Apourusheya PramaaNa("{Pk"i" ""{") to establish the
super sensuous entities. But ancient philosophers such 1) Many Vedic and Avaidic("<l) philosophers are
as Bouddhas, Jains, Sankhyaas, Meemaamsaka-s etc., firmly establishing the existence of super sensuous
though they have not accepted God, they have admitted objects.
Dharma, Adharma heaven and hell which are beyond sense 2) Several enlightened souls are saying that they have
perception. We will explain this in detail later when we perceived them.
will analize atheism, that social system is impossible
3) Objects are perceived by one sense that are not
without Dharma and Adharma.
perceived by the other.
Let us examine this from the another angle. How
In this situation one can get doubt whether Dharma
can we conclude that there are no Dharma or Adharma. is there or not. But he cannot determine that Dharma is
By Pratyaksha ("|"A"), it is not possible to prove or not there. Ultimately to conclude this issue one has to
disprove an entity, which is beyond direct perception. We depend on some valid proof. We have already explained
have to decide through nose only whether an entity has that other than Apourushheya Veda no other means of
fragrance or not. Is it possible through an eye? Thus is it knowledge can clear this doubt. This world is vast and
 41 42

wonderful. It is beyond our limited direct perception. To conveys the relations between the rest of the words? This
get the knowledge of super sensuous entities, we have to objection will arise in this theory.
admit that Veda is Apourushheya and valid means of
In reality, the word does not give the meaning of
knowledge. The aim of this Brahma-Suutra is to determine
that object alone. When a word conveys the meaning of
the meaning of the Vedaas.
an object, it indicates specific character of that object
The method of knowing the meaning of a statement: also. Along with that it also indicates the relation with
other objects in a general manner. When that word is
There are also disputes in terms of the methods of
connected with the other words, the specific relation of
how a statement convey the given meaning. In a sentence
the object will be revealed in detail. Thus we derive
each word conveys specific meaning on an individual comprehensive knowledge form the sentence when those
basis. How will we get the comprehensive knowledge words convey,
combining meanings of all words? For example a
sentence that beautiful flowers are blossomed in a a. the meaning of each word,
creeper, has a few words. From each word we remember b. general relation between the meanings and
their specific meaning. Only when we comprehend the c. comprehensive relation among all the meanings.
interrelation and the meanings of all words, we can derive
comprehensive knowledge from the full sentence. The Other philosophers argue that words convey only
above sentence does not have such word, which indicates the meanings of the objects. When these objects are
the interrelation between the meanings of all the words. grasped through the use of the words and memory, they
If words in the sentence convey their respective meanings indicate their relationships also. This is also incorrect.
individually, how can we know their interrelation? This We regard the means of correct knowledge as
is a complicated question, which has to be answered by
PramaaNaas Pratyaksha("|"A"), Yukti("<), and Shabda
all philosophers.
(U"l) are regarded as PramaaNaas since we get proper
Some argue that when words convey their knowledge from them. If relation of objects is conveyed
meanings they convey their interrelationship also. When by objects alone instead of Shabda, they should also be
that relation is known by a single word, where is the need regarded as PramaaNaas. But no one accepts the objects,
of other words in that sentence? How can we decide that which are known by words, as PramaaNaas. It is everyones
among all words in a sentence, which specific word experience that as soon as we hear a sentence we
 43 44

understand the contents and their relations at the same among them? We understand the meaning as soon as we
time. It is impossible that the contents alone convey their hear the words. When we hear the word cloth
mutual relations. immediately we comprehend the object. We also
understand that object not as a mere object. We
Those who argue that it is only the objects that
comprehend the object with its related action and
are indicating their relations give the following example.
attributes. We will be eager to know that relationship. If
We perceive vaguely some white object at a distance. We
the word cloth is associated with another word blue
also hear the sounds of horse-steps. By these two, the
then it conveys the comprehensive knowledge of an object
hearing of sounds and seeing the vague image of an object,
along with its attributes due to association with the other
we derive the knowledge that a white horse is running at
word. Thus a word conveys the object and its general
a distance. They give this as an example to prove their
relationship. When we use another word the same first
theory that it is only objects, which indicate their mutual
word conveys the specific relationship in detail. This is
relationships. As a matter of fact it is not only the objects
everyones experience. Therefore as there is no problem
which give the knowledge. As we infer fire by perceiving
to derive knowledge from the sentences, we can accept
smoke, this also is a kind of logic. That an expression
Veda, which is in the form of sentences, as Apourushheya
that a white horse is running is nothing but an inference
deduced by the combination of perception of the two, PramaaNa ("{Pk"i" ""{") (valid source of knowledge).
sound and vague form. According to this theory, either On the basis of valid PramaaNaas such as Vedaas,
the mere objects or the objects that are grasped through we have to discuss supreme Brahman, who is full of
the words, give comprehensive knowledge, which consists infinite qualities for his realization and grace, to achieve
of the relation among the objects. But the above example, Moksha ("{iA").
however, does not suite the theory.
Vishnu is Brahman:
According to above theory, memory of the objects
through the words and the knowledge of their mutual The supreme Brahman is Vishnu only. Before this
relationship through the objects occur. Thus one has to BrahmaSuutra (" h "C" ") , in the end part of
accept different powers for words and for objects. Instead Daiveemeemaamsa (l"""{wC"{), Sa VishNuraha Hi (C"
of accepting these two separate powers, is it not proper
to accept a single power for the word by which it conveys <"k"{ <) is the Suutra (C"") that indicates He is indeed
the meaning of the objects as well as the interrelationship Vishnu. The same VishNu (<"k") is referred by the word
 45 46

Brahman and discussion about Him is established. All Narayana alone is popular as samudrashaayii in the
the words such as VishNu, Brahma and Narayana (E"{{"") PuraaNaas. ("{"{<E") AmbhraNisuukta("D"C") also
are synonyms which convey the same object which is full says Yam Kaamaye tam tamugram kRiNomi, tam
of infinite qualities. BrahmaNam, ("w {""i |"w |"""w D"{i<") that is the Godess
When the meaning of word Brahman ("h"E") is ambhraNi ("D"li"), who is called Laxmi Devi and is
perfect, the word Vishnu also conveys the meaning that the mother of the world, gives Brahma, Rudra (P) and
he is all pervading in all the three periods of time and all other gods their respective status. But NaaryaNa is Her
space. Hence both the words give same meaning. Ara Lord who is described as Jalashaayi. Therefore if any
() means defects and Naara (E"{{#) means attributes. God is described as Jalashaayi in the Vedaas and
Hence Narayana means one who is possessed all the Upanishads He should be regarded as Vishhnu only. Hence
qualities. Therefore the word Brahman means Vishnu there is no doubt that it is VshhNu alone who is referred
or Narayana. The enquiry into Vishnu only is instructed here as supreme Brahman. More over this suukta
in BrahmaSuutra. mentions some glories which are exclusive qualities of
Vishhnu which are not seen in other Gods. Hence
In the popular Narayanasuukta (E"{{""C") Vishhnu alone is regarded as Brahman.
tadeva Brahma Paramam Kaveenaam (|"li" "h" ""w
The Four Meanings of Atah Shabda (|"# U"l):
"E"{") thus Narayana alone is called supreme Brahman.
Where is the proof that it is Narayana who is referred as The first Suutra means that we should discuss
supreme Brahman? Such a question may arise. This about the supreme Brahman. The word ataH(|"#) in the
Suutra (C"") is popular as Narayanasuukta (E"{{""C"). Suutra means the required qualifications and merits for a
Therefore to mention other than Narayana in this suukta seeker to discuss about Brahman. After attaining the
becomes irrelevant. In the beginning of this suukta qualifications such as devotion, detachment and
scholarship, one has to study deeply to understand the
(C")also ambhasyapaare bhuvanasya madhye naakasya
Lord and His related glories. The word ataH(|"#) in the
pRishhTe mahato mahiiyaan ("C" "{i ""E"C" ""i E"{C"
Suutra conveys the benefit of discussions and answers
"Di> "|"{i ""{E") Narayana is referred as samudrashaayii the objections raised against it. AtaHmeans therefore.
(C""U"{") and is described as supreme Brahman. Its implied four meanings are :
 47 48

1.Moksha ("{iA") can be attained through the only Kaarya. Any Vaakya ("{") can become valid
discussion of supreme Brahman Therefore the means of knowledge by declaring ishhTa or ishhTa
discussions about the supreme Brahman should be Saadhana whether it is kaarya or akkarya. Therefore
conducted to achieve the benefit of Moksha. We should on the basis of Vedaa-s, there is no objection to discuss
get perfect knowledge of God which helps to contemplate about the Lord, who is the most beloved of seekers.
on Him. Through contemplation we can perceive the Lord
4.Veda is a valid means of knowledge. Therefore
directly. This perception leads to supreme devotion to
we should discuss about supreme Brahman. It would be
the Lord, which in turn secures His supreme grace, by
meaningless to discuss about Brahman, if Veda is invalid.
which Moksha can be attained.
But Veda is also valid just as Pratyaksha or Yukti. Words
2.The bondage of the life is real. Therefore to get do not convey only their respective meanings. They
rid of this Samsaara(C"wC"{) one has to conduct the become PramaaNa by conveying comprehensive
discussion of Brahman. If this Samsaara (cycle of births knowledge, which involves the mutual relationships
and deaths) is illusory it would have been negated by the among the objects. To know the validity of Shabda one
real knowledge of the truth. For that no grace of God is does not require another PramaaNa when it is not
required. Just as the mercy of officials is required to get negated, and when there is no defect, one can easily
released from a jail, Gods grace is required for the determine the validity. As Veda is apourushheya there
redemption of jiiva-s(""{#) from this Samsaara. For that, is no room for any defects that can arise due to human
authorship. There is no proof for any contradictions.
knowledge is essential. To get the knowledge, discussion
Thereore Veda is valid. Hence we need to discuss the
of Brahman has to be conducted.
Veda. It is very necessary.
3.Any statement has the capacity to convey the
These are all the meanings for the word ataH.
meaning of object (siddha Vastu, (<C" "C|") without How do we get all these meanings from the word ataH?
involving any action.) Therefore, discussion should be the Lord Narayana who wrote BrahmaSuutra in his
conducted on supreme Brahman on the basis of Vedaas. incarnation of Veda-Vyaasa, also written Brahmatarka
If all the PramaaNa Vakyaas (""{""{"{<E")convey the which is an exhaustive tarkaShaastra.(theory of Logic).
meaning of objects, which involve some action, then This Brahmatarka being supreme PramaaNa is entirely
Vedaas cannot convey the meaning of Brahman. But there different from the available tarkaShaastra. Shri Veda-
is no such rule that PramaaNa Vakyaas should instruct Vyaasa has abridged Brahmatarka before he wrote
 49 50

BrahmaSuutra. It is a supportive limb for BrahmaSuutra. experience are unreal, we get convinced that the
All explanations discussed with reference to ataH shabda discussion of the self aatmaa is essential. Therefore for
are mentioned in Brahmatarka in more detail. What Shree Brahmavicaara to be justifiable, one has to accept that
Veda-Vyaasa has explained elaborately in Brahmatarka, all the attributes in the self are not there and the entire
He has condensed it by the word ataH and established Samsaara is unreal.
in the first Suutra that the discussion of Brahman is
essential. The Shaastra(U"{C") scripture declares that the
knowledge of Brahman destroys the Samsaara. If the
The World Is Not Unreal: Samsaara is real how can it be destroyed by the
Some have interpreted the first Suutra Om! Athato knowledge. We mistake the rope for the snake. When we
Brahma Jijnaasaa Om as it indicates that this worldly get proper knowledge of the rope, the snake which
bondage and the external world are unreal (mithyaa). disappears is not real. The dream-world, which disappears
According to their view there is no Brahman different soon after we are awakened, is not real. It is only the
from the self Aatmaa. The self, which is everlasting illusory entities that get destroyed when real knowledge
luminous entity itself is Brahman. When we have the self occurs. Along with the ignorance all its products also
realization always, where is the need for the discussion disappear. Therefore the Samsaara which is destroyed by
of Brahman? Yet those who are in the state of Samsaara the realization of Brahman is Mithyaa(<""{) or the
have not realized the nature of the self. The real nature of product of the ignorance. Thus to account for both (1)
the self is NirgunNa and nirvisheshha that is without the desolation of Samsaaraa which is the purpose of
attributes, qualities and undifferentiated entity. In this Shaastra and (2) the self ({|"{) which is described in
world of Samsaara, whatever we experience such as the scriptures, Samsaaraa should be accepted as
pleasure, pain, ignorance and knowledge, are not real.
unreal(<""{) only.
They are just illusory. The discussion of Vedanta is meant
to realize the self without any such attributes. If this Those who argue that the world is unreal on the
Samsaara that we are experiencing is real and since we basis of Suutra give one more reason.
have the knowledge of the real nature of the self, why do
we need to discuss about Brahman? Such a question may The goal of the scriptures is Advaitha (|") only.
arise. The aatmaa self is absolutely different from what The entire Shaastra is meant to teach the identity between
we experience at present. Only when our perception and jiiva ("") and Brahman. If this world is real, we have to
 51 52

accept a God who is omniscient and omnipotent as the unreal. Visiting sacred places destroys the sin. Is this sin
creator of this world. We also know how weak and unreal? We suffer from poison due to snakebite.
ignorant we are. Then we may recognize that Advaita is Meditation of Garuda ("Pa>) destroys this real poison.
absolutely absurd when Jiiva and Brahman are having such (Garuda, the bird which is used as vehicle of Lord
very contradictory attributes. No one will be interested Vishhnu) Meditation means the perception of a picture
in such a Shaastra which is quite a contradictory to the in the mind due to the impressions of an object. This is
experience. Then what is the purpose of the Shaastra to also a kind of knowledge. There are several examples to
teach identity between jiiva and Brahman? The apparently establish that even a real entity can be destroyed by
contradicting attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, knowledge. Therefore it is not correct to prove that the
limited knowledge and power etc; are meaningless. It will world is unreal using such weak arguments.
be possible to establish Advaita when the world and the
Just to establish that Advaita alone is the purport of
mutually contradictory attributes of jiiva and Brahman
the scriptures it is also incorrect (a) to deny all the
are unreal . Because of the above mentioned three reasons,
attributes in the self, which are experienced, and (b)
some view that the world is indeed unreal and that is the
designating them as illusory and (c) discarding all the
only the essence of the first Suutra.
statements in the Vedaas and PuraaNaa-s("{"{<E") which
But this is not correct. The knowledge alone is declare that God alone, who is full of attributes, is
not the direct cause for the destruction of Samsaara. For knowable in all the scriptures. Holding the view that
the destruction of Samsaara one has to gain the grace of Advaita is supreme doctrine and is the essence of the
God through His knowledge. This Samsaara cannot be Shaastraas(U"{C"{<") and proving that the entire world is
unreal even if we accept that the entities, which disappear unreal in order to establish that all the contradictory
due to knowledge, are unreal, just as the dream world in qualities of jiiva and supreme Brahman are unreal, are
the awakened state. The Samsaara from which we get similar to lying to support another lie. There is no proof
released through knowledge due to grace of God, it can to establish the identity of jiiva and Brahman. It has been
be real just as the jail from which one gets released. explained in another part as it is contradicting all the
Therefore just because Samsaara gets destroyed due to
pramaaNaas (""{"{<E"). Therefore to say that this world
knowledge of Brahman, this worldly bondage need not
be unreal. We have to examine one more aspect. There is is unreal and to prove the identity of jiiva and Brahman is
no such rule that whichever is destroyed by knowledge is similar to a house built on the sand which collapses
 53 54

easily. It will be described in detail later why it is not systematic state of order cannot be created accidentally.
correct to say that this world is unreal. Therefore we can deduce that there is a creator of this
world. In addition, even the Vedaas have described the
$$ r "E"{C" "|": r $$ creator of the Universe. Thus on the basis of logic and
Vedaas we can easily identify the creator of the world.
Om! Janmaadyasya YataH Om! Even though the Vedaas describe the Lord possessing all
the qualities, a disturbing doubt may arise whether it is
It has been established in the first Suutra(C"") that possible for the existence of such transcendental entity
discussion of Shree Hari(o) who is the supreme with full of qualities and which never has been seen?
Brahman has to be conducted. It is not possible to discuss Based on common experience we can deduce that there
about Brahman without knowing who He is among the must be a creator of this world just as there is a creator
infinite number of conscious entities. We can recognize behind every creative object. Having established that there
any object through its specific qualities. We recognize a is a creator, one can deduce that He must be possessing
man by looking at his features such as hands, legs etc. infinite qualities and powers to insure that all the activities
These are called particular features (eA"") of an object. in the world are being performed systematically. Since
This Suutra indicates Brahman as creator, sustainer, we can easily understand the creator and sustainer of this
destroyer of the world and give of knowledge and world, on the basis of this, we can also know that He must
liberation ("{iA") etc. be full of attributes to become the creator of the
Universe. Therefore Shree Veda Vyaasa (o "il"{C") has
We have already explained that the word Brahman indicated the essential qualities (eA"") of the Lord as
means full of attributes. Brahman could have been creator, sustainer, etc., of the world.
recognized by establishing the infiniteness as his quality,
which is indicated by the word Brahman. But to find out The Suutra ("E"{C" "|"#) has described the
who possesses all attributes is also difficult just as Brahman as the creator of this world to answer one more
identifying the Lord among all conscious entities in the objection. The word Brahman has another dictionary
world. We cannot identify that by direct perception. But meaning as jiiva. Instead of accepting (a) that the meaning
it is not difficult to identify the Lord as creator and of the word Brahman as the one with full of qualities, and
sustainer of the world. We can observe some creator (b) that He is different from us, why should we not accept
behind every object that is born. This world with such a the meaning of jiiva for the word Brahman and therefore
 55 56

provide a meaning for the Suutra that an enquiry of jiiva Vishhnu Is The Meaning For All Vedic Words:
has to be conducted. Though jiiva is well known to us, we
From Vedic statements we have to know that the
do not have absolute clear knowledge about him. Hence
Lord is the creator of this world with the help of logic.
the discussion of jiiva is not irrelevant. Instead of But we may get confused when we come across different
accepting a new conscious entity, which is full of Vedic statements. Some Vedic statements say that
qualities, and subscribing this meaning to the word
HiraNya Garbha (<"""f) is the creator of this world.
Brahman, it is easier to accept that the word Brahman
HiraNya GarbhaH Samavartataagre (<"""f# C"""|"f|"{")i .
means Jiiva. Jiiva is self-evident. Even the dictionary
Some say that liberation is through the meditation of Lord
meaning of jiiva for the word Brahman is popular. There
is no need for any new imagination. Therefore the first Shiva eko rudraH na dvitiiyaaya tasthe ({i P# E" <|""{"
Suutra does not indicate that inquiry of the Lord, |"C"i). Jnatvaa Shivam Shantim atyantameti("{|"{ U""w
possessing all the qualities has been answered by the U"{E|"" |"E|""i<|").Therefore it will be difficult to decide
second Suutra. When vedic statements tad Brahma(|"l on the basis of Veda that Vishhnu alone is the creator of
this world. Veda itself has answered this objection. The
"h") tad vijijnaasaswa (|"l <"<""{C"C")instruct to conduct
the inquire into Brahman, they include that the Brahman Vedic Mantra, Yo Devaanam Naamadha Eka Eva ("{i li"{E"{w
is the creator, sustainer etc of the world by stating Yatova E"{""{ "), declares that Vishhnu is one who is having
imaani bhuutaani jaayante, ena jaataani jiivanti. ("|"{i "{ names of all the other Gods. He is popular as
"{<E" "|"{<E" "{"E|"i $ "iE" "{|"{<E" ""E|") is it possible to Padmanaabha ("E"{") i.e. who has the lotus that exists
account these qualifications to jiiva? It is very obvious at His navel and that sustains the whole world. Naamaani
that jiiva who has limited power is not the creator and SarvaaNi Yamaavishanti, tam Vai Vishhnum
sustainer of the world. Thus when we examine other Paramamudaaharanthi(E"{"{<E" C""{f<" ""{<"U"E|" $ |"w " <"k"w
statements of the Vedaas it is very clear that the Vedic """l{E|" $) clearly says that Vishhnu alone is primarily
statements do not instruct the inquire of jiiva. They only described by all words of Vedaas ("il{#)
instruct us that we have to discuss about Brahman who is
full of attributes and who is qualified to be the creator, By the above statement the Veda has resolved a
sustainer, etc: of the world. To teach this the second great philosophical riddle. Lord Vishhnu is described as
Suutra has answered an objection of the Brahman. superior and worshipped by Brahmaa, Rudra, and other
 57 58

Gods in Vedaas, Upanishads, Mahaabhaarata,("{"{|") As it is already established on the basis of Vedaas

Geetha("|"{) and other valid means of knowledge ("{E"). that all the names of the Gods describe Lord Vishhnu
In some passages of scriptures, Brahma Rudra and other alone, the same cannot be accounted using other Gods.
gods are also described as supreme entities. How can we Against this statement some scriptures may state that
accommodate these conflicting statements? This is the other Gods are the cause for creation and other activities
of the world. The Veda is supreme valid means of
problem in the philosophical field. Both Brahma and
knowledge since it is apourushheya(Non authored by
Shiva have to be supreme beings. At the same time they
any human). Hence whatever is said against it in the other
have to be subordinate to the Lord Vishhnu. How can Veda scriptures cannot be accepted. The PuraaNa-s that
become valid means of knowledge when it says contradict Vedaas cannot be regarded as PramaaNaas
conflicting statements? Such a doubt may be haunting the valid.
minds of the seekers. Shree Maddvaachaarya(o ""{"{"f)
alone has shown a compromising path. Gods such as There are statements in the Vedaas which apparently
Brahma, Rudra and others are always subordinate to the state that even the Lord Vishhnu was born. How can the
Lord Vishhnu who is subjected to the defects of birth,
Lord. Also the words such as Brahma, Rudra, etc., in the
etc., be the cause for the creation and sustenance of the
Vedaas and Upanishads describe primarily Vishhnu alone
world? This objection is also not correct. Whatever is
as a supreme being. Though there are so many demigods,
apparently said in the Vedaas cannot be regarded as their
there is only a single supreme entity which is referred by
real meaning. Such statement should be interpreted in
all the names of all the Gods. That entity is the Lord Sri
accordance with the knowledge of the purport of the
Hari alone. When Brahma or Rudra is described as Vedaas. The goal of the Vedaas is to give divine bliss to
supreme being, one has to understand that it is the Lord the all-virtuous seekers, by releasing them from this
Vishhnu who is indicated as the supreme entity. When beginning-less bondage of life. Jiivas have to secure the
Vedaas say that Brahma, Rudra and other Gods are born grace of the Lord to get liberated from this sorrowful
in the beginning of the creation then only these names life. Hence Vedaas will be purposeful only when they
refer demi-gods other than Vishhnu. Thus Shree teach the method to attain this grace. For that Vedaas teach
Maddwaachaarya has accommodated all the apparent the jiiva-s the infinite attributes of the Lord. By this jiiva-
conflicting Vedic statements with the help of other Vedic s will develop special devotion for the Lord and receive
and PouraaNic ("{{<") statements. the blessings of the Lord which lead them to Moksha. If
 59 60

Vedaas indicate the defects in the Lord, it will have adverse LakshaNa) (C""eA"") by the philosophers. We
effects to develop devotion. The Vedaas cannot describe recognize a house with its particular form and design.
anything, which will be against their goal. Therefore all We can identify an individual with its color, form and
the Vedaas are meant to praise the attributes of the Lord. movement. They are intrinsic and inseparable with the
The Vedaas cannot point out any flaw in the Lord. Such objects. When we recognize a house with its flag, trees
statements have to be interpreted in accordance with the and plants in front of the house and when we identify a
purport of the Vedaas which is conducive to devotion. person with his external dress and ornaments, these are
Therefore the doctrine of attribute-less God and His regarded as indicative definition (tatastha lakshhaNa,)
identity with jiiva-s is against the devotion and also against
the goal of the Vedaas. Hence it can be determined that it (|"N>C"eA"") since they are external and are not intrinsic
is not acceptable to the Vedaas. with the nature of the objects. The Lords creator-ship
and sustainer-ship of the world are the powers which are
The Intrinsic Character of Brahman: the cause for the modifications of the world such as
creation, sustenance and destruction. These powers are
Are the auspicious attributes of Brahman, which inseparable and intrinsic nature of the Lord. Hence all
are described as the intrinsic character of Brahman in those attributes are the swaruupa lakshhaNaas
the Vedaas, identical with Him or different from Him?
This question has to be examined. If they are different But some philosophers do not agree with this. The
from Brahman they become extrinsic (transient). But the Lord does not have any intrinsic attributes or qualities.
attributes of Brahman cannot be extrinsic, because if they He is attribute-less. Therefore the creator-ship of the
are different from conscious entity of God they should world is just illusory. It is not intrinsic quality of Brahman.
be inanimate. It is not correct to admit inanimate attributes However the author of BrahmaSuutra has also written the
in the conscious entity. Therefore we should accept that Bhagavata ("{""|") text which is acceptable to all as
the attributes of the Lord being inseparable from Brahman PramaaNa. In that He has described the meditation
are identical with Him. As we cannot separate sweetness which can be followed by us as a model. It clearly says
from sugar and effulgence from light, we cannot separate Brahmaakhyam asyodbhavaadi hetubhiH swalalkshane
the attributes of the Lord from Him. Therefore all these ("h"{R"" C"{i"{<li|"<"# C"eA""#) that is the Lords
attributes being conscious entities are intrinsic qualities.
creator-ship of this world is swalakshhaNa (C"eA"")
These are called intrinsic characters (Swaruupa meaning swaruupalakshhaNa intrinsic quality. Therefore
 61 62

it is incorrect to say that the Lord is attribute-less when is not the cause for the creation and sustenance of the
it is established that all the qualities and attributes are world. It is maayaa ("{"{) alone which is responsible for
intrinsic nature of the Lord. all activities of the world. Brahman is locus for this
In addition the identity of jiiva and Brahman is not maayaa which is inexplicable (<E""f"E""). Brahman does
at all acceptable to Suutra. We have to understand the not have any doer-ship or any power or any attribute. These
are all illusory due to maayaa. The Suutra is interpreted
purpose of describing the lakshhaNa (eA"")of an object.
as Brahman is the locus for maayaa which is primordial
When a person is described by a lakshaNa as the one who
cause of this world. The subject whether this world or
has hands and legs but does not have a tail, it helps us to
the attributes of Brahman are imaginary due to maayaa
identify a man different from another animal. The purpose
or real will be discussed separately in this book. We will
of lakshhaNa is to identify an object as different from keep this topic aside for now. When Suutra clearly says
others. By pointing out the power to create, sustain, etc., that Brahman is the creator of this world, where is the
this world as the lakshhaNa of the Lord, which is absent need of interpreting by stretching the imagination to
in sentient and insentient entities, it is proved that He is provide a difficult meaning? Instead of forcing the
different from them. Even Shree Shankaraachaarya (o interpretation to suite their theory, why should we not
U"{"{"f) while interpreting this Suutra, it is only accept sincerely the direct meaning of the Suutra? Thus
omniscient and omnipotent Lord who could create this the Suutra clearly establishes that Brahman is not
world. It is impossible even to think that such a creation attribute-less and is entirely different from animate and
is possible by inanimate PrakRiti ("D<|") or jiiva who has inanimate world.
limited knowledge and power according to Saankhya $$ r U"{C""{i<E"|"{|" r $$
(C"{) school of thought. By this lakshhaNa which is
not applicable to jiiva and jaDa ("a>) (sentient and Om! Shaastrayonitvaat Om!
insentient entity) he has shown a method to identify the That the Lord Vishhnu (<"k") alone is the creator,
Lord as entirely different from them. Hence the Suutra sustainer, etc., of the world is established by all the
is quite against the theory of nirguNa (<E""f ") and Advaita. Vedaas. But it is also declared by the scriptures authored
Some have tried to interpret this Suutra without by the Lord Shiva, (<U"") HiraNyagarbha (<"""f) etc
affecting the doctrine of Advaita. The supreme Brahman that Gods such as Shiva, HiraNyagarbha and others are
 63 64

the cause for all the activities of the world. The seekers rituals can that make those scriptures invalid?
have attained so many worldly benefits by performing Furthermore because of omissions and commissions
ritualistic activities prescribed in those scriptures. Hence during the ritual acts, at times we cannot achieve the
we cannot ignore these scriptures treating them as invalid desired benefits. Therefore even if the results are not
since these scriptures have been established as accomplished, still will those scriptures be PramaaNaas?
PramaaNaas regarding perceptual aspects. On the same Thus it is difficult to confirm their validity under this
basis, they also have to be recognized as valid in relation confused state. In addition to this these scriptures declare
to God who created this world, and other super sensual mutual conflicting statements. If some scripture
aspects like Dharma and Adharma etc. Therefore should establishes the supremacy of the Lord Shiva, some other
we not accept other Gods as the creators of this world scriptures declare the Lord Ganapati, ("""<|") the Sun
according to those scriptures? Hence how can we decide God or Goddess Durgaa (ls"{f) as the supreme beings.
that the Lord Vishnu alone is the creator of this world
Many a time we accomplish our desired results by
and only His inquire has to be conducted? This third
following these scriptures. Hence we get confused which
AdhikaraNa (<"") answers such objections. scripture should be accepted and which one should be
We have to surrender to the Vedaas only to rejected. Therefore we have to enquiry the truth only on
determine as to who is the creator of this world? Other the basis of Vedaas. We might not have attained the fruits
than Vedaas by no other means of knowledge we can know prescribed in the Vedaas on several occasions. But we do
the creator of this world who is beyond our perception. not get any doubt about the validity of the Veda for the
We cannot know the creator of this world through other reasons already explained that it is
scriptures written by different great authors. When the apourushheya("{Pk"i"). Hence it is not subjected to any
validity of those scriptures itself is questionable, how human errors. We will get doubt about the qualification
can we determine the creator of this world through them? of an unknown ordinary doctor when the disease is not
It might be true that the social benefits are obtained by cured. Even when the medicines are taken according to
performing ritualistic acts prescribed by them. At the the prescription of a doctor, who is well known as an
same time there are also some instances where desired expert, if disease is not cured then we will conclude that
benefits are not secured even when those religious acts the patient has not followed the diet. Similarly when
are performed. Because at times the fruits of actions are results are not got from the scriptures where the validity
obtained accidentally, even if one gains results from these is not confirmed, we will not get confidence of its
 65 66

validity. But the validity of the Vedaas cannot be be an omniscient and omnipotent. Thus there is a scope
questioned even if the desired fruits of the actions are for different types of logic. Hence it cannot be decided
not obtained after performing the ritual acts as prescribed only on the basis of logic that there is a creator of this
by the Vedaas, since they are beyond the defects as they world and that He is omniscient. When the Veda which is
are apourushheyas. We will have to attribute the non- apourushheya establishes the existence of the Lord, the
achieving the fruits to the omissions and commissions logic gives full support, but logic alone cannot prove
of the performer also. Therefore as the other scriptures anything. Therefore it is only through the Vedaas one has
have not reached the status of the Vedaas we cannot decide to know the Lord Vishhnu, who is the supreme Brahman,
the creator of the world through them. as the creator of the world. Hence an enquiry of Him has
to be conducted. This is established by this Suutra
Logic Alone Cannot Be The Proof:
shastraynoitvaat(r U"{C""{i<E"|"{|" r). This Suutra means
Why should we know the creator of this world only Shaastra(U"{C") alone is the proof regarding the creator
from the Vedaas? Can we not know Him with the help of of this world.
logic? Just as pot, cloth and other created objects are
made by some human being, this Universe also is created The meaning of the word Shaastrayoni(U"{C""{i<E"):
by some conscious entity. We may feel that there is no
need of the Vedaas to establish this. But we cannot decide There are different views about the meaning of this
the creator of this world, who is super sensuous, only on Suutra. Some philosophers have interpreted that supreme
the basis of the logic. There is a scope in the tarka (|"f) Brahman is the author of the scriptures (U"{C"). All the
for different imaginations. We are observing in the world Vedaas are born from Him. But there is no need of
that for any creation of any object a physical body is explaining that here. When it is said that supreme
essential. Therefore we can also argue that there cannot Brahman is the creator of this entire world, one need not
be a creator of this world since He does not have any explain separately that He is the author of the Shaastra,
physical body. As many people joining together can build which is a part of the world. If the Lord has written all the
the house, why this world is not created by many? Why Shaastraas, which deal with all the objects, He should be
should we accept that there is only a single creator for omniscient only. To explain His omniscience, it is said
this world. We can observe every human being is subject that He is the creator of all the Shaastraas. This
to ignorance and inefficiency in different ways. So we explanation also is not right. Even to create this world,
can also argue that the creator of this world not necessarily He has to know everything in the world. Against this
 67 68

background of Aagama ({"") why should we not assume Veda. In order to understand the meaning of any Vedic
from the Vedaas that instead of the Lord Vishhnu even statement one should also refer the contextual statements
the other Gods can be the creators of this world? As an that are before and after. The words that are repeatedly
answer to this objection, the next Suutra (aphorism) used in that context have to be examined to determine
begins as: what they emphasize. This process is called in turn
Upakrama ("") Upasamhara("C"w{) and abhyaasa
$$ r |"y" C""E""{|" r $$* ("{C"). The combination of all these processes is called
Om tattu samanvayaat Om taatparyalinga (|"{|""f<e), since they are the methods
We should not confirm that the apparent meaning In the Vedaas there are some statements which say that
of the Veda is the real meaning. In addition, we should Brahman is Nirguna, Niraakaara etc; (attributless and formless)
not confirm the meaning of the Veda on the basis of other yet some others refute this meaning and say the quite opposite to
scriptures written by different personalities. The real that as He is Saguna, Saakaara (with full of qualities and form)
etc. Some say world is unreal and just superimposed on Brahman.
meaning of the Veda should be understood through the Again some Vedic texts declare that the world or Prapancha is as
Veda only. After examining and analyzing the statements much real as the Brahman. Here again some philosophers are
before and after we should conclude the meaning of the able to find some lines in the Vedaas which imply that Brahman is
not knowable even through the scriptures, and this baffles our
imagination as to why and what is accomplished in the ultimate
*Vedas and apparently contradicting statements their in and analysis by the Vedaas and though it has been accepted as
the important role of the Brahmasutra - Tattusamanvayaath in Apourushheya? I have herein cited only a few examples of
solving the problems by interpreting them consistently, harmoniously conflicting Vedic texts & statements. There are many such
and without any controdiction. contradictions and interpretations by some philosophers with regard
to the nature of Moksha (Liberation from this miserable life and
The Vedic philosophers are confronted with many contradicting
enjoyment of eternal bliss) and the means to achieve it. Such
statements in the Vedaas which are regarded as non-authored by
serious contradicting statements in the various parts of the Vedaas
any human. Who is the creator of the universe? In the Vedaas
only add to confusion although the real objective of the Vedaas is
some statements declare that it is Lord Vishnu while regarding to
far from such an import. One can say that there cannot be any
some others it is Hiranyagarbha or Lord Shiva etc. There is again
scope for any human defect in the Vedaas since they are
a fierce controversy with regard to Bheda and Abheda. There
Apourushheya. By this one can dismiss all other views opposed to
are statements which signify the identity between Brahman and
Veda. But now even Vaidikaas, follewers of Veda are divided
Jiivaas. That Brahman is distinctly different from the Jiivaas and
regarding the important topics in the Vedaas.
the world, and He is the Lord of the universe, is the purport of
some other Vedic statements. Here the confusion is thus further This is a great defect which can be technically termed as
confounded. Vaakyabheda-dosha i.e. inconsistency in the authentic text. This
 69 70

to determine the purport of the Veda. In addition to this have to determine the meaning of the Vedaas by
there are three more taatparyalinga-s (|"{|""f<e{#) called examining the followings:
apuurvata(""f|"{), phala(e) and upapatti(""<y"). We 1) The meaning should have a novelty (""f|"{)
makes me recollect a joke. A person sends greeting cards to all 2) The meaning should be conducive to obtain the
his friends and relatives and in all the cards the expression I love desired fruit discussed in the Vedaas (e).
You only is printed. The meaning of the word only loses its
sanctity! 3) It should be meaningful when it is critically examined
What is the purpose and use if the Vedaas are Apourushheya by logic (""<y").
since they can be read and understood only by human beings at all
levels, who are ignorant, not infallible and hence are liable to making
mistakes in learning and finally can arrive at wrong conclusions? first chapter of the Brahmasutra. The fourth sutra, the fourth
Establishing non-human-authorship of the Vedaas with so much Adhikarana (topic), the first part (paada) and the first chapter of
of logical and effective arguments and analysis is not going to be Brahmasutra are named as Samanvaya sutra, Samanvaya
fruitful in finding a solution to this serious problem. Though Vedaas Adhikarana, Samanvaya Paada and Samanvaya Adhyaaya
are conveyed through the word of the mouth uninterruptedly from respectively. The nearest translation word for Samanvaya is
time immemorial, they have been made to various conflicting proper exegetical correlation of various scriptural texts. Whichever
interpretations and these have resulted in various disputes among subject conformed to these taatparya lingaas only enjoys
the Vaidikaas (followers of Vedaas) themselves. importance. Those factos are called
Shree Vedavyaasa the ultimate authority who is virtually Upakramopasamharau Abhyasopoorvatha Phalam l
responsible for the conveyance of the Vedaas to the humanity and Arthavadopapattishcha Lingam Thatparyanirnye ll
who authored various scriptures tailored to make seekers Shree Vedavyaasa has pointed out that Brahman alone is the
understood the purport of the Vedaas for their well being in this central theme of the Vedaas. Such a conclusion can be arrived
world, has given us the Brahmasutra which dispels the doubts and after only by applying samanvaya of the Vedic literature through
confusions. Every earnest student of Vedantha should make it a application of taatparya lingaas on various Vedic texts.
point to study every scriptural statement, analytically and
exhaustively, in depth following the recognized clues or marks of The proving factors are:
import called taatparya lingaas which will help him to arrive at a Upakrama and Upasamhara :
clear understanding of the Vedic texts and statements. This has
Relevance and consistency should be there between postulate
been pointed out very clearly and effectively in the fourth Sutra, and conclusion (commencement and end)
r |"y" C""E""{|" r in Brahmasutra. If the entire Brahmasutra
Abhyaasa :
is resting on the first three Suutraas, the first chapter of
Brahmasutra is developed on the basis of the fourth Suutra r Emphasis of the central topic in different word in and through
|"y" C""E""{|" r Hence this is the keystone for the whole of the the text. (repetaion)
 71 72

We should find the inner meaning of the Vedaas additional taatparyalinga. We should try to get the
through contextual description through illustrative meaning of the Vedaas by using all these seven methods,
example in terms of stories and criticisms of opposing but not by our intellectual acrobatics of interpretation.
views. This is called arthavaada ("f"{l) which is an One cannot taste the sugar cane by licking it. We can enjoy
the juice only when it is chewed. Similarly when we just
Apoorvatha : (Novelty) Pramaananthara Avedyathvam : glance at the Vedaas we cannot get its real essence. We
Uniqueness of the subject is that it is not known through other may get it only after proper examination and intense study.
means of knowledge and it can be authoritatively determined Thus when Veda is studied using all these taatparyalinga-
finally through Vedas only. s, it will be established that it is only the Lord Shree
Phalam : Hari (o), who is the supreme Brahman, that has been
The purpose or fruitfulness or benefit of the subject presented primarily described.
in the text.
Arthavaada or Stuthi : Glorification: (appreciative or To establish that Brahman is the creator of this
depreciative statements) world, where is the need to justify that He is described in
The words of praise in favour of the central theme and words all the Vedaas? is it not sufficient to synthesize only some
of censure in favour of ideas opposed to the central topic.
Upapatti (reason) : Essential meaning arrived at through logical
illustrations and examples. The fourth Suutra
The first Suutra of Brahmasutra 4) ** r |"y" C""E""{|" r** which means that Brahman is the
1) ll r "{|"{i "h"<""{C"{ r ll describes the Lord as full of central theme or topic of all Vedantha Shaastraas.
infinite qualities and He has to be enquired into throuthout the Without following these steps, how can one settle this great
Shaastraas. controversy when different schools of though claim different
The second Suutra themes as central. Unfortunately no author is available to clear
our doubts directly. In philosophical field there are works which
2) ** r "E"{C" "|"# r ** explains the definitions of are commented by the authors to emphasis the subject matter.
Brahman as He is the creator, sustainer, destroyer, etc; of the Hence our traditional Achaaryaas have agreed upon to follow
world. separate method to arrive at conclusion whenever one is confronted
with contradicting views. One has to be faithful to these guiding
The third Suutra factors to determine the correct meaning of the apparantly
3) ** r U"{C""{i<E"|"{|" r ** The enquiry of Brahman has to conflicting Vedic statements.
be conducted because He can be known through the Shaastra A reader can find this classical method used in
alone. Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara in and through the text and enjoy it.
 73 74

Vedic statements, which explain the creator of this world? established by Yato Vaaco nivartante("|"{i "{"{i <E""|"fE|"i).
Such a question may arise. The aim of the scriptures is That the Brahman is indescribable avaacya ("{"). The
not only to establish that the Lord is the creator of the
entire universe but also to teach that He is full of infinite primary meaning of the word is called vaachya("{").
qualities. That is His major characteristic. If the creator We call this country where we live as Bharatha ("{|").
of this world is arrived at by interpreting only a few Vedic The country is vaachyaartha ("{"{"f), primary meaning
statements, then only a few qualities will be established of the word Bhaarata ("{|"). When we say that Bhaaratha,
in Brahman that are mentioned in those statements. To
have the clear knowledge of the infinite qualities in
("{|") (India) has defeated another country, then it means
Brahman, it has to be accepted that all the Vedaas describe the people of this country. This meaning is amukhyaartha
only the Lord. This is what is explained by the Suutra by ("R"{"f) or lakshyaartha (eA"{"f) of this word. He is
the words Sam anvayaat (C"" E""{|"). Anvaya(E"") living on the Gangaa ("{) means he lives on the bank of
means the seven taatparya linga-s starting from the river Gangaa. This is another example for
Upakrama(""), as discussed above. Sam (C"") means lakshyaartha (indicative meaning). Thus how can all the
when these are properly examined, Sum meaning all the Vedaas describe Brahman when He cannot be primarily
describable by any word? It is like pushing a tumbler idly
Vedaas, anvayaat (E""{|") related only to the Lord. That
is only the Lord is primarily described in the Vedaas, Sam (Bt) into the mouth of a patient who is unable to drink
anvayaat. (C"" E""{|") Hence the indicated meaning of even water. To answer this question the next Suutra
follows.
the Suutra (C"") is that the Lord Shree Hari (o) is the
creator of this world, possessing infinite qualities.
$$ r fA"|"iE"{fU"l" r $$
We have to face a big challenge when we establish
that the Lord is described in all the Vedaas. Om iikshhaternaashabdam Om

If a word has to indicate an object the attributes We have to accept that the Lord is descried in all
that are implied by the word should be there in that object. the Vedaas. All the believers know the Lord in general
We can call an object as beautiful if the attribute such as and conduct worship and prayers. The seekers have gained
beauty is there in it. If Brahman is without any quality the special knowledge of God. Even the Vedaas have said
and attribute, how can words describe Him? Veda has that jiiva-s get the knowledge of God. How can we know
 75 76

God? We cannot see Him through our eyes. It has already (indicative meaning). The embodied self due to Prakriti
been explained that the logic cannot establish the Lord ("D<|") and who is possessing attributes is directly
independently since logic can be opposed by counter described by the words. Since Brahman is beyond all the
arguments. Among the three PramaaNaas such as attributes can be known indirectly as Lakshyaartha
Pratyaksha, anumaana and aagama, (direct perception, through the Vedaas. Thus though the nirguNa Brahman
logic and scriptures) since the Lord cannot be known by (<E""f " "h"E") is not knowable primarily, He can be indicated
pratyaksha and anumaana, only left is aagama by the Vedaas. This argument is also not correct. To know
pramaaNa({"""{"{"). Even if the Vedaas cannot any object implied by the word, one has to know the object
at some place and time. A person who does not know
describe Him, how can we know Him? Vedaas have
either the river or the river-bank, he cannot understand
declared emphatically that the Lord is knowable indeed.
any meaning from the word river. Thus to know the
Hence we have to accept that He can be known primarily
meaning of the word, the prior knowledge of that object
only through Vedaas.
is essential. To know the Brahman through the words of
Brahman Is Not Indescribable ("{") : the Vedaas in any manner, His prior knowledge is required.
But we do not know the Brahman by direct perception.
Even though the Lord is knowable through the For a question what is the meaning of the words-book,
Vedaas, He need not be necessarily known primarily. jar and light-we can answer by pointing out the objects
When it is said that house is on the river, it is understood that are perceivable in front of us. But we cannot answer
that it is on the bank of the river? Similarly the Lord can a question as to who is Brahman or what is the meaning
be an indicative meaning of the Vedic words. When we of the word Brahman by pointing out Brahman. He is
hear any word the meaning which is conveyed beyond of the logic. Therefore we have to use some other
immediately is primary meaning. It is also called words to explain the meaning of the word Brahman. Again
vaachyaartha ("{"{"f). After observing that the primary to explain these words we may have to use some other
meaning is not relevant, and if another object is words. Thus we have to use simply a chain of words. But
understood related to the first meaning that is called still we do not get any meaning of the words and all this
amukhaartha("R"{"f) or lakshyaartha. To the Lord by usage of words becomes a waste.
shabda (U"l), He need not be vaachyaartha (primary Therefore all philosophers have adopted some
meaning). We can know Him even if He is lakshyaartha method to convey the meaning of the new object. It is
 77 78

not possible to convey the meaning of new objects using Vedaas and we have to accept that he is also primarily
single words such as heaven and God, which are not knowable through the words.
perceivable by other PramaNa-s. By using different words
An object though it is secondary meaning
which convey the meaning of familiar objects and
indicating interrelation among them and using a complete amukhyaartha("R"{"f) for some word, it should be
sentence one needs to instruct others about the new primary meaning mukhyaartha ("R"{"f). In a sentence
objects. A question that who is God can be answered by there is a house on the river, the word river, though it
using a complete sentence as one who is the creator of indicates amukhyaartha, that is the bank of the river, it
this world. Three words can indicate the popular entities, must be (mukhyaartha) primary meaning for the word
world, creation and cause. Then by indicating their bank of the river. Every nominative word conveys the
interrelationship, the complete sentence that one who meaning of the object with the help of vaachya vRitti
is the creator of this world is God; gives the meaning of ("{" "D<y"). There are different degrees of sweetness in
the word God. Heaven means the uninterrupted flow milk, honey and jaggary ("a)> . We may not have the words
of happiness bereft of any sorrow. All these bunch of to explain them. Still the different words explaining the
words by interrelating their meaning indicate that a different degrees of sweetness, are there in our old Paaka
particular happiness is heaven. But nirguNa (<E""f") Shaastra ("{ U"{C"). Though we are not able to describe
Brahman of Advaita (|") who is devoid of any them with particular words, we have no problem to call
relationship of any object or attributes is not at all a them by a general word sweet. Therefore it is a mere
particular object. Therefore how can a complete sentence imagination that there is an entity which is attribute-less
describe Him primarily? We have already explained that and indescribable primarily by any word and it is only
a single word cannot describe an attribute-less entity in indicated by Vedaas by way of lakshaNaavRitti
any manner. Hence we should accept that the Vedaas (eA""{"D<y").
describe the supreme Brahman who is beyond any It is a method that is acceptable to all to interpret
empirical attributes and full of transcendental qualities. Vedaas and Upanishads using their primary meaning only.
Otherwise no pramaaNa will be available to indicate Scholars hesitate to assign indirect meaning to any single
the Brahman, and all that is said about the knowledge of word. Still they will have to accept indirect meaning with
Brahman becomes meaningless. Therefore the Brahman a choice, when the direct meaning is difficult to account.
who is the subject of knowledge must be knowable from But Shree Madhvacharya (o ""{"{"f) questions why there
 79 80

is no hesitation to say that all the words in the Vedaas the words of the Vedaas describe Brahman, who is not
only indicate the Brahman indirectly and not a single word knowable through Pratyaksha and Anumaana with the
describes the Brahman primarily. He also explains that it vaachyavRitti, have attempted to deny this in some other
is not al all the method of interpretation of Vedaas giving form. Their argument is that Veda does not deal with the
up the primary meanings and assigning indirect meanings Brahman who is attribute-less. The supreme Brahman is
to all the words of the Vedaas. not knowable by the Veda. Veda deals with conscious
There are Vedic statements such as yato vaacho entity possessing empirical qualities. It is this conscious
nivartante("|"{i "{"{i <E""|"fE|"i), which say that Brahman is entity with empirical qualities is only the primarily
indescribable and no word explains Brahman primarily knowable entity, by the Veda. But not the supreme
Brahman. The knowable object is called by name
(through vaachya Vritti) ("{" "D<y"). How can we account
aatmaaa. In philosophical terms aatmaa means the
such statements? This question remains to be answered.
But we need to examine on the basis of logic whether Lord. Veda says that by the knowledge of the aatmaan
these statements indicate Brahman as primarily the seekers attain liberation, including the other names
indescribable entity. The statements such as yato vaacho of the Lord such as Vishhnu, Hari, Narayana (<"k", ,
nivartante("|"{i "{"{i <E""|"fE|"i) etc., indicate Brahman by a E"{{"") along with Brahman. By knowing the aatmaaa
word in the statement. If an entity is indicated by a single possessing empirical qualities the Moksha cannot be
word it has to be described by a word primarily at some attained. Veda also says that tamaivekam jaanatha
place. Thus is it not contradictory that accepting Brahman aatmaanam anyaa vaaco vimunchatha. (|""i"w "{E""
as Vaachyaartha of a word, again denying at the same {|"{E"" $ E"{ "{"{i <"""") Obtain the knowledge of the
moment that He is not Vaachaartha?. In that case what is
the real meaning for these statements? The Lord is the aatmaan, and give up all others. If Aatmaa possessing
most wonderful entity. We get stunned when we hear His empirical qualities only knowable in the Veda, and when
greatness. We cannot describe His wonderful glories and it is also said that all others have to be rejected, it implies
attributes in full. He is indescribable. In this meaning only that the supreme Brahman who is beyond the empirical
qualities should also be rejected. Is it possible to say that
the Vedaas have stated that Brahman is indescribable. But
the Lord who is the most desirable should be rejected?
it does not mean that He is absolutely not describable.
When this statement is analyzed from different angles
Those who do not accept the proposition that all we can understand that only the supreme Brahman is
 81 82

knowable. Only by His knowledge one can attain will say that the word nirguNa conveys the meaning of
liberation. The real meaning of the Veda is that other than saguNa(C"""). In addition it is said in the Upanishads
Brahman every thing has to be given up. Therefore we
have to accept that all the words in the Veda describe puurNameva avashishhyate (""f"i"{"<U"k"|"i) which means
Brahman primarily (by Vaachaya vRitti) ("{" "D<y"), since that during pralaya("e") total desolation only puuraNa
it is impossible to know Him through other than the Veda. entity remains and all others get desolved. saguNa entity
cannot have this puurNatva (fullness). According to
When it is said that other than the Lord we have to Advaita(|") terminology, saguNa is limited entity due
give up all others, we get confused whether we have to
to maaya("{"{). Unlimited and attribute-less entity that
give up even Chathurmukha Brahma, Rudra (P) and other
is supreme Brahman alone is full. An object, which is
Gods, those who are superior and bless us. Should we
related to prakRiti("D<|") cannot exist even during
not worship and meditate on them? We have to definitely
worship other Gods also who are superior and regulate pralaya. Therefore it is very clear that the Upanishads
all the activities in the world being the presiding deities have not described saguNa entity as full or complete
of the objects of the world. But there is only one supreme which is not dissolved anywhere during pralaya. It is
Lord. He is called supreme Brahman. He is only called very obvious that it meant only supreme Brahman who is
beyond even PrakRiti. Veda is describing the Lord by
by the names Vishhnu Narayana (<"k", E"{{"") etc. We
words nirguNa PuurNa etc., which cannot be accounted
have to worship all other presiding Gods as they are by any other conscious entity. Hence it is very clear that
belonging to His ministry and regulating the worldly it is absolutely irrelevant to say that the Lord is not
activities under His command. described anywhere in the Vedaas by vaachyavRitti.
There are some more proofs to establish that the In reality it is not right to categorize Brahman as
Veda describes the Lord primarily. The word nirguNa SaguNa and nirguNa. There is no base to say that basically
(<E""f") (attribute-less) is mentioned in some parts of pure Brahman becomes saguNa due to the contact of
the Veda. The word nirguNa cannot indicate the conscious Maayaa. The pure and complete Brahman is only one who
entity or jiiva who has empirical qualities. Therefore there is beyond prakRiti and who does not have any influence
is no other option than accepting that it is supreme of Maayaa. He is alone by nature omniscient, possessing
Brahman alone who is beyond the empirical qualities is all attributes and creator, sustainer etc., of the world. The
vaachyaartha for the word nirguNa. No dull headed BrahmaSuutra ("h"C"") and the Upanishads have instructed
 83 84

to the enquiry of such Brahman alone. Only by His these reasons, PrakRiti cannot be the creator of this world.
knowledge one can attain liberation. Saying that such This AdhikaraNa (<"") establishes that it is the
supreme Brahman is not described in the Shaastraas and supreme Brahman alone who is conscious entity, is the
imagining the saguNa Brahman who gets influenced by creator of this world. This is how some interpret this
maayaa as the one who is described in the Shaastraas Suutra.
is a very strange and baseless imagination. It is not right
to imagine baseless object by giving up natural meaning We have no objection regarding the reality of the
of the Vedaas and denying the object, which is proved by theory, which is proposed here. There is no difference
PramaaNaas. Thus it will be established without any of opinion to say that it is Brahman alone who is
conflict that all the words of the Vedaas describe His conscious entity, is the creator of this world but not the
qualities primarily since Brahman is full of infinite insentient PrakRiti. But it is difficult to say that these
attributes. Suutraas mean to establish this aspect here. By indicating
PrakRiti for the word ashabda(U"l) in the Suutra, it
Examination Of Other Interpretations:
is interpreted that PrakRiti is not described in the
Some interpret this AdhikaraNa(<"") in a Vedaas. All the philosophers have accepted that PrakRiti
different way. In contrast to the theory that Brahman is is described in all the Vedaas and PuraaNaas. If that is
the creator, sustainer etc., Saankyaas (C"{{#) have the case, how can it be proper to say that it is not described
in the Vedaas?
proposed that it is prakRiti alone that is the creator,
sustainer etc., of the world. But Upanishads have More over it is not so appropriate to refute the
described that primordial cause of this world saw and prakRit of Saankhyas school of thought in this part
thought to create this world. The insentient PrakRiti (paada-"{l). The detailed examination of different schools
cannot have the knowledge. Hence it cannot think and
of thought is conducted in the second part of the second
plan to create this world. The Upanishads have called this
creator of the world as aatmaaa. The Upanishads also chapter of BrahmaSuutra. In that part the Saankhyaa
described that by the knowledge of the creator of this theory is also examined. It is not relevant to discuss it in
world, liberation can be attained. The inanimate PrakRiti this first-part. An important question arises in this context.
cannot be treated as aatmaaa. And liberation is It was said before that all the words of the Vedaas describe
impossible by the knowledge of inanimate entity. For all the Lord primarily since there is no scope for any
 85 86

relationship such as vaachya vaachaka bhaava ("{"- conveys the relationship of primary meaning between the
"{""{") between Brahman and the words of the Vedaas, Vedaas and Brahman. If Brahman is the indirect meaning
Brahman cannot be described by any word primarily of the Vedaas how can we regard it as samanvaya? it
would not be a meaningful samanvaya. That the Lord
(vachya vRitti) ("{" "D<y"). Without answering this
possessing infinite qualities is described in the Vedaas
question how can we account for all the Vedaas describing and it is only the real doctrine.
the Lord? Therefore this question has to be answered at
first. Then only we can answer different questions related
to each statement of the Vedaas as to who is the creator $$ r "<|"C"{"{E"{|" r $$
of this world etc., Answering the objection related to the Om! Gati Saamaanyaat Om!
consistency of the entire Veda is only proper. In this back
Vishhnu is described when we examine the known
ground we can understand the specialty of the
Vedaas thoroughly, how can we know that the rest of the
interpretation of Shree Madhvacharya.
Vedaas which we have not come across, describe the same
Lord Vishnu? The Vedaas are infinite. Studying all the
Instead of saying that all the Vedaas describe the
Vedaas is equal to crossing the ocean of desolation. When
Lord as full of infinite qualities directly (by VaachyavRitti
that is the case, how can we decide that the Lord is
"{" "D<y"), some say that Vedaas indicate nirguNa (<E""f") described in all the Vedaas just after studying a few parts
Brahman indirectly through lakshhaNaa vRitti(eA""{ of the Vedaas and without knowing other parts of them?
"D<y"). This has been refuted very strongly by Shree Such a question will arise. But there is no scope for such
Madhvachrya. There is absolutely no proof regarding this a doubt regarding the Vedaas. Veda is regarded as supreme
nirguNa Brahman (<E""f" "h"E"). The nirguNa entity means of knowledge and there is no possibility for any
cannot be an object of experience. Those who accept errors since it is "{Pk"i" (non authored by any human
NirguNa Brahman have admitted that He is beyond the being). All parts of Vedaas are valid. Hence there cannot
means of knowledge such as pratyakshha and shabda. be conflicting descriptions among the different parts of
Their theory is that nirguNa Brahman is not knowable the Vedaas. When both the parts are valid, there is no scope
by any means of knowledge. Why should we establish for any conflict or difference between them. All the
the relationship between Vedaas and nirguNa Brahman Vedaas collectively and consistently describe in unison
which is baseless. The word samanvaya in the Suutra the supremacy of the Lord. It may be true that Vedaas are
 87 88

boundless like an ocean of desolation ("e" C""). But

the entire ocean is just a speck in the Lord. Shree Veda
Vyaasa is an incarnation of such a great Lord. He said,
There is unison and consistency among the Vedaas. We
can understand the purport of the unknown Vedaas on the
basis of known Vedaas that we have studied. Hence there
is no doubt at all. The rest of the Vedaas also teach about
the Lord similar to the part of the Vedaas that are known.
He is knowable from all the Vedaas.

Anugraha : H.H. Sri Vishvesha Tirtha Swamij

Sri Pejavara Adhokshaja Matha, Udupi