SrimanNyayasudhaSara

Shree Vishwesha Teerta Swamiji, Sri Pejawar Mutt, Udupi

Tatvavada.org team are pleased to publish two volumes of the book online for the benefit of all Philosophical aspirants. They Request readers to send token of contributions tobook cost (Rs.15 or US $8) as a gesture of goodwill to

Shri Poornaprajna vidyapeetha

Kattariguppa road, Poornaprajna nagar

Bangalore-560 028, India

NarayaNam nikhilapuurNaguNaikadeham

Nirdoshham appyatamamapi akhilaiH suvaakyaiH I

Asyodbavaadidam ashesha visheshhatopi

Vandyam sadaa priyatamam mama sannamaami II

Shree Madvacharya always has the direct knowledge and never encounters any obstacles in his endeavors. However, in the beginning of Anuvyakhyaana he has written Mangala Shloka in praise of ShreemannaraayaNa.* This is intended to teach his disciples that one should pray before one composes any text so that it can be completed without any obstruction. “ShreemanNarayana is the cause of creation, sustenance etc., of the world and is free from all defects. He is the embodiment of all infinite auspicious qualities. Unlike us, He does not have physical inanimate body. He is described in Vedaas and Shaastraas directly and is praised by all. I prostrate with special devotion to Him who is always my

most beloved.”

To praise any god in the beginning of the text, He should have three essential qualifications.

1) If God whom we prostrate should have distinguished glory, then only he can solve all the possible obstacles. It is obvious that Shree Narayana, who is the creator of this world and is full of infinite attributes and free from flaws, has this capacity.

2) If the God whom we pray is described by this text, He will bless us with spiritual inspiration needed to compose the text. Since Shree Narayana is the purport of all the Shaastraas He is capable of giving us this required knowledge.

3) To praise any God, we should have immense devotion for such God. Shree Narayana is the most beloved of the composer, Shree Madhvacharya. Shree Aacharya is extremely devoted to God. He is a great soul who loves Shree Narayana all the time without any selfishness. Thus this Mangala Shloka has clarified by describing all the qualities of the Lord which indicate that He is worthy to be praised.

This Mangala Shloka has described greatness of the Lord who is possessing all auspicious qualities and is absolutely free from defects. By this it is easy for us to know the Lord as different from us. It is convenient to identify a person different from others by describing His qualities. Hence this Mangala Shloka has described the Lord as possessing infinite auspicious qualities, etc., which differentiate the Lord from the other animate and inanimate

entities.

This Shloka has also clarified the means of knowledge to know the Lord. Only Vedaas are the PramaaNaas regarding the existence of God. The creation and other activities of the world are wonderful and systematic require a person who has wonderful knowledge and great powers. He must be the Lord. Thus is the logic. The Shloka has indicated two PramaaNaas by describing two qualities of the Lord such as ‘akhila veda pratipaadya’ and ‘jagajjanmaadi kaaraNa’ that is the one who is described in all the Vedaas and the cause for the creation, sustenance, etc., of the world.

If the Lord is the creator of this world, a question arises whether He has a physical body like us. If He does not have physical body, He cannot create the world. If He has it, will he not have all the pains and defects related to the body? This objection has been resolved by the Shloka through an adjective of ‘nikhila puurNa guNaika deham’ who is the embodiment of infinite and perfect attributes. He does not have inert physical body like us. Therefore there is no chance for any physical defects. He can create this world with his natural and transcendental body, which is the embodiment of infinite auspicious qualities.

All the glories of the Lord which are described in the Mangala Shloka of ‘Anuvyaakhyaana’ are embedded in the word ‘Narayana’. ‘ara’ means defect. “naara’ means quality. ‘Narayana’ means the one who is possessing all auspicious qualities and free from any defect*. The word naara means Veda, which are flawless since they are ‘apourusheya’, non-authored by any human. So Narayana means the one who is described in the Vedaas. ‘naara’ means creation, sustenance etc., relating to human beings. He is called Narayana because he is the cause for creation etc. Narayana also means who is worshiped by ‘nara samuuha’, meaning all human beings. ‘naara, means God of wind who is supreme among human beings. Because He is the most beloved of God of wind, He is called Narayana. Thus the Shloka indicates that the word Narayana for the Lord is meaningful.

*Doshaara chidrashabdaanaam paryaayatvam yatastataH,

gunaaH naaraaH iti JneyaaH tadvaan NarayanasmrutaH||

This invocation Shloka is essence of the entire BrahmaSuutra. “The scripture declares that supreme Brahman is the creator of this world. Discussion of Brahman has to be conducted. When it is critically examined it will be proved that all the Vedaas describe Brahman as possessing infinite qualities.” This is the essence of the first chapter of Brahmasuuutra. The same purport is briefed in the first Shloka by the adjectives ‘nikhila puurna guNa’ (who is possessing infinite attributes), ‘jagat kaaraNa’ (creator of this world), ‘akhila veda pratipaadya’ (who is described in all the Vedaas ), ‘vandya’(´Éxt) (worshipped by all). ‘vandana’ means contemplation in the mind. Discussion is also a kind of contemplation. Hence vandana also means discussion. The adjective ‘vandya’ in the Shloka indicates that enquiry into Brahman should be conducted.

In the second chapter the Lord is established as free from defects by solving all other objections. The meaning of the second chapter of BrahmaSuutra is briefed by an adjective ‘nirdoshha’ in the Shloka. The essence of third chapter is that one has to contemplate on Brahman through dispassion and devotion, and through contemplation one should realize Brahman. The words ‘asheshha visheshatopi priyatamam’ ‘aapyatamam’ have briefly explained the meaning of third chapter. The meaning of these words is that by giving up all worldly fancies one has to make efforts to see the Lord through devotion. Moksha means approaching the Lord in a special way, though He is all pervading. The forth chapter is the description of Moksha. The word ‘aapyatama’ in the Shloka, by indicating attaining the Lord in a special way is Moksha, has briefed the meaning of the forth chapter. Thus the invocation Shloka has attempted to teach all the essence of this whole BrahmaSuutra.

Shree Madhvacharya has worshipped Shree Narayana in the first Shloka. In the second Shloka, he invokes the blessings of Veda Vyaasa who is the teacher of the entire universe and his special Guru. Though Shree Veda Vyaasa is the incarnation of Narayana, Shree Madhvacharya has prayers in two ways to the Lord as God and as Guru. The purpose of this is to teach his disciples to worship both their Guru and the Lord who are different for others.

The Validity of BrahmaSuutra

Shree Madhvacharya after the invocation Shloka and before interpreting the BrahmaSuutra, establishes its validity and describes its greatness. For any text to be valid, the author of the text should have thorough knowledge of the subject. Also he should have concern to teach that truth. He should also have perfect senses along with intellectual brilliance. Even if Guru knows the truth, he may not teach the disciples if they are not worthy. If the disciples are qualified to learn the teachings and if they are beloved of the Guru then there is no reason to hide the truth. Even if teacher and students have these qualifications, for the sake of fun, there are occasions where untruth is entertained. A teacher who knows the truth will not deceive worthy and beloved disciple on the occasion of serious discussion of the philosophical truth. That text which is preached in order to reveal the truth without any deception should be a valid PramaaNa. This beautiful combination of teacher, student and the occasion is called ‘vaktRi-shrotRi prasakti aanukuulya.’ There cannot be any chance for ignorance, illusion and deception. Such a text is called ‘aaptavaakya’. BrahmaSuutra is regarded as such a great ‘aaptavaakya’. The author of this text Shree Veda Vyaasa, is the incarnation of omniscient God. Shree Veda Vyaasa, who taught Vedaas to Brahma and other demigods and who wrote the great scriptures like Mahabhaarata etc., cannot have ignorance and doubt. He must have perfect philosophical knowledge. We can understand his concerns in preaching the truth since he has written all such great texts. Is there any possibility for defective senses for such a great soul? Brahma and other gods who were taught by Veda Vyaasa are themselves the teachers of the world. There cannot be any doubt of their qualifications as students. They are also popular as most beloved of God. When there was a chaos in the world due to lack of knowledge, Brahma and other gods prayed to the Lord because of their mercy of the virtuous people. As a result, the stream of teachings flowed from the Lord Veda Vyaasa. Therefore it is not an occasion for entertainment for the world. Is there any chance for a doubt in the validity of such great teachings of a perfect teacher of the world to the most deserving gods at the important occasion of blessing the world? A perfect teacher, qualified students and great occasion are joined together. Moreover this text explains the subjects dealt in Vedaas using logic. Hence it has the support of Veda and logic. Thus Brahmasutra can be regarded as supreme valid for three reasons; it is Aaptavaakya, and it has the support of Veda and logic.

Even in the Upanishads this BrahmaSuutra is recognized as Paravidya. All the Vedic statements, which are apparently dealing with karma when there is no connection to the logic that is mentioned in BrahmaSuutra, are categorized in the group Aparavidya. Subsequently Upanishad has described paravidya as a means of knowledge of God. When all the scriptures other than BrahmaSuutra belong to the category of aparavidya, the one which is described as paravidya should be only BrahmaSuutra. The BrahmaSuutra alone which is determining the meaning of the Vedaas is called paravidya. Similarly Vedaas which are expounding reality of Brahman with the help of BrahmaSuutra are also considered as Paravidya. Thus BrahmaSuutra is regarded as paravidya because it is supporting Vedaas which are paravidya. Even Vedaas become aparavidya when there is no support of BrahmaSuutra. Paravidya means supreme PramaaNa since it deals with supreme Brahman. This is the characteristic of BrahmaSuutra. Thus we can establish validity of BrahmaSuutra on the basis of Upanishads and logic.

Invoaction Prayer in the Sutra:(*)

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

*

A Suutra can be defined as it should have the minimum words without which the intended meaning cannot be revealed and should not give room for doubts (clear). It should be meaningful and capable to determine the meaning of several branches of Veda by covering all aspects of the points mentioned by it. It should be free from unnecessary words and faultless in all ways.

This text has begun with ‘Om’ and ‘atha’. These two highly auspicious words constitute the invocation prayer in the text. These words also describe the subject of the first sutra briefly. Thus ‘Om’ and ‘atha’ are related to the first Suutra also. They are also in the form of invocation prayer for the successful completion of the entire text

When this ‘Om’ is pronounced separately in the beginning of the Suutra without joining the next word, does it belong to the first Suutra? Such a question may arise. But we have to accept that it is part of the Suutra, since traditionally it has been pronounced in the beginning of the Suutra. Om-kaara has to be pronounced in the beginning and at the end of any paravidya. There is also proof that Brahmavidya will be protected when Om-kaara is pronounced in the beginning and in the end. Thus by rendering the meaning of the Suutra, Omkaara has become part of the first sutra. Therefore it should be pronounced along with Sutra. To indicate that Om-kaara should be pronounced in the beginning of all other Suutraas to protect ‘Brahmavidyaa’ it has been pronounced separately in the first sutra without joining it. The purpose of it is to indicate that Om-kaara should be added for all sutra-s of BrahmaSuutra.

The Four Requirements of Scriptural Text:

This text begins with the analysis of objections and establishment of truths The first sutra explains

1) the subject of the text,

2) the purpose of the text,

3) qualification of the student and

4) the interrelationships among the subject, benefit and the student.

It is necessary to know all these before the commencement of the study of the text. Without knowing the subject and the purpose of the text no one will be interested to study the text. But only after starting the study one can learn the subject and purpose etc., from the first sutra. However a question will arise how one can start to study even the first sutra as he does not have the required knowledge. Without knowing the subject and the purpose etc. one cannot get involved in its study. Without studying the text one cannot know the subject and purpose. Is it not mutual dependence? Before answering this question one should know what ‘PravRitti’ is. Either the knowledge of an object or longing for happiness is not ‘PravRitti’. We don’t require any knowledge of benefit to have experience or the desire for benefit. Whether there is benefit or not we perceive an object in front of us. We perceive even the undesired objects. Therefore to have experience, the knowledge of the benefit is not required. To get happiness, we desire for means such as fruits, milk, etc. But happiness is not desired to get some other benefit. That itself is Purushaartha. The desire for happiness arises in us naturally. Thus the knowledge and the desire for happiness arise in us without depending on any other benefits. These are not called PravRitti. PravRitti means desiring for instruments or means of happiness and making efforts to achieve them. For this type of PravRitti one should know the purpose. We desire for means of happiness only out of the need for happiness. We make efforts for that. To make such efforts in the study of the text we should know the subject and purpose of the text. But there is a possibility to know them even without making any efforts. One can know the subject and the purpose which are indicated in the first sutra by accidentally hearing a lecture or discourse on philosophy. Subsequently he will develop deep interest and will make attempt to study the scripture properly. We have already explained that to derive knowledge from a statement one need not know the purpose. Therefore one can know the subject of the first sutra without having any knowledge of the purpose by hearing some discourse accidentally. Thus without having any mutual dependence, we can account for both the knowledge of the subject and the purpose of the text without PravRitti, and subsequently making serious efforts to study.

How does BrahmaSuutra teach us these subject and Purpose ?

Lord Veda Vyaasa, who is omniscient and compassionate, is supremely trustworthy. But BrahmaSuutra is regarded as NyaayaSuutra. It was not intended to convey us the subjects and the purpose, unlike pouraaNic statements which are just aaptavaakya-s. Shree Veda Vyaasa has written BrahmaSuutra to establish every ‘prameya’ (object of the knowledge) by using logic. By using logic his intention was to analyze critically to give us clear and firm knowledge of every subject and the purpose etc., that are mentioned in Vedaas and PuraaNa-s. This is similar to gold using a polishing stone. Since Lord Veda Vyaasa is a great trustworthy teacher, his statements have much more value.

The objection with regard to subject, purpose and student as follows :

The discussion that is conducted in this text is unnecessary. It does not have any subject matter and no purpose at all. No one will be fascinated to this discussion.This text is not meant to examine inanimate objects which are perceivable. The self is always experienced by us. Hence the discussion of the self is not required. There is no supreme Brahman different from the self.

We are always experiencing the self with the attributes such as doership, enjoyership, happiness and unhappiness etc. Hence which new aspect remains to be known in the self? Therefore there is no need of this text to establish the self.

Though the self is always being experienced by us, He is entirely different than what we know him. We experience the following attributes such as Jnaana, knowledge, happiness, unhappiness and doer-ship etc. in the self. But He is pure existence without any such attributes. This text is meant to explain such pure consciousness as the self. This is the subject of BrahmSuutra; thus some Vedantins contend. In that case the Shaastra will be contradictory to the experience. Experience recognizes the self with attributes and qualities. But Shaastra will be declaring that the self is devoid of such qualities. Can we accept the statement of the scripture which says against our experience. The Pratyaksha and that too experience of one’s own self is superior to all other means of knowledge. How can we believe the scripture, which describes the self as attributeless against the experience? If Shaastra says that which is already experienced by Pratyaksha, then it is a waste. If it says something against Pratyaksha then also it becomes invalid. Therefore it is impossible for Shaastra to deal with the self, which is already experienced by Pratyaksha.

What is the purpose of the discussion of the self? To achieve Moksha contemplation and direct perception are not required. There is no necessity of knowledge to attain Moksha, since Shaastra has declared that it can be attained even by ritual acts such as sacrifice etc. In addition, it is also difficult to believe one can attain Moksha by self realization. So far we have not attained Moksha though we have constant experience of the self. We have been experiencing Samsaara from the beginningless. Hence it is only a dream that in future one will be liberated through self-realization. Thus no qualified student will be available to read this text since it has no subject and purpose. In the state of Moksha which is the benefit of this Shaastra there is no scope for any contact between physical body and the senses. There cannot be any experience of happiness where there are no body and senses. We are observing that to experience happiness body and senses are required. No one will desire for Moksha, which does not give any happiness. Giving up all the means of happiness which are available in this life, no balanced seeker will go after Moksha where there is no happiness. This is the essence of objections of the first sutra.

The first sutra begins as an answer to all these objections.

“Om! Athaato Brahmajijnaasaa Om!”

The word “Om” and “Brahman” describe the Lord possessing infinite qualities. It is neither Jeeva nor inanimate objects that are going to be discussed in the Shaastra. This text is meant to discuss about the supreme Brahman. An entity which is full of infinite attributes, is called supreme Brahman. Thus this Shaastra deals with Brahman who is unknown and is distinctively different from Jeevas.

Only if supreme Brahman is not different from the self, there may be some scope for previous objection that there is no object to be known from this Shaastra since we know the self always. But the Upanishads have emphasized that the knowable object from the Shaastra is only supreme Brahman who is full of infinite attributes. There is no room for any objection to accept that ever-new Paramaatmaa can be the subject of the Shaastra for two reasons : 1) He is entirely different from Jeevaas-s who are limited. And 2) the perfect knowledge of Paramaatmaa has not obtained so far. The objection that this Shaastra does not have a purpose is also incorrect. We can attain the great Purushhaartha that is Moksha through the knowledge of Brahman who is possessing infinite qualities. The seekers achieve Saakshaatkaara by knowledge of Brahman, through that they earn His Supreme Grace, which alone leads them to Moksha. The Lord who is the cause for Samsaara is also the cause for liberation, only through His blessings Jiivas will be liberated from Samsaara. After getting the knowledge of Brahman our devotion for Him increases substantially. When the devotion reaches its peak, Jiivaas will earn His complete grace. This leads them to Moksha. The realization of Brahman is essential to reach that level of devotion. When we directly perceive any object we will develop increased love for that. We cannot love any object, which is not experienced but just heard. Therefore to achieve real devotion direct perception of the Lord is essential. To perceive the Lord directly one should constantly meditate on the form of the Lord. This meditation is possible only when the object is properly known through critical analysis and discussions. Thus discussions, meditation, direct perception, supreme devotion and grace are the sequential means for Moksha. Therefore to attain Moksha discussion and enquiry into, who is possessing all attributes is essential. Vedas repeatedly declare that Moksha is impossible without the grace of the Lord. Though it is stated in some passages of the Vedaas that one can get Moksha by ritualistic acts, they will not be direct means for Moksha. By ritualistic acts the purity of the mind is achieved which helps to acquire in turn knowledge, meditation, direct perception, grace and Moksha. Hence the discussion of Brahman is very essential to obtain liberation.

Need of Grace of God

Where is the need for grace to attain Moksha? Can we not attain that by knowledge alone? Having got into illusion that he is the body and without proper knowledge of the self one gets attachment and aversion for the object which are agreeable and non-agreeable to the body, respectively. We engage in the various activities of the world due to this attachment and hat-redness. This results in merits and demerits. Because of that we got into the cycle of birth and death, and sorrow and joy. We can get out of this whirlpool of illusion by the real knowledge of the self. By

the knowledge that one is not the body, he knows that he has no relation with the objects, which are agreeable and non-agreeable to the body. Hence after this realization, where is the room for attachments or aversion? He will not get engaged in any activities of the world once he is free from attachment and hat-redness. Therefore he will not commit any new merits or demerits. He exhausts the merits and demerits of the past by experiencing in this life itself. Devoid of merits and demerits, the self does not get into the new bondage of worldly life. He gets rid of the bondage of life, when his present body is totally deteriorated. Then will he not be liberated permanently from this sorrowful life? Why does one require the blessings of the Lord and need to pray God, possessed all attributes for this process that occurs naturally? There is an old saying, why does the river require anyone’s permission to flow down the mountain? Why should we strive for the grace of God when it is possible for us to get Moksha by our own selfknowledge? Thus some philosophers raise objections. We get answer for this problem when we deeply analyze the real cause for our bondage of worldly life. Let us accept that we have got into this chain of troubles in life due to illusion that he is the body, which occurs because of absence of proper knowledge of the self. But we have to carefully examine how the ignorance, which is the cause for all these troubles, came into existence. We have to examine how the self “Aatmaa” who is the embodiment of knowledge from the beginningless time, got into delusion. Can the darkness cover the light? How did the self who is nothing but knowledge got entangled in the whirlpool of world of illusion? Therefore we have to accept some beginningless “Anaadi” entity which covers the divine light of the self “Aatma” as the lid conceals the light. That is called concealment of “PrakRiti” Because of this “PrakRiti” the self is unable to experience his own consciousness and blissful form. The great power of God has an important role behind this concealment of this “PrkRiti” Without the support of conscious entity nothing can be done by insentient object alone. Hence we have to depend on the grace of the Lord who is the great power of consciousness to get rid of concealment of “PrakRiti” which is beyond our capacity. Even if the child has an orange in its hand it cannot enjoy it. The child can enjoy that fruit only when its skin is removed by the mother. Similarly the Jeevas are conscious blissful forms. We cannot experience our own bliss, unless the concealment of PrakRiti is destroyed by God for that we have to depend on the mercy of God. Without the grace of God, we cannot realize our own self nor experience our own bliss. For that reason we have to depend on the grace of God.

How can even the grace of God destroy the bondage of PrakRiti as it is beginningless? Such a question does arise. Space and souls are also beginningless. They do not have destruction at all. If the bondage of PrakRiti can be destroyed even though it is beginningless, why not space and souls, which are also beginningless get destroyed? Such an objection also does arise. But for an object to remain indestructible beginninglessness is not the only reason. All born objects need to be destroyed immediately. The cloths and pots remain for a longer period though they are born. But they get destroyed only when the cause of destruction is available. Pot will be broken when it is hit. Cloth gets burnt when we set fire to it. The grace of God and His knowledge, which are instruments of destruction, take place why not the beginningless objects be destroyed by them? It is a general rule that an object, which is either born or beginningless, gets destroyed when the cause of destruction exists. Darkness, though it is thousands of years old gets destroyed in a fraction of a second when light comes in. Similarly the bondage of PrakRit, which is beginningless can be destroyed by the direct perception and grace of God. There is absolutely no problem at all. Only the theory of Shree Madhvacharya gives such a great importance for the grace of God. All other philosophers have established that Moksha is attainable only by the knowledge. The knowledge alone is not sufficient to get rid off the concealment of PrakRiti which is the root cause for bondage. Shree Madhvacharya has established that it is only grace of God, which can destroy the bondage of PrakRit. If knowledge alone gives Moksha the Jiivan- Muktaas, the liberated souls, cannot be available in the world. All philosophers have accepted that some realized souls who have gained perfect knowledge are still guiding the world through their knowledge of truth. If Moksha is available only by knowledge, why not these Jiivan-Muktaas are liberated soon after they got realization? Why delay for their liberation?

Pumicchadheenata no cet vilambaH kim kRito bhaveth ?

Thus if realized souls are liberated soon after their

direct perception of the Lord there will not be any link between the world and realized souls. They will not be available to share their experience after they perceive God directly. They will disappear from us immediately after they realize. We will have to get teachings only from the ignorant who have not realized Brahman. Thus all philosophical teachings become hollow. They may not have the basis of experience. Therefore the realization alone is not the cause for Moksha. It is only after the direct perception the real spiritual pursuits begin. A devotee who has perceived God directly will be engaged intensively in devotional acts. He will also give the message of the reality to the world. He will play the role of bridge between God and His devotees. He will attain Moksha when his spiritual pursuit is completed and become a great blessed-soul of the Lord. Till then the Jiivanmuktas play the role of mediators for the devotees of God to make contact with the Lord. In this way the Moksha can be attained by the grace of God only, solves all philosophical problems.

Thus the word ‘atah’ in the Brahmasutra indicates that the discussion of Brahman should be conducted to attain Moksha through knowledge, meditation, direct perception and grace.

If bondage is real, the grace of God will be required to get rid of that. But the bondage itself is an illusion. Due to ignorance Jiiva has superimposed on himself all sorrows and joy. The knowledge alone is sufficient to destroy the illusion. Nobody’s grace is required. By the knowledge alone the illusory world destroyed, just as the illusion of snake in rope gets destroyed when one recognizes the rope as a rope. Therefore to attain Moksha there is absolutely no need of grace of God. This objection is also resolved by the Lord Veda- Vyaasa by using the word ‘atah’in the first Brahmsutra. This bondage of Samsaara is not illusory. We may have many illusions in this world. But the body, mind senses, knowledge, sorrow, pleasure and PrakRiti, which are the cause for illusion by covering the self, are not unreal. The grace of God is required to get rid of this real bondage of life. This is what is implied by the word “atah” meaning therefore. Hence we have to discuss, meditate and realize the Lord.

Vedaas prove Brahman :

To conduct logical discussion of Brahman, some basic proof is required. No object can be determined by logic alone. The discussion of Brahman means to determine the meaning and purport of scriptures, which are valid, by using logic. A question arises as to which is the valid text to be used as a base for the discussions of Brahman? This is answered by the word “Om” in the sutra. Om-Kaara is the abridged form of all the Vedaas.

The interpretation of Om-Kaara which consists of three letters ‘a, u, and m’ is called ‘VyaahRiti which consists of three words. The words of ‘VyaahRiti’- bhuuH, bhuvaH and swaH describe the Lord alone. The word bhuuH means perfect. The meaning of bhuvaH is creator. Another meaning of ‘bhuvaH’ is supreme entity endowed with richness (Bhuthi means glory and vara means supreme entity). The word ‘swaH’ says that Brahman is full of bliss and joy. The ‘Gayatri Mantra’ which consists of three words, is the interpretation of VyahRiti, describe the qualities of Brahman. There is a popular belief that “Gayatri describes the Godess Devi or the Sun God”. But the Gayatri Mantra also describes Shree Narayana only. The words such as ‘Savitaa’ and ‘BhargaH’ in the ‘Gayatri’ describe the qualities of God. The word ‘Bharga’ describe two qualities that are ‘Bharana‘ and ‘Gamana’. Since He is the protector of the world He is called ‘Bharan’. Also as he knows the whole universe He is called ‘Gamana’. Hence He is called ‘Bharga’. He is called ‘Savitaa’ since He is the creator of the world. “We meditate on the divine and all pervading form of God, who is the God of Gods. Let him propel our noble thoughts”. This is the meaning of Gayatri Mantra. Purushasuukta is the expansion of Gayatri. If Gayatri has three Paadaas, the Purushasuukta has three divisions. The ‘Purusha‘ who is described in Purushasuukta is the Lord alone. Since He is full He is called “Purusha”. The body, which is abode of Gods and Jiiva is called ‘Pura’ since God is pervading in all the bodies He is called Purusha. He alone is the knowable object in the Purushasuukta. All the Vedaas are expansion of this ‘Purushasuukta’. Three Vedaas are the interpretation of three divisions of Purushasuukta. Thus the supreme Brahman, who is described by Om-Kaara, is only described by VyahRiti, Gayatri, Purushasuukta and all the Vedaas which are interpretations of Om-Kaara. These Vedaas are supreme valid means of knowledge of God. BrahmaSuutraas are meant to interpret Vedaas logically. This is what is indicated by letter ‘Om’ in the BrahmaSuutra.

Analysis of Karyataavaada:*

Some Meemaamsakaas object that Brahman cannot be discussed by Vedaas. Their arguments are as follows: They accept that any sentence should communicate some action implying some doing or going. If the sentence does not involve any instruction, the sentence will not prompt the listener to act. We use the sentences only for the purpose of some instruction. Where action is not involved one need not make any directive statement. In the beginning children get the meaning of the words only when the sentence is of instructional nature. When the elderly people order the young using statements like “bring the book”, “drink the water”, etc., the young follows the instructions accordingly. A boy, observing all these actions, understands the meaning for such sentences. For example, when elderly people instruct the young., “eat this fruit”, the young one eats the fruit. A boy who has observed this action understands the meaning of the word of fruit. Thus a child learns the meaning of the words by only observing the action. Therefore all the statements primarily instruct some action. But action alone cannot be instructed. We will have to instruct any action in relation to some definitive object. If there is no water, how can it be brought? Therefore, “tie up the cow”, “drink the water”, such instructional statements have to point out objects also. Thus how can vedaas primarily expound Brahman independently, since Brahman is not action-oriented? Therefore Brahman cannot be discussed by Vedaas. This is the objection raised by Meemaamsakaas.

* According to Meemaamsakaas there are two types of statements:

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.

As an answer to this objection, Shree Veda Vyaasa used the word “Atah”. There is no such rule that any word should involve action. It can give the meaning of a definitive object. A child need not be taught the meaning of the words by instructing action alone. We can teach the meaning of the words, where the objects are in front of us, such as father, mother, sugar, fruits etc. This is the easiest method to teach the meaning of the words for the child in the primary stage. It is not practical for a child to remember the words of the elderly people till the young one does his job. Instead one can show the directly perceived objects and teach the meaning of the associated words. Therefore it is incorrect to say that the words should only be action oriented.

What does “Kaarya” (mean? Let us examine it. The object, which is involved in action, cannot be “Kaarya”. Many people take alcohol. It is evident of action. But nobody says it is “Kaarya”. Drinking alcohol is considered as “Akaarya”. Therefore an object which is instrument for happiness is called “Kaarya”. Because drinking of alcohol results in an undesirable effects it is considered as “Akaarya”(not to be done). In this view, though God does not involve any action, He is most desirable and provider of benefits like Moksha. (He is Parameshta and ishTasaadhaka). Therefore He should be considered as “Kaarya”. Even the instructive statements of Vedaas, which prescribe any object, declare only objects, which cause beneficial effects, “Do sandhyavandana” means doing sandhyavandana which is a cause for beneficial effects. Therefore there is no objection for Vedaas to describe God who is the cause for all benefits for humans.

If “isTassadhana”, action that results in desired effects, is considered as “Kaarya”, the impossible actions such as bringing moon to the earth and going to the heaven in the very same body can also be considered as “Kaarya”. They are also isTasaadhanasisTassadhana”. we make efforts only after knowing that some thing is “Kaarya”. Let one make attempt in such impossible actions. Such objections may arise in this interpretation of “Kaarya”.

But for anyone to make attempt to achieve the goal, the knowledge that it is “Kaarya” or means to achieve beneficial effects is not sufficient. Though we know so many things as “Kaarya” we will not make efforts in achieving it. The desire that we will get some benefit by doing some certain action is also required. Also we would not be interested in any action when we have a feeling that the object is impossible to achieve though it is a means of beneficial effects. “Do this” by this statement we will know that “this is isTasaadhana”. The statements “Do this” points out only that much. We should decide by using our discretion whether it is possible or impossible. One need not be taught separately whether it is achievable or not. Therefore all the instructional Vedic statements point out only isTasaadhana. But people make efforts after thorough examination whether it is possible to achieve it or not. God who is “Siddhavastu” does not get involved in our action. But he is very much the means to achieve beneficial effects. He himself is the means of “Parameshhta” because we get all the important object in life including Moksha which is supreme desirable goal of life. God himself is prime desirable object for ‘Ekaanta Bhakta-s’. Pleasure is not desired by us for another benefit. That itself is desirable goal. Similarly ‘Ekanta Bhakta-s’ do not love God for the sake of Moksha. They desire Moksha for the sake of God. God alone is their prime desirable object. Moksha is meant for them to reach God and not God for attaining Moksha. Thus God Himself isTa desirable for some devotees and “isTassadhana” for other devotees. We can enjoy complete joy by realising the Lord. We get engaged in spiritual pursuits for realization of God. The scriptures point out the Lord as prime knowable object. They instruct religious acts, which are helpful for realization of God. This alone is the real purport of Vedaas. What is the purpose of the statements of facts which just reveal the objects as they are? By this neither ‘pravRitti’ nor ‘nivRitti’ takes place. This kind of objection is also not correct. The purpose of any statements is not only ‘pravRitti and nivRitti’ that is ‘making efforts to achieve some desirable objects and making efforts to avoid some undesirable objects, respectively.

The statement will be purposeful by describing an object, which is desirable. When the father is introduced to the son who got separated from his father, he feels extremely happy. Similarly all the virtuous seekers, having given up all the sensuous objects, are eagerly waiting to perceive the Lord desperately, who is the father of the world. As the trustworthy relative the Vedaas describe the Lord to the seekers. The seekers feel extremely happy as the son feeling very happy about the information of his father. Then they begin all spiritual pursuits to realize God. They get engaged in meditation. You cannot see the reflection of the sun in disturbed water. We can see the reflection only in pure and still water. Similarly God cannot be reflected in polluted mind. We can meditate on God only with a pure mind. Only for the purity of mind, Vedaas have prescribed religious acts. Thus Karma-s are meant for the knowledge of God. They are not the prime subject of the Vedaas. Vedaas disclose the Lord for ‘Ekaantabhaktas’ like the father to the child. And for the rest of the devotees God is described in the Vedaas to attain supreme bliss. The devotees, who are suffering in different ways in this worldly life and want to get rid of these troubles, desire for Moksha, which is nothing but experience of total bliss. Vedaas teach that God alone can give Moksha when He is pleased. They describe different religious acts to achieve realization and grace of God. Thus in the Vedaas God alone is described primarily as the prime knowable object and the description of all Karma-s is secondary.

Even if we accept that Vedaas instruct only Kaaryaas and do not describe any other objects of ‘siddha’ (objects of fact) there is no problem for Vedaas to teach about the Lord. As we have already explained that Vedaas have to mention other objects while instructing “Kaarya” when Vedaas prescribe to pour ghee in the sacrificial fire, it has to mention about fire and ghee also. Or else the entire action becomes incomplete. Instead of ghee in the fire something else has to be offered somewhere. There it should be accepted that those Vedic statements explain other objects also along with the action. When Vedaas are instructing the Kriyaas such as discussion and meditation of Brahman, it has to explain what Brahman is. For meditation or contemplation the existence of the object is not necessary. It can even be done by imagining the object. Therefore even if Vedaas talk about Upaasanaas they need not have to explain Brahman. This is a baseless objection. In that case for Meemaamsakaa’s the fire and ‘havis’ (objects of offering to the fire) which are components of sacrifice, cannot be established. Can they not sacrifice imagining such objects? Thus there is no objection for Vedaas to describe Brahman either primarily or along with the action.

Validity of Vedaas:

Another doubt arises when it is instructed that the discussion of Brahman should be conducted on the basis of Vedaas. “Pratyaksha” direct percption and “Anumana”logic are the only two valid means of knowledge. “Shabda” is not at all valid means of knowledge. Due to appropriate contact between objects and senses, knowledge is derived from sense-organs. There is no contact between objects and senses. If ‘shabda’ (sound) is present in the space objects exist somewhere. When there is no proper contact between them, how is it possible for the knowledge to be derived from the Shabda-s? Thus when ‘Shabda’ itself is not ‘PramaaNa’ or source of knowledge, how can Veda which is the form of Shabda become PramaaNa? Therefore why should we discuss anything that is mentioned in the Vedaas? This doubt is also cleared by the word ‘AtaH’ in the Suutra. Like Pratyaksha and Anumaana(Logic) ‘Shabda’ is also a PramaaNa i.e. valid. We have experienced of knowledge derived from ‘Shabda-s’. We also experienced that the objects of that knowledge are real. Sometimes we may get illusion due to defects. We get erroneous knowledge even from Pratyaksha and Logic. Yet if they are accepted as PramaaNaas, why not ‘Shabda’ be a PramaaNa?It is also incorrect to say that there is no contact between the words and objects they indicate. Even they can have link. We infer fire by perceiving the smoke in the space above the hill. We also deduce the occurrence of rain on the hill by perceiving the flood down the hill. This is what is called ‘Yukti’. Therefore there need not be any contact between the smoke in the space above and the fire on the hill. But the invariable concomitance of fire with the smoke is established. Similarly shabda and its objects do have some kind of natural relation. The sanskrit words, which are beginningless, have such a natural contact with their objects. This is called ‘Padashakti’, the intrinsic power of the word. Even in other languages the words have such power which are made. Hence like Pratyaksha and logic, Shabda is also a PramaaNa.

If words have natural power of describing the objects, then why don’t we understand the objects after we hear the words? Why is that only those who have the prior knowledge of the objects of the words can understand when they hear them. Just as the fire burns even those who do not know its power, words should also give the meaning to those who do not have the knowledge of power of the words. Some may ask such questions. We can give many examples in this regard. Though we have eye and ear we need not get the knowledge of colour and sound always. The knowledge of fire need occure just because smoke exists. The knowledge occurs only when the appropriate contact between the sense organs and their objects takes place. To know the fire the presence of smoke is not is not sufficient. We should perceive the smoke. Also we should know the concomitant relationship between the smoke and fire. For any knowledge to take place different rules are there in different situations. Hence it is not correct to say that some one should get knowledge as soon as we hear the words, unlike in the case of fire burning without having its knowledge. Only when we know the ‘Arthashakti’ (the capacity to give the meaning) in the words we will get knowledge of the objects. Any cause has a natural power to produce the effects. As the worldly objects have different natural power we are able to see different variety of effects. Similarly words also have natural power. It will be proved later that Vedaas are ‘Apourushheya’ (not composed by any human). All the words in the Vedaas have such natural power. A person who knows that power, Vedaas disclose themselves to him. Similarly the Sanskrit language, which is beginningless has natural ‘Arthashakti’ subsequently different languages of the world that are born at different times indicate objects using word symbols, made by a man. The born languages are expressing their meanings by symbols whereas the beginningless Sankrit language gives the meaning of the objects by its own power. As the Vedaas are not composed either by any human or God, the ‘arthashakti’ in those words it also natural and is not symbol made by God. By knowing that power one should recognize the meaning of the Vedaas. It is not right to deny natural Power of the words only, when it is accepted that all the other physical objects have that natural power.

“PraamaaNyam SwataH” (Validity is Natural)

The question may arise even if Shabda is PrammaNa, how can we decide that Veda is Valid? The answer is very simple. To determine any PramaaNa as valid, one does not require any other base. “Saakshi” alone when it compreh the knowledge also recognizes the validity of that knowledge. Every time to know the validity one need not analyze or exercise any logic. While we are traveling, we do not get any doubt about the house, tree and plants that we perceive. When we buy a new cloth in the shop, we do not get any doubt whether it is cloth or not. We will not be able to recognize the validity of the knowledge only when there is a special feature that negates the knowledge. Otherwise we require some logic to determine the validity of the knowledge and some other logic to determine the validity of the first logic,- thus endless regression. Therefore it should be accepted that we can determine the validity of knowledge when it is recognized by Saakshi. Hence we need not search for any proof to determine the validity of the Vedaas. If this system is followed an objection may arise naturally that no knowledge in the world can be ‘ApramaaNa’. Even illusory perception of smoke in the water or the delusion that there is no God, can also be ‘PramaaNaas’. If ‘saakshi’ alone recognizes the validity of every knowledge, why not the illusory perceptions are not valid? But there is some method to separate pramaaNa from ApramaaNa. The knowledge derived from defective sense organs, logic and vaakyaas is not valid, Saakshi does not recognize the validity of the knowledge derived from defective means because it can be negated by a contradictory knowledge. The illusory knowledge of snake in the rope occurs due to similarities between the rope and the snake. This is not ‘PramaaNa’. It is only illusory knowledge. When proper examination is conducted the knowledge of the snake is negated by the contradictory knowledge that it is not snake. Therefore ‘Saakshi’ does not recognize the validity of that knowledge. There is no room for any doubt regarding Vedaas. Vedaas are regarded as ‘Apourushheyaa-s’. If anything composed by human, there can be errors due to defects in his mind. There cannot be any chance for such defects in the Vedaas since they are not at all composed by any human. Hence there is no room for any doubt of invalidity of the Vedaas.

Non-Human Authorship of Vedas:

We may get some doubt as to why we should accept that Vedaas are not composed by any human. The followers of Vedaas and even some philosophers who do not follow Vedaas, generally accept super sensuous entities such as ‘dharma’, ‘adharma’, heaven, hell etc. On what basis we should know these super sensuous entities? It is not possible to know ‘dharma’ and ‘adharma’ by only logic. Without arriving at any conclusion, in the disputes of arguments and counter-arguments one may only get confused with the help of logic, though we can prove the existence of dharma or adharma as cause for happiness and unhappiness and the differences in the personalities of the beings, we cannot get specific information only through logic. It can be known only through the scriptures and the words of the wise. But it is also impossible to believe who is realized and who is not. There are several different schools of thought and different religious traditions. Every follower of his school of thought believes that his profounder of his school of thought is only a realized soul. All the doctrines of these schools are not uniform and consistent. If that is the case how can we know who the really realized souls are and who have genuine concerns to preach the truth to the seekers. How can we decide that these profounders of different doctrines are not having natural human weaknesses? Thus without any basis we have to imagine all the qualifications required to preach the truth on some person. Instead of this, is it not easy method to accept that Vedaas are Apourashheya-s? Can we not know the dharmas from the Vedaas accepting that they are written by Omniscient God? One may question why should we make a new concept for Vedaas that they are not composed by anyone? Is not God a new imagination? How is the presence of Omniscient God, who is the regulator of all the activities of the world without having any physical body, is proved? If one can believe such God, why should anyone hesitate to believe that Vedaas are not composed by anyone? In reality God is also established only by Vedaas just as the super sensuous entities like dharma and adharma. Hence only after Vedaas are established as PramaaNaas, we can prove the presence of God by Vedaas only. If that is the case, how can we know that Vedaas are PramaaNa because they are authored by the Lord, when the existence of Him itself is not proved before? Only when we accept that Vedaas are Apourushheyaas we can get answer to all questions.

Who has written Vedaas? and when were they written? No answer is available still now. Veda itself declares that Vedas- are beginningless. According to the tradition also it is believed that Vedaas are being recited which were already existing. If there is an author for such a great text like Veda, is it possible for Vaidikaas or followers of Vedaas to forget him? It is not possible to believe that the followers of Vedaas, who have maintained meter, intonation and sequence without any error, have forgotten the author. Thus when it is impossible to know Dharma and Adharma through the advice of any founder of doctrine, there is no other way than to accept Vedaas as apourushheya and accept religious and spiritual truths discussed in the Vedaas.

The super-sensuous religious and spiritual truths themselves are imaginary. We do not accept entities, which are beyond our direct perception. The atheism may argue that there is no necessity of accepting ‘Apourushheya PramaaNa’ to establish the super sensuous entities. But ancient philosophers such as Bouddhas, Jains, Sankhyaas, Meemaamsaka-s etc., though they have not accepted God, they have admitted Dharma, Adharma heaven and hell which are beyond sense perception. We will explain this in detail later when we will analize atheism, that social system is impossible without Dharma and Adharma.

Let us examine this from the another angle. How can we conclude that there are no Dharma or Adharma. By Pratyaksha, it is not possible to prove or disprove an entity, which is beyond direct perception. We have to decide through nose only whether an entity has fragrance or not. Is it possible through an eye? Thus is it possible to determine that Dharma and Adharma, which have been accepted by all philosophers as super sensuous entities, are not there just because they are not perceived? The senses can recognize the absence of the objects which are appropriate for perception by the respective senses. It is beyond the capacity of the Pratyaksha to prove or disprove the super sensuous entities such as God, righteousness etc. Hence it is not possible to know by Pratyaksha the absence of God, Dharma, etc., though they are not perceived. Attempts have to be made to disprove them only by logic. But logic alone cannot determine them. We cannot confirm that super sensuous entities are not at all there, just because they are not perceived by our senses for the following reasons:

1) Many Vedic and Avaidic philosophers are firmly establishing the existence of super sensuous objects.

2) Several enlightened souls are saying that they have perceived them.

3) Objects are perceived by one sense that are not perceived by the other.

In this situation one can get doubt whether Dharma is there or not. But he cannot determine that Dharma is not there. Ultimately to conclude this issue one has to depend on some valid proof. We have already explained that other than Apourushheya Veda no other means of knowledge can clear this doubt. This world is vast and wonderful. It is beyond our limited direct perception. To get the knowledge of super sensuous entities, we have to admit that Veda is “Apourushheya” and valid means of knowledge. The aim of this Brahma-Suutra is to determine the meaning of the Vedaas.

The method of knowing the meaning of a statement:

There are also disputes in terms of the methods of how a statement convey the given meaning. In a sentence each word conveys specific meaning on an individual basis. How will we get the comprehensive knowledge combining meanings of all words? For example a sentence that ‘beautiful flowers are blossomed in a creeper’, has a few words. From each word we remember their specific meaning. Only when we comprehend the interrelation and the meanings of all words, we can derive comprehensive knowledge from the full sentence. The above sentence does not have such word, which indicates the interrelation between the meanings of all the words. If words in the sentence convey their respective meanings individually, how can we know their interrelation? This is a complicated question, which has to be answered by all philosophers. Some argue that when words convey their meanings they convey their interrelationship also. When that relation is known by a single word, where is the need of other words in that sentence? How can we decide that among all words in a sentence, which specific word conveys the relations between the rest of the words? This objection will arise in this theory.

In reality, the word does not give the meaning of that object alone. When a word conveys the meaning of an object, it indicates specific character of that object also. Along with that it also indicates the relation with other objects in a general manner. When that word is connected with the other words, the specific relation of the object will be revealed in detail. Thus we derive comprehensive knowledge form the sentence when those words convey,

a. the meaning of each word,

b. general relation between the meanings and

c. comprehensive relation among all the meanings.

Other philosophers argue that words convey only the meanings of the objects. When these objects are grasped through the use of the words and memory, they indicate their relationships also. This is also incorrect. We regard the means of correct knowledge as ‘PramaaNaas’ Pratyaksha, Yukti, and Shabda are regarded as PramaaNaas since we get proper knowledge from them. If relation of objects is conveyed by objects alone instead of Shabda, they should also be regarded as PramaaNaas. But no one accepts the objects, which are known by words, as PramaaNaas. It is everyone’s experience that as soon as we hear a sentence we understand the contents and their relations at the same time. It is impossible that the contents alone convey their mutual relations.

Those who argue that it is only the objects that are indicating their relations give the following example. We perceive vaguely some white object at a distance. We also hear the sounds of horse-steps. By these two, the hearing of sounds and seeing the vague image of an object, we derive the knowledge that a white horse is running at a distance. They give this as an example to prove their theory that it is only objects, which indicate their mutual relationships. As a matter of fact it is not only the objects which give the knowledge. As we infer fire by perceiving smoke, this also is a kind of logic. That an expression that ‘a white horse is running’ is nothing but an inference deduced by the combination of perception of the two, sound and vague form. According to this theory, either the mere objects or the objects that are grasped through the words, give comprehensive knowledge, which consists of the relation among the objects. But the above example, however, does not suite the theory.

According to above theory, memory of the objects through the words and the knowledge of their mutual relationship through the objects occur. Thus one has to accept different powers for words and for objects. Instead of accepting these two separate powers, is it not proper to accept a single power for the word by which it conveys the meaning of the objects as well as the interrelationship among them? We understand the meaning as soon as we hear the words. When we hear the word ‘cloth’ immediately we comprehend the object. We also understand that object not as a mere object. We comprehend the object with its related action and attributes. We will be eager to know that relationship. If the word ‘cloth’ is associated with another word ‘blue’ then it conveys the comprehensive knowledge of an object along with its attributes due to association with the other word. Thus a word conveys the object and its general relationship. When we use another word the same first word conveys the specific relationship in detail. This is everyone’s experience. Therefore as there is no problem to derive knowledge from the sentences, we can accept Veda, which is in the form of sentences, as Apourushheya PramaaNa (valid source of knowledge).

On the basis of valid PramaaNaas such as Vedaas, we have to discuss supreme Brahman, who is full of infinite qualities for his realization and grace, to achieve Moksha.

Vishnu is Brahman:

The supreme Brahman is Vishnu only. Before this BrahmaSuutra, in the end part of ‘Daiveemeemaamsa , “Sa VishNuraha Hi” is the Suutra that indicates ‘He is indeed Vishnu. The same VishNu is referred by the word Brahman and discussion about Him is established. All the words such as VishNu, Brahma and Narayana are synonyms which convey the same object which is full of infinite qualities.

When the meaning of word “Brahman” is perfect, the word “Vishnu” also conveys the meaning that he is all pervading in all the three periods of time and all space. Hence both the words give same meaning. ‘Ara’ means defects and ‘Naara’ means attributes. Hence ‘Narayana’ means one who is possessed all the qualities. Therefore the word ‘Brahman’ means Vishnu or Narayana. The enquiry into Vishnu only is instructed in BrahmaSuutra.

In the popular ‘Narayanasuukta’ “tadeva Brahma Paramam Kaveenaam” thus Narayana alone is called supreme Brahman. Where is the proof that it is Narayana who is referred as supreme Brahman? Such a question may arise. This ‘Suutra' is popular as “Narayanasuukta” . Therefore to mention other than Narayana in this ‘suukta’ becomes irrelevant. In the beginning of this suukta also “ambhasyapaare bhuvanasya madhye naakasya pRishhTe mahato mahiiyaan” Narayana is referred as “samudrashaayii” and is described as supreme Brahman. Narayana alone is popular as ‘samudrashaayii’ in the PuraaNaas.‘AmbhraNisuukta’ also says “Yam Kaamaye tam tamugram kRiNomi, tam BrahmaNam”, that is the Godess ambhraNi, who is called Laxmi Devi and is the mother of the world, gives Brahma, Rudra and other gods their respective status. But NaaryaNa is Her Lord who is described as ‘Jalashaayi”. Therefore if any God is described as ‘Jalashaayi’ in the Vedaas and Upanishads He should be regarded as Vishhnu only. Hence there is no doubt that it is VshhNu alone who is referred here as supreme Brahman. More over this suukta mentions some glories which are exclusive qualities of Vishhnu” which are not seen in other Gods. Hence Vishhnu alone is regarded as Brahman.

The Four Meanings of ‘Atah Shabda’:

The first Suutra means that we should discuss about the supreme Brahman. The word ‘ataH’ in the Suutra means the required qualifications and merits for a seeker to discuss about Brahman. After attaining the qualifications such as devotion, detachment and scholarship, one has to study deeply to understand the Lord and His related glories. The word ‘ataH in the Suutra conveys the benefit of discussions and answers the objections raised against it. ‘AtaH’means “therefore”. Its implied four meanings are :

1.Moksha can be attained through the discussion of supreme Brahman ‘Therefore’ the discussions about the supreme Brahman should be conducted to achieve the benefit of Moksha. We should get perfect knowledge of God which helps to contemplate on Him. Through contemplation we can perceive the Lord directly. This perception leads to supreme devotion to the Lord, which in turn secures His supreme grace, by which Moksha can be attained.

2.The bondage of the life is real. ‘Therefore’ to get rid of this Samsaara one has to conduct the discussion of Brahman. If this Samsaara (cycle of births and deaths) is illusory it would have been negated by the real knowledge of the truth. For that no grace of God is required. Just as the mercy of officials is required to get released from a jail, God’s grace is required for the redemption of jiiva-s from this Samsaara. For that, knowledge is essential. To get the knowledge, discussion of Brahman has to be conducted.

3.Any statement has the capacity to convey the meaning of object (siddha Vastu, without involving any action.) ‘Therefore’, discussion should be conducted on supreme Brahman on the basis of Vedaas. If all the ‘PramaaNa Vakyaas’ convey the meaning of objects, which involve some action, then Vedaas cannot convey the meaning of Brahman. But there is no such rule that ‘PramaaNa Vakyaas’ should instruct only ‘Kaarya’. Any ‘Vaakya’ can become valid means of knowledge by declaring ‘ishhTa’ or ‘ishhTa Saadhana’ whether it is ‘kaarya’ or ‘akkarya’. ‘Therefore’ on the basis of Vedaa-s, there is no objection to discuss about the Lord, who is the most beloved of seekers.

4.Veda is a valid means of knowledge. ‘Therefore’ we should discuss about supreme Brahman. It would be meaningless to discuss about Brahman, if Veda is invalid. But Veda is also valid just as Pratyaksha or Yukti. Words do not convey only their respective meanings. They become PramaaNa by conveying comprehensive knowledge, which involves the mutual relationships among the objects. To know the validity of ‘Shabda’ one does not require another ‘PramaaNa’ when it is not negated, and when there is no defect, one can easily determine the validity. As Veda is ‘apourushheya’ there is no room for any defects that can arise due to human authorship. There is no proof for any contradictions. ‘Thereore’ Veda is valid. Hence we need to discuss the Veda. It is very necessary.

These are all the meanings for the word ‘ataH’. How do we get all these meanings from the word ‘ataH’? the Lord Narayana who wrote BrahmaSuutra in his incarnation of Veda-Vyaasa, also written ‘Brahmatarka’ which is an exhaustive ‘tarkaShaastra’.(theory of Logic). This Brahmatarka being supreme PramaaNa is entirely different from the available ‘tarkaShaastra’. Shri Veda-Vyaasa has abridged Brahmatarka before he wrote BrahmaSuutra. It is a supportive limb for BrahmaSuutra. All explanations discussed with reference to ‘ataH’ shabda are mentioned in Brahmatarka in more detail. What Shree Veda-Vyaasa has explained elaborately in Brahmatarka, He has condensed it by the word ‘ataH’ and established in the first Suutra that the discussion of Brahman is essential.

The World Is Not Unreal:

Some have interpreted the first Suutra ‘Om! Athato Brahma Jijnaasaa Om” as it indicates that this worldly bondage and the external world are unreal (mithyaa). According to their view there is no Brahman different from the self ‘Aatmaa’. The self, which is everlasting luminous entity itself is Brahman. When we have the self realization always, where is the need for the discussion of Brahman? Yet those who are in the state of ‘Samsaara’ have not realized the nature of the self. The real nature of the self is ‘NirgunNa’ and ‘nirvisheshha’ that is without attributes, qualities and undifferentiated entity. In this world of Samsaara, whatever we experience such as pleasure, pain, ignorance and knowledge, are not real. They are just illusory. The discussion of Vedanta is meant to realize the self without any such attributes. If this Samsaara that we are experiencing is real and since we have the knowledge of the real nature of the self, why do we need to discuss about Brahman? Such a question may arise. The ‘aatmaa’ self is absolutely different from what we experience at present. Only when our perception and experience are unreal, we get convinced that the discussion of the self ‘aatmaa’ is essential. Therefore for ‘Brahmavicaara’ to be justifiable, one has to accept that all the attributes in the self are not there and the entire ‘Samsaara’ is unreal. The ‘Shaastra’ scripture declares that the knowledge of Brahman destroys the Samsaara. If the Samsaara is real how can it be destroyed by the knowledge. We mistake the rope for the snake. When we get proper knowledge of the rope, the snake which disappears is not real. The dream-world, which disappears soon after we are awakened, is not real. It is only the illusory entities that get destroyed when real knowledge occurs. Along with the ignorance all its products also disappear. Therefore the Samsaara which is destroyed by the realization of Brahman is ‘Mithyaa’ or the product of the ignorance. Thus to account for both (1) the desolation of Samsaaraa which is the purpose of Shaastra and (2) the self which is described in the scriptures, Samsaaraa should be accepted as unreal only.

Those who argue that the world is unreal on the basis of Suutra give one more reason. The goal of the scriptures is Advaitha only. The entire Shaastra is meant to teach the identity between jiiva and Brahman. If this world is real, we have to accept a God who is omniscient and omnipotent as the creator of this world. We also know how weak and ignorant we are. Then we may recognize that Advaita is absolutely absurd when Jiiva and Brahman are having such very contradictory attributes. No one will be interested in such a Shaastra which is quite a contradictory to the experience. Then what is the purpose of the Shaastra to teach identity between jiiva and Brahman? The apparently contradicting attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, limited knowledge and power etc; are meaningless. It will be possible to establish Advaita when the world and the mutually contradictory attributes of jiiva and Brahman are unreal . Because of the above mentioned three reasons, some view that the world is indeed unreal and that is the only the essence of the first Suutra.

But this is not correct. The knowledge alone is not the direct cause for the destruction of Samsaara. For the destruction of Samsaara one has to gain the grace of God through His knowledge. This Samsaara cannot be unreal even if we accept that the entities, which disappear due to knowledge, are unreal, just as the dream world in the awakened state. The Samsaara from which we get released through knowledge due to grace of God, it can be real just as the jail from which one gets released. Therefore just because Samsaara gets destroyed due to knowledge of Brahman, this worldly bondage need not be unreal. We have to examine one more aspect. There is no such rule that whichever is destroyed by knowledge is unreal. Visiting sacred places destroys the sin. Is this sin unreal? We suffer from poison due to snakebite. Meditation of Garuda destroys this real poison. (Garuda, the bird which is used as vehicle of Lord Vishhnu) Meditation means the perception of a picture in the mind due to the impressions of an object. This is also a kind of knowledge. There are several examples to establish that even a real entity can be destroyed by knowledge. Therefore it is not correct to prove that the world is unreal using such weak arguments. Just to establish that Advaita alone is the purport of the scriptures it is also incorrect (a) to deny all the attributes in the self, which are experienced, and (b) designating them as illusory and (c) discarding all the statements in the Vedaas and PuraaNaa-s which declare that God alone, who is full of attributes, is knowable in all the scriptures. Holding the view that Advaita is supreme doctrine and is the essence of the Shaastraas and proving that the entire world is unreal in order to establish that all the contradictory qualities of jiiva and supreme Brahman are unreal, are similar to lying to support another lie. There is no proof to establish the identity of jiiva and Brahman. It has been explained in another part as it is contradicting all the pramaaNaas. Therefore to say that this world is unreal and to prove the identity of jiiva and Brahman is similar to a house built on the sand which collapses easily. It will be described in detail later why it is not correct to say that this world is unreal.

“Om! Janmaadyasya YataH Om!”

It has been established in the first Suutra that discussion of Shree Hari who is the supreme Brahman has to be conducted. It is not possible to discuss about Brahman without knowing who He is among the infinite number of conscious entities. We can recognize any object through its specific qualities. We recognize a man by looking at his features such as hands, legs etc. These are called particular features of an object. This Suutra indicates Brahman as creator, sustainer, destroyer of the world and give of knowledge and liberation etc. We have already explained that the word Brahman means full of attributes. Brahman could have been recognized by establishing the infiniteness as his quality, which is indicated by the word ‘Brahman’. But to find out who possesses all attributes is also difficult just as identifying the Lord among all conscious entities in the world. We cannot identify that by direct perception. But it is not difficult to identify the Lord as creator and sustainer of the world. We can observe some creator behind every object that is born. This world with such a systematic state of order cannot be created accidentally. Therefore we can deduce that there is a creator of this world. In addition, even the Vedaas have described the creator of the Universe. Thus on the basis of logic and Vedaas we can easily identify the creator of the world. Even though the Vedaas describe the Lord possessing all the qualities, a disturbing doubt may arise whether it is possible for the existence of such transcendental entity with full of qualities and which never has been seen? Based on common experience we can deduce that there must be a creator of this world just as there is a creator behind every creative object. Having established that there is a creator, one can deduce that He must be possessing infinite qualities and powers to insure that all the activities in the world are being performed systematically. Since we can easily understand the creator and sustainer of this world, on the basis of this, we can also know that He must be full of attributes to become the creator of the Universe. Therefore Shree Veda Vyaasa has indicated the essential qualities (™ôIÉhÉ) of the Lord as creator, sustainer, etc., of the world. The Suutra has described the Brahman as the creator of this world to answer one more objection. The word ‘Brahman’ has another dictionary meaning as jiiva. Instead of accepting (a) that the meaning of the word Brahman as the one with full of qualities, and (b) that He is different from us, why should we not accept the meaning of jiiva for the word Brahman and therefore provide a meaning for the ‘Suutra’ that an enquiry of jiiva has to be conducted. Though jiiva is well known to us, we do not have absolute clear knowledge about him. Hence the discussion of jiiva is not irrelevant. Instead of accepting a new conscious entity, which is full of qualities, and subscribing this meaning to the word Brahman, it is easier to accept that the word Brahman means Jiiva. Jiiva is selfevident. Even the dictionary meaning of jiiva for the word Brahman is popular. There is no need for any new imagination. Therefore the first Suutra does not indicate that inquiry of the Lord, possessing all the qualities has been answered by the second Suutra. When vedic statements ‘tad Brahma’ ‘tad vijijnaasaswa’ instruct to conduct the inquire into Brahman, they include that the Brahman is the creator, sustainer etc of the world by stating “Yatova imaani bhuutaani jaayante, ena jaataani jiivanti.” is it possible to account these qualifications to jiiva? It is very obvious that jiiva who has limited power is not the creator and sustainer of the world. Thus when we examine other statements of the Vedaas it is very clear that the Vedic statements do not instruct the inquire of jiiva. They only instruct us that we have to discuss about Brahman who is full of attributes and who is qualified to be the creator, sustainer, etc: of the world. To teach this the second Suutra has answered an objection of the Brahman.

Vishhnu Is The Meaning For All Vedic Words:

From Vedic statements we have to know that the Lord is the creator of this world with the help of logic. But we may get confused when we come across different Vedic statements. Some Vedic statements say that HiraNya Garbha is the creator of this world. ‘HiraNya GarbhaH Samavartataagre’ . Some say that liberation is through the meditation of Lord Shiva ‘eko rudraH na dvitiiyaaya tasthe’ . ‘Jnatvaa Shivam Shantim atyantameti’.Therefore it will be difficult to decide on the basis of Veda that Vishhnu alone is the creator of this world. Veda itself has answered this objection. The Vedic Mantra, “Yo Devaanam Naamadha Eka Eva” , declares that Vishhnu is one who is having names of all the other Gods. He is popular as ‘Padmanaabha’ i.e. who has the lotus that exists at His navel and that sustains the whole world. ‘Naamaani SarvaaNi Yamaavishanti, tam Vai Vishhnum

Paramamudaaharanthi’clearly says that Vishhnu alone is primarily described by all words of Vedaas By the above statement the Veda has resolved a great philosophical riddle. Lord Vishhnu is described as superior and worshipped by Brahmaa, Rudra, and other Gods in Vedaas, Upanishads, Mahaabhaarata,Geetha and other valid means of knowledge. In some passages of scriptures, Brahma Rudra and other gods are also described as supreme entities. How can we accommodate these conflicting statements? This is the problem in the philosophical field. Both Brahma and Shiva have to be supreme beings. At the same time they have to be subordinate to the Lord Vishhnu. How can Veda become valid means of knowledge when it says conflicting statements? Such a doubt may be haunting the minds of the seekers. Shree Maddvaachaarya alone has shown a compromising path. Gods such as Brahma, Rudra and others are always subordinate to the Lord. Also the words such as Brahma, Rudra, etc., in the Vedaas and Upanishads describe primarily Vishhnu alone as a supreme being. Though there are so many demigods, there is only a single supreme entity which is referred by all the names of all the Gods. That entity is the Lord Sri Hari alone. When Brahma or Rudra is described as supreme being, one has to understand that it is the Lord Vishhnu who is indicated as the supreme entity. When Vedaas say that Brahma, Rudra and other Gods are born in the beginning of the creation then only these names refer demi-gods other than Vishhnu. Thus Shree Maddwaachaarya has accommodated all the apparent conflicting Vedic statements with the help of other Vedic and PouraaNic statements. As it is already established on the basis of Vedaas that all the names of the Gods describe Lord Vishhnu alone, the same cannot be accounted using other Gods. Against this statement some scriptures may state that other Gods are the cause for creation and other activities of the world. The Veda is supreme valid means of knowledge since it is ‘apourushheya’(Non authored by any human). Hence whatever is said against it in the other scriptures cannot be accepted. The ‘PuraaNa-s that contradict Vedaas cannot be regarded as ‘PramaaNaas’ valid.

There are statements in the Vedaas which apparently state that even the Lord Vishhnu was born. How can the Lord Vishhnu who is subjected to the defects of birth, etc., be the cause for the creation and sustenance of the world? This objection is also not correct. Whatever is apparently said in the Vedaas cannot be regarded as their real meaning. Such statement should be interpreted in accordance with the knowledge of the purport of the Vedaas. The goal of the Vedaas is to give divine bliss to the all-virtuous seekers, by releasing them from this beginning-less bondage of life. Jiivas have to secure the grace of the Lord to get liberated from this sorrowful life. Hence Vedaas will be purposeful only when they teach the method to attain this grace. For that Vedaas teach the jiiva-s the infinite attributes of the Lord. By this jiiva-s will develop special devotion for the Lord and receive the blessings of the Lord which lead them to Moksha. If Vedaas indicate the defects in the Lord, it will have adverse effects to develop devotion. The Vedaas cannot describe anything, which will be against their goal. Therefore all the Vedaas are meant to praise the attributes of the Lord. The Vedaas cannot point out any flaw in the Lord. Such statements have to be interpreted in accordance with the purport of the Vedaas which is conducive to devotion. Therefore the doctrine of attribute-less God and His identity with jiiva-s is against the devotion and also against the goal of the Vedaas. Hence it can be determined that it is not acceptable to the Vedaas.

The Intrinsic Character of Brahman:

Are the auspicious attributes of Brahman, which are described as the intrinsic character of Brahman in the Vedaas, identical with Him or different from Him? This question has to be examined. If they are different from Brahman they become extrinsic (transient). But the attributes of Brahman cannot be extrinsic, because if they are different from conscious entity of God they should be inanimate. It is not correct to admit inanimate attributes in the conscious entity. Therefore we should accept that the attributes of the Lord being inseparable from Brahman are identical with Him. As we cannot separate sweetness from sugar and effulgence from light, we cannot separate the attributes of the Lord from Him. Therefore all these attributes being conscious entities are intrinsic qualities. These are called intrinsic characters (Swaruupa LakshaNa) by the philosophers. We recognize a house with its particular form and design. We can identify an individual with its color, form and movement. They are intrinsic and inseparable with the objects. When we recognize a house with its flag, trees and plants in front of the house and when we identify a person with his external dress and ornaments, these are regarded as indicative definition (tatastha lakshhaNa,) since they are external and are not intrinsic with the nature of the objects. The Lord’s creator-ship and sustainer-ship of the world are the powers which are the cause for the modifications of the world such as creation, sustenance and destruction. These powers are inseparable and intrinsic nature of the Lord. Hence all those attributes are the swaruupa lakshhaNaas But some philosophers do not agree with this. The Lord does not have any intrinsic attributes or qualities. He is attribute-less. Therefore the creator-ship of the world is just illusory. It is not intrinsic quality of Brahman. However the author of BrahmaSuutra has also written the Bhagavata text which is acceptable to all as ‘PramaaNa’. In that He has described the meditation which can be followed by us as a model. It clearly says “Brahmaakhyam asyodbhavaadi hetubhiH swalalkshane” that is the Lord’s creatorship of this world is ‘swalakshhaNa’ meaning ‘swaruupalakshhaNa’ intrinsic quality. Therefore it is incorrect to say that the Lord is attribute-less when it is established that all the qualities and attributes are intrinsic nature of the Lord.

In addition the identity of jiiva and Brahman is not at all acceptable to Suutra. We have to understand the purpose of describing the ‘lakshhaNa’ of an object. When a person is described by a lakshaNa as the one who has hands and legs but does not have a tail, it helps us to identify a man different from another animal. The purpose of lakshhaNa is to identify an object as different from others. By pointing out the power to create, sustain, etc., this world as the ‘lakshhaNa’ of the Lord, which is absent in sentient and insentient entities, it is proved that He is different from them. Even Shree Shankaraachaarya while interpreting this Suutra, ‘it is only omniscient and omnipotent Lord who could create this world. It is impossible even to think that such a creation is possible by inanimate PrakRiti or jiiva who has limited knowledge and power according to Saankhya school of thought.” By this ‘lakshhaNa’ which is not applicable to jiiva and jaDa (sentient and insentient entity) he has shown a method to identify the Lord as entirely different from them. Hence the Suutra is quite against the theory of nirguNa and Advaita.

Some have tried to interpret this Suutra without affecting the doctrine of Advaita. The supreme Brahman is not the cause for the creation and sustenance of the world. It is ‘maayaa alone which is responsible for all activities of the world. Brahman is locus for this ‘maayaa’ which is inexplicable . Brahman does not have any doer-ship or any power or any attribute. These are all illusory due to ‘maayaa’. The Suutra is interpreted as Brahman is the locus for maayaa which is primordial cause of this world. The subject whether this world or the attributes of Brahman are imaginary due to ‘maayaa’ or real will be discussed separately in this book. We will keep this topic aside for now. When Suutra clearly says that Brahman is the creator of this world, where is the need of interpreting by stretching the imagination to provide a difficult meaning? Instead of forcing the interpretation to suite their theory, why should we not accept sincerely the direct meaning of the Suutra? Thus the Suutra clearly establishes that Brahman is not attribute-less and is entirely different from animate and inanimate world.

“Om! Shaastrayonitvaat Om!”

That the Lord Vishhnu alone is the creator, sustainer, etc., of the world is established by all the Vedaas. But it is also declared by the scriptures authored by the Lord Shiva, HiraNyagarbha etc that Gods such as Shiva, HiraNyagarbha and others are the cause for all the activities of the world. The seekers have attained so many worldly benefits by performing ritualistic activities prescribed in those scriptures. Hence we cannot ignore these scriptures treating them as invalid since these scriptures have been established as PramaaNaas regarding perceptual aspects. On the same basis, they also have to be recognized as valid in relation to God who created this world, and other super sensual aspects like Dharma and Adharma etc. Therefore should we not accept other Gods as the creators of this world according to those scriptures? Hence how can we decide that the Lord Vishnu alone is the creator of this world and only His inquire has to be conducted? This third AdhikaraNa answers such objections.

We have to surrender to the Vedaas only to determine as to who is the creator of this world? Other than Vedaas by no other means of knowledge we can know the creator of this world who is beyond our perception. We cannot know the creator of this world through other scriptures written by different great authors. When the validity of those scriptures itself is questionable, how can we determine the creator of this world through them? It might be true that the social benefits are obtained by performing ritualistic acts prescribed by them. At the same time there are also some instances where desired benefits are not secured even when those religious acts are performed. Because at times the fruits of actions are obtained accidentally, even if one gains results from these rituals can that make those scriptures invalid? Furthermore because of omissions and commissions during the ritual acts, at times we cannot achieve the desired benefits. Therefore even if the results are not accomplished, still will those scriptures be ‘PramaaNaas? Thus it is difficult to confirm their validity under this confused state. In addition to this these scriptures declare mutual conflicting statements. If some scripture establishes the supremacy of the Lord Shiva, some other scriptures declare the Lord Ganapati, the Sun God or Goddess Durgaa as the supreme beings. Many a time we accomplish our desired results by following these scriptures. Hence we get confused which scripture should be accepted and which one should be rejected. Therefore we have to enquiry the truth only on the basis of Vedaas. We might not have attained the fruits prescribed in the Vedaas on several occasions. But we do not get any doubt about the validity of the Veda for the reasons already explained that it is ‘apourushheya’. Hence it is not subjected to any human errors. We will get doubt about the qualification of an unknown ordinary doctor when the disease is not cured. Even when the medicines are taken according to the prescription of a doctor, who is well known as an expert, if disease is not cured then we will conclude that the patient has not followed the diet. Similarly when results are not got from the scriptures where the validity is not confirmed, we will not get confidence of its validity. But the validity of the Vedaas cannot be questioned even if the desired fruits of the actions are not obtained after performing the ritual acts as prescribed by the Vedaas, since they are beyond the defects as they are apourushheyas. We will have to attribute the non-achieving the fruits to the omissions and commissions of the performer also. Therefore as the other scriptures have not reached the status of the Vedaas we cannot decide the creator of the world through them.

Logic Alone Cannot Be The Proof:

Why should we know the creator of this world only from the Vedaas? Can we not know Him with the help of logic? Just as pot, cloth and other created objects are made by some human being, this Universe also is created by some conscious entity. We may feel that there is no need of the Vedaas to establish this. But we cannot decide the creator of this world, who is super sensuous, only on the basis of the logic. There is a scope in the ‘tarka’ for different imaginations. We are observing in the world that for any creation of any object a physical body is essential. Therefore we can also argue that there cannot be a creator of this world since He does not have any physical body. As many people joining together can build the house, why this world is not created by many? Why should we accept that there is only a single creator for this world. We can observe every human being is subject to ignorance and inefficiency in different ways. So we can also argue that the creator of this world not necessarily be an omniscient and omnipotent. Thus there is a scope for different types of logic. Hence it cannot be decided only on the basis of logic that there is a creator of this world and that He is omniscient. When the Veda which is ‘apourushheya’ establishes the existence of the Lord, the logic gives full support, but logic alone cannot prove anything. Therefore it is only through the Vedaas one has to know the Lord Vishhnu, who is the supreme Brahman, as the creator of the world. Hence an enquiry of Him has to be conducted. This is established by this Suutra ‘shastraynoitvaat’. This Suutra means Shaastra alone is the proof regarding the creator of this world.

The meaning of the word ‘Shaastrayoni’:

There are different views about the meaning of this Suutra. Some philosophers have interpreted that supreme Brahman is the author of the scriptures . All the Vedaas are born from Him. But there is no need of explaining that here. When it is said that supreme Brahman is the creator of this entire world, one need not explain separately that He is the author of the Shaastra, which is a part of the world. If the Lord has written all the Shaastraas, which deal with all the objects, He should be omniscient only. To explain His omniscience, it is said that He is the creator of all the Shaastraas. This explanation also is not right. Even to create this world, He has to know everything in the world. Against this background of Aagama why should we not assume from the Vedaas that instead of the Lord Vishhnu even the other Gods can be the creators of this world? As an answer to this objection, the next Suutra (aphorism) begins as:

“Om tattu samanvayaat Om”

We should not confirm that the apparent meaning of the Veda is the real meaning. In addition, we should not confirm the meaning of the Veda on the basis of other scriptures written by different personalities. The real meaning of the Veda should be understood through the Veda only. After examining and analyzing the statements before and after we should conclude the meaning of the Veda. In order to understand the meaning of any Vedic statement one should also refer the contextual statements that are before and after. The words that are repeatedly used in that context have to be examined to determine what they emphasize. This process is called in turn ‘Upakrama’ ‘Upasamhara’ and ‘abhyaasa’. The combination of all these processes is called ‘taatparyalinga’ , since they are the methods to determine the purport of the Veda. In addition to this there are three more ‘taatparyalinga-s’ called ‘apuurvata’, ‘phala’ and ‘upapatti’. We have to determine the meaning of the Vedaas by examining the followings:

1) The meaning should have a novelty

2) The meaning should be conducive to obtain the desired fruit discussed in the Vedaas .

3) It should be meaningful when it is critically examined by logic .

We should find the inner meaning of the Vedaas through contextual description through illustrative example in terms of stories and criticisms of opposing views. This is called ‘arthavaada’ (+lÉÇ´ÉÉnù) which is an additional ‘taatparyalinga’. We should try to get the meaning of the Vedaas by using all these seven methods, but not by our intellectual acrobatics of interpretation. One cannot taste the sugar cane by licking it. We can enjoy the juice only when it is chewed. Similarly when we just glance at the Vedaas we cannot get its real essence. We may get it only after proper examination and intense study. Thus when Veda is studied using all these ‘taatparyalinga-s’, it will be established that it is only the Lord Shree Hari , who is the supreme Brahman, that has been primarily described.

To establish that Brahman is the creator of this world, where is the need to justify that He is described in all the Vedaas? is it not sufficient to synthesize only some Vedic statements, which explain the creator of this world? Such a question may arise. The aim of the scriptures is not only to establish that the Lord is the creator of the entire universe but also to teach that He is full of infinite qualities. That is His major characteristic. If the creator of this world is arrived at by interpreting only a few Vedic statements, then only a few qualities will be established in Brahman that are mentioned in those statements. To have the clear knowledge of the infinite qualities in Brahman, it has to be accepted that all the Vedaas describe only the Lord. This is what is explained by the Suutra by the words ‘Sam anvayaat’ . Anvaya means the seven ‘taatparya linga-s’ starting from ‘Upakrama’, as discussed above. ‘Sam’ means when these are properly examined, ‘Sum’ meaning all the Vedaas, ‘anvayaat’ related only to the Lord. That is only the Lord is primarily described in the Vedaas, ‘Sam anvayaat’. Hence the indicated meaning of the Suutra is that the Lord Shree Hari is the creator of this world, possessing infinite qualities.

We have to face a big challenge when we establish that the Lord is described in all the Vedaas. “If a word has to indicate an object the attributes that are implied by the word should be there in that object.” We can call an object as beautiful if the attribute such as beauty is there in it. If Brahman is without any quality and attribute, how can words describe Him? Veda has established by ‘Yato Vaaco nivartante’. That the Brahman is indescribable ‘avaacya’ . The primary meaning of the word is called ‘vaachya’. We call this country where we live as ‘Bharatha’. The country is vaachyaartha, primary meaning of the word Bhaarata. When we say that Bhaaratha,(India) has defeated another country, then it means the people of this country. This meaning is ‘amukhyaartha or lakshyaartha’ of this word. ‘He is living on the Gangaa’ means he lives on the bank of the river Gangaa. This is another example for ‘lakshyaartha’ (indicative meaning). Thus how can all the Vedaas describe Brahman when He cannot be primarily describable by any word? It is like pushing a tumbler idly into the mouth of a patient who is unable to drink even water. To answer this question the next Suutra follows.

___________________________________________________________________-

*Vedas and apparently contradicting statements their in and the important role of the Brahmasutra - ‘Tattusamanvayaath’ in solving the problems by interpreting them consistently, harmoniously and without any controdiction.

The Vedic philosophers are confronted with many contradicting statements in the Vedaas which are regarded as non-authored by any human. Who is the creator of the universe? In the Vedaas some statements declare that it is Lord Vishnu while regarding to some others it is Hiranyagarbha or Lord Shiva etc. There is again a fierce controversy with regard to Bheda and Abheda. There are statements which signify the identity between Brahman and Jiivaas. That Brahman is distinctly different from the Jiivaas and the world, and He is the Lord of the universe, is the purport of some other Vedic statements. Here the confusion is thus further confounded.

In the Vedaas there are some statements which say that Brahman is Nirguna, Niraakaara etc; (attributless and formless) yet some others refute this meaning and say the quite opposite to that as He is Saguna, Saakaara (with full of qualities and form) etc. Some say world is unreal and just superimposed on Brahman. Again some Vedic texts declare that the world or Prapancha is as much real as the Brahman. Here again some philosophers are 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 analysis by the Vedaas and though it has been accepted as Apourushheya? I have herein cited only a few examples of conflicting Vedic texts & statements. There are many such contradictions and interpretations by some philosophers with regard to the nature of Moksha (Liberation from this miserable life and enjoyment of eternal bliss) and the means to achieve it. Such serious contradicting statements in the various parts of the Vedaas only add to confusion although the real objective of the Vedaas is far from such an import. One can say that there cannot be any scope for any human defect in the Vedaas since they are Apourushheya. By this one can dismiss all other views opposed to Veda. But now even Vaidikaas, follewers of Veda are divided regarding the important topics in the Vedaas.

This is a great defect which can be technically termed as Vaakyabheda-dosha i.e. inconsistency in the authentic text. This makes me recollect a joke. A person sends greeting cards to all his friends and relatives and in all the cards the expression “I love You only” is printed. The meaning of the word ‘only’ loses its sanctity!

What is the purpose and use if the Vedaas are Apourushheya 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? Establishing non-human-authorship of the Vedaas with so much of logical and effective arguments and analysis is not going to be fruitful in finding a solution to this serious problem. Though Vedaas are conveyed through the word of the mouth uninterruptedly from time immemorial, they have been made to various conflicting interpretations and these have resulted in various disputes among the Vaidikaas (followers of Vedaas) themselves.

Shree Vedavyaasa the ultimate authority who is virtually responsible for the conveyance of the Vedaas to the humanity and who authored various scriptures tailored to make seekers understood the purport of the Vedaas for their well being in this world, has given us the Brahmasutra which dispels the doubts and confusions. Every earnest student of Vedantha should make it a point to study every scriptural statement, analytically and exhaustively, in depth following the recognized clues or marks of import called ‘taatparya lingaas’ which will help him to arrive at a clear understanding of the Vedic texts and statements. This has been pointed out very clearly and effectively in the fourth Sutra, in Brahmasutra. If the entire Brahmasutra is resting on the first three Suutraas, the first chapter of Brahmasutra is developed on the basis of the fourth Suutra .Hence this is the keystone for the whole of the first chapter of the Brahmasutra. The fourth sutra, the fourth Adhikarana (topic), the first part (paada) and the first chapter of Brahmasutra are named as Samanvaya sutra, Samanvaya Adhikarana, Samanvaya Paada and Samanvaya Adhyaaya respectively. The nearest translation word for Samanvaya is ‘proper exegetical correlation of various scriptural texts. Whichever subject conformed to these ‘taatparya lingaas’ only enjoys importance. Those factos are called

Upakramopasamharau Abhyasopoorvatha Phalam l

Arthavadopapattishcha Lingam Thatparyanirnye ll

Shree Vedavyaasa has pointed out that Brahman alone is the central theme of the Vedaas. Such a conclusion can be arrived after only by applying samanvaya of the Vedic literature through application of ‘taatparya lingaas’ on various Vedic texts

The proving factors are:

Upakrama and Upasamhara :

Relevance and consistency should be there between postulate and conclusion (commencement and end)

Abhyaasa :

Emphasis of the central topic in different word in and through the text. (repetaion)

Apoorvatha : (Novelty) ‘Pramaananthara Avedyathvam’ :

Uniqueness of the subject is that it is not known through other means of knowledge and it can be authoritatively determined finally through Vedas only.

O Phalam :

The purpose or fruitfulness or benefit of the subject presented in the text.

O Arthavaada or Stuthi : Glorification: (appreciative or depreciative statements)

The words of praise in favour of the central theme and words of censure in favour of ideas opposed to the central topic.

O Upapatti (reason) : Essential meaning arrived at through logical illustrations and examples.

The first Suutra of Brahmasutra

1) describes the Lord as full of infinite qualities and He has to be enquired into throuthout the Shaastraas.

The second Suutra

2)explains the definitions of Brahman as He is the creator, sustainer, destroyer, etc; of the world.

The third Suutra

3) The enquiry of Brahman has to be conducted because He can be known through the Shaastra alone.

The fourth Suutra

4) which means that Brahman is the central theme or topic of all Vedantha Shaastraas.

Without following these steps, how can one settle this great controversy when different schools of though claim different themes as central. Unfortunately no author is available to clear our doubts directly. In philosophical field there are works which are commented by the authors to emphasis the subject matter. Hence our traditional Achaaryaas have agreed upon to follow separate method to arrive at conclusion whenever one is confronted with contradicting views. One has to be faithful to these guiding factors to determine the correct meaning of the apparantly conflicting Vedic statements.

A reader can find this classical method used in Shreemannyaayasudhaasaara in and through the text and enjoy it.