anuvAkhyana-L

niHsheshhadoshharahita kalyANAkhilasadguNa |

bhUtisvayaMbhusharvAdiva.ndyaM tvAM naumi me priyaM || 1 ||

padaccheda and meaning:

niHsheshha - doshha - rahita = one who is entirely defectless;

kalyANa - akhila - sat - guNa - bhUti = treasure of all the great good qualities;

svayaMbhu - sharva - Adi - va.ndyaM = worshipped by brahma and shiva etc.

tvAM naumi = (I) bow to you;

me priyam = my beloved one;

I bow to you, my beloved one, who is entirely defectless, treasure of all the great good qualities and worshipped by brahma and shiva etc. In the above shlOkAs, AchArya expresses his utmost devotion filled with intimacy and love towards nArAyana.

The tattva-maJNjarI commentary on the first verse of the aNu-bhAshhya runs to something over 300 lines of ITRANS coding, in spite of which our commentator avers:

ato.anekArthaguMbhasya naitadbhAshhyasya vistR^itau |

shakto.asmyathApi leshena vyAkhyAM kuryAM yathAmati !

Therefore, although I am incapable of knowing the extent of the large number of meanings of this bhAshhya, even then, I comment upon it as required (by the intention of the bhAshhyakAra, and the capabilities of the intended audience). The `yathAmati' is a subtle hint to show exactly how incapable *we* are, btw. Sri Raghavendra says that while he himself is unable to grasp the whole content of the aNubhAshhya, even then he has to be careful not to lay out all of what he does grasp, for fear of taxing his audience's skills beyond limit! (This interpretation of `yathAmati' accords with his own interpretation of `yathAbodham.h' in a similar instance.) Here is a small sample of his commentary, upon the first phrase of the verse:

nanu jIvachaitanyAdanyasya brahmaNo mAnAbhAvenAbhAvAttasya

chAhaMdhIsiddhatvenAvishhayatvAt.h satyapi tajj~nAne muktyadR^ishhTyA

phalAbhAvAttata evAdhikAryAdyabhAvAchchatadvijij~nAsasvetyuktirayukta

ityAshaN^kAyAM prAptAyAm.h --

However, there is no evidence for any Brahman other than the jIva's own conscious self, which is experienced as `I' and thus requires no inquiry/curiosity. Therefore, there is no subject for jij~nAsA (inquiry). Even if one's self is to be a subject for inquiry, such inquiry cannot yield mukti, and thus this exercise is without a subject, a proposed gain, a person qualified to undertake it, and a connection among these, and is thus inappropriate -- such a doubt obtains:

``|| OM athAto brahmajij~nAsA OM ||'' -- iti |

``Then, therefore, begins the inquiry into Brahman," thus (is the first sUtra).

tadvyAchashhTe -- `vishhNureva vijij~nAsyaH' iti |

vishhNureva deshakAlaguNAparichchhedarUpavyAptimAnvishhNvAkhyo bhagavAn.h vijij~nAsyaH |

athAtaH padoktAbhyAM adhikAriphalAbhyAM vishishhTayA

shravaNamananadhyAnarUpajij~nAsayA vishhayIkartavyaH |

tadvishhayA sA kAryeti yAvat.h |

na jIvaH | `yena tadvijij~nAsasva?' ityuktiH ayuktA syAt.h |

That is explained -- `Vishnu alone is to be excellently known', thus. Vishnu alone is known by the appellation `vishhNu' for having no limitations in space, time, qualities, and being all-encompassing, and only He, the Lord, is fit for inquiry. By `athAtaH', the `adhikArI' and `phala' respectively for inquiry are shown, and with these attributes, He is to be known. Or else, that He is fit to be known since these (adhikArI, etc.) do obtain. The jIva is not intended. Hence, "why an inquiry?" -- such a statement is not justified.

This briefly lays out the entire purpose of spiritual pursuit, and deals with the objection that no end above one's own self-gratification exists. It however

is not the entire commentary on the phrase; see the tattva-maJNjarI, available as ITRANS (253 K) at:

http://www.dvaita.org/itrans/tattvamanjari.itx

-- and as gzipped postscript (1.5 MB) at:

http://www.dvaita.org/postscript/tattvamanjari.ps.gz for more. (Those in Bangalore can obtain a Kannada translation of the tattva-maJNjarI from Vedanta Book House or from Prof. K.T. Pandurangi, the translator.)

>From my limited understanding, the commentator shows how each epithet of Vishnu found in the aNu-bhAshhya relates to an adhikaraNa (topic of discussion) of the Brahma Suutra. The latter itself has a flow which goes something like this (rather crudely) over part of the range we're looking at:

|| OM athAto brahmajij~nAsA OM || -- #1

Then, therefore, begins the inquiry into Brahman. After obtaining eligibility, one begins to seek to understand Brahman. But what/who is Brahman?

|| OM janmAdyasya yataH OM || -- #2

He by whom creation, etc. (the eight activities of creation, sustenance, destruction, maintenance, knowledge, obscuration, bondage, and liberation) take place. Brahman is He who does all these things. However, in one's experience, there is no one who does all these things; they may do some, or some may happen by accident, etc. So how can such a Brahman be inquired into?

|| OM shAstrayonitvAt.h || -- #3

On account of being known from shaastra. While Brahman is not known from perception, He can certainly be known from shaastra. However, there is no agreement about the purport of shaastra, and different parts of shaastra seem to say different things, extol different gods, etc. So

how?

|| OM tattu samanvayAt.h OM || -- #4

And only by means of uniform interpretation.Only by means of `samanvaya' (samyak.h anvaya = excellent or uniform interpretation) of shaastra can Brahman be understood. However, a Brahman who does Creation, etc., cannot be a subject of any textual evidence, as human language is created from our experiences -- these exclude mukti, etc. Therefore, Brahman cannot be grasped by words, and is thus not known from shaastra, and thus not fit to be inquired into.

|| OM IxaternAshabdam.h OM || -- #5

As He is perceived, He is not un-graspable by words. There is evidence (see BG VI-29) that the realized can perceive Brahman by aparoxa-j~nAna, hence it is not proper to argue that He is `avAchya' for being unperceivable. Oh, I see. This is coming back to the same old thing about the individual again. Your Brahman is merely an idealized human: "Man creates God in his own

image," etc.

|| OM gauNashchennAtmashabdAt.h OM || -- #6

The [materially] qualified, so say you? No -- because `AtmA' is used [to refer to Brahman]. The embodied self does not qualify to be called `AtmA', hence he

is not the subject of shaastra and not the subject of `IxaNa' as stated. Pray, why not?

|| OM tannishhThasya moxopadeshAt.h OM || -- #7

Since one devoted to Him obtains the `upadesha' for moksha. This quality does not exist in an embodied individual (even as per the pUrva-paxin.h), who thus

cannot be the referent of `AtmA'.

A second reason:

|| OM heyatvAvachanAchcha OM || -- #8

Also because being fit for rejection is opposite of what is stated for Brahman. While all embodied individuals are fit to be rejected sometime, some place, in some fashion or the other, Brahman cannot be rejected at any time.

A third reason:

|| OM svApyayAt.h OM || -- #9

Because He is said to merge unto Himself. The avatAra-rUpa emerges from the mUla-rUpa with no loss or decay in either, and also merges, again with no loss or decay. This is inconceivable of any embodied individual. Even if all the previous be true, perhaps the `samanvaya' cannot be complete because there is

something said somewhere in shaastra opposed to these precepts?

|| OM gatisAmAnyAt.h OM || -- #10

As the purport of all shaastra is uniform. -- it cannot be said that some parts may cause conflicts. However, perhaps shaastra itself states that the Brahman

is like an embodied individual?

|| OM shrutatvAchcha OM || -- #11

Also on account of being known from Shruti. Since Shruti states that He is `kevalo nirguNashcha', etc., it denies the notion that He is an embodied individual. Numbers 1 through 4 constitute an adhikaraNa each, while 5 through 11 are one adhikaraNa. The aNu-bhAshhya explains the sUtra-s quoted as, in

order:

(#1) vishhNureva vijij~nAsyaH

(#2) sarvakartA

(#3) AgamoditaH

(#4) samanvayAdi

(#5-11) Ixateshcha

After this, the epithet `pUrNAnandaH' covers `OM Anandamayo.abhyAsAt.h OM', etc., showing how `Anandamaya, etc., mean Brahman; `antaraH' covers `OM antara upapatteH OM', etc., showing how Brahman *is different from* the jIva (`antara' means difference in most Indian languages even now); `khavat.h' covers `OM AkAshastalliN^gAt.h OM', showing how the epithet `AkAsha' can refer to Brahman, and how His qualities of presence in Himself, being a support for all while remaining unaffected, etc., mean that He can be referred to as `AkAsha' for having the same same qualities as insentient space. In this manner, the verse:

vishhNureva vijij~nAsyaH sarvakartA.agamoditaH |

samanvayAdi Ixateshcha pUrNAnando.antaraH khavat.h ||

explains the first 22 sUtra-s and eight adhikaraNa-s.