Visnutatva Vinirnaya

-by Sri Madhvacharya

translated by Prof K.T Pandurangi

Chapter One (path-1)

Establishing the Pramana or Evidence

I continuously offe my salutations to Lord Narayana who is absolute free from blemishes, who possesses infinite auspicious attributes, who is distinct and superior to Ksara, i.e. Jivas and Jadas, Akshara i.e godess Laksmi, and who is chiefly conveyed by the sacred scriptures.

I shall establish the doctrine conveyed by the adjectives given to Narayana in the above benedictory verse by quoting the authorities from the scripture and the arguments not contradictory to the scripture for the comprehension of the deserving persons in the order in which these adjectives are mentioned above.

Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda, Mahabharatha, the entire Pancharatra, Original Ramayana, the Puranas that are not contrary to these and all such works that follow these are the sacred scripture. The other texts that are opposed to these and indifferent to the tenets in these, are perverted texts. These do not help to know Narayana.

Narayana could be known by his sacred scripture by those who are continuously engaged in the study of these, who are devoted to Narayana, and who have the firm faith in him.

Narayana cannot be comprehended by mere speculation or sense-perception or any other such means. He can be comprehended by the sacred scripture only and by the devoted persons only. Not in any other way.

“He who does not know the Veda etc., sacred scripture will not be able to comprehend the Supreme God who possesses infinite attributes and who is omniscient. The Veda teaches the Supreme God to enable the seeker to obtain the liberation” – thus states the Taittiriya Sruti.

“The Knowledge of the Supreme God cannot be obtained by logic nor it can be removed by the logic if already obtained. The knowledge of the Supreme God imparted by a competent teacher will lead to the vision of the God.” – thus states the Kathaka Sruti.

“Not the senses, nor the inferences help one to comprehend the God. Vedas alone enable to comprehend him” – thus states Pippalada Sruti.

These statements cannot be treated as not authoritative. The Vedas are not the compositions of any individual. “Itihasa and Purana” are the fifth Veda among the Vedas. These are in agreement with the Vedas.

It cannot be contended that there can be no statement which is not composed by a person. Because, if a statement that is not made by any individual is not accepted, that is to say, if impersonal verbal authority is not accepted, then Dharma, Adharma etc., ethical and religious tenets, that are beyond sense perception will go without a source of authority to convey them. However, these tenets i.e., Dharma, Adharma etc, that are beyond sense perception are accepted by all religious and philosophical thinkers.

One who does not accept Dharma, Adharma etc., is not a religious and philosophical thinker at all. Because, such a thinker’s philosophy will go without a subject and a purpose. He cannot claim that teaching the absence of Dharma, Adharma etc., itself is his subject, because, such a teaching will not foster people’s welfare. On the contrary, if people come to believe that there is no Dharma, Adharma etc., to regulate them, they will become more and more aggressive. This will result in a calamity to the people.

Further, nothing is gained by a philosopher who teaches the absence of Dharma, Adharma etc. He does not believe in the results beyond the world of sense perception. Therefore, a philosopher who claims to teach the absense of Dharma, Adharma etc,, has to tactly accept the purposelessness of his teaching and therefore, he is not a philosopher at all.

Dharma, Adharma etc., tenets that are beyond sense perception cannot be comprahended through the statements or compositions made by individual persons. There is a possibility of ignorance and deception on the part of such persons.

To envisage an omniscient person to avoid the contingency of ignorance and deception will not be proper. Because, such envisaging will involve the envisaging of an omniscient person, his being free from the drawbacks of ignorance, and deception, and envisaging that he composed the work considered as authority. This amounts to postulating too many things, not observed elsewhere.

On the other hand if a revealed scripture is considered as the source of Dharma, Adharma etc., nothing beyond this needs to be postulated.

The fact that the Vedas are revealed and not composed by any individual is self evident since the Vedas are known to be without any author by a long tradition. Inspite of such a long tradition if an author is postulated, then, it would be a superfluous postulation. In view of this, if any author is not postulated, then impersonal nature of the Vedas is a foregone conclusion.

It cannot be contended that Vedic statement also have an aothor, like any other statement, because there is no tradition of authorlessness in case of other statements.

Similarly, no one can claim a statement to be a Vedic statement in the absence of such a long tradition.

On the other hand the statements that are revealed to those to whom these spontaneously reveal themselves cannot be considered as non-Vedic, because, these do have the features of the Vedic statements known by the long tradition. These portions do possess the attributes that are stated to be the attributes of Vedic seers.

Brahmanda Purana states: Those hymns are Vedas that are intuitively seen as Vedas by those who possess not less than twenty attributes of an ideal person, who are engaged in penance, and who know many hymns of the Vedas.

The validity of cognition is self evident. If its validity is to be confirmed by another cognition, then, a third cognition will be needed to confirm the validity of the second cognition and so on. This leads to infinite regress. The reason given earlier to point out the authoritative ness of the Vedas were not intended to establish the validity of the knowledge derived from the Vedas. But these were intended to remove certain faults of thinking. For those whose thinking is free from the faults, the validity of cognition is self-evident.

The contention that a cognition needs another cognition to confirm its validity only when there is such a need, is not a normal requirement. Therefore, that there is no infinite regress is not correct. For, this very need is an indication of a faulty thinking. Such doubts arise only to locate the invalidity of cognition and it is invalidity that is not self-evident but needs scrutiny. So far as validity of a cognition is concerned it is self evident.

The contention that the Varnas i.e. letters are created when they are pronounced (and perish soon after ) is not correct. Because, a Varna i.e letter is recognized as the same that was heard on an earlier occasion. To consider Varnas as created will be contrary to such recognition.

It cannot also be contended that the so called recognition is a mistaken notion due to similarity. Because in this case even the well known instance of a recognition viz. “He is the same Devadatta “ may have to be treated as a mistaken notion but not an instance of recognition.

Even the Buddhist who claim everything to be momentary cannot dismiss the recognition of Dik i.e Akasa as an illusion. Because, they have accepted Dik i.e. Akasa as permanent. This is because, according to them Akasa is different from the five Skandas (which only are momentary).

The contention of some Buddhists who claim even Diks i.e. different quarters of Sky as illusory is also not correct, because, in that case even Vijnana and Sunya may have to be treated as illusory.

The contention that the quarters East, West etc are envisaged on the basis of sunrise etc., is also not correct, because, even in darkness one comprehends the quarters east, West etc. An occasional confusion in respect of East, West etc, only is removed by a reference to sunrise etc. Such a confusion can be pointed out even in respect of Vijnana and Sunya also as these very concepts are opposed by others. Thus, the quarter of Akasa are permanent (Therefore, the possibility of recognition has to be accepted in respect of these and hence the possibility of recognition in respect of Varnas cannot be questioned.).

Therefore, the eternality of Varnas and consequently of Vedas is established. The Vedic sentences are recognized as the same sentences all along.

Anumana, Pauruseya etc. are not the source of knowledge of Dharma, Adharma etc., with out the support of Vedas. Dharma, Adharma etc. are not comprehended by Anumana, human made sentences etc. These are comprehended only by not human made Vedas. Therefore, all have to accept non-human made scripture.

The validity of Vedas and the validity of the knowledge obtained from it does not depend upon any external cause. It is self-evident.

On the other hand the invalidity of erroneous knowledge is due to external causes such as defective sense organs etc. Such a position has to be accepted, otherwise, defective sense organs and defective inferences etc., would not be the grounds for invalid knowledge. Not accepting them as the grounds for invalid knowledge is against the experience.

A Sruti passage says: “O sage Virupa ! praise the Supreme God by the eternal speech i.e. Vedas.

Another Sruti passage states : I Pray the Brahman who is the highest object to be obtained by the liberated, both by the eternal and non-eternal speech.”

Paingi Sruti states: “Sruti i.e, Veda is eternal. Smriti and other scriptural literature in non-eternal. Smriti and other scriptural literature in non-eternal.

Katyayana Sruti states: “Brahman is the highest object to be known. Sruti is the highest means to know the Bnrahman. This Sruti is beginning less and eternal. Brahman is also so. He cannot be comprehended without Sruti”.

Infinite are his glories. Each glory is infinite. The extent of Vedas is same as that of Brahman in respect of space and time. Who the wise knows the full import of the Vedas and who can give an exposition of Veda understanding its full import ?

The entire Veda consisting of Vidhi, Arthavada, Samkalpa, Prarthana etc., is eternal and always of the same form. It is present in the mind of the Supreme God always in the same form. At the commencement of each creation the Vedas are uttered by the Supreme God in the same order, with the same letters, and with the same accent without any change. The Vedas are only heard by all and therefore are designated as Sruti. These are partly revealed to the seers who had heard them in the previous births, by the grace of the Supreme God. These are seen by the Supreme God and heard by others. Therefore, these are designated as Sruti and described as seen by the ancients.

The mention of these, sometimes, as created should be taken in the sense of manifested, as in the case of a soul.

Puranas that are intended to explain the import of the Vedas are only changed by the changes in words, sequence etc., at the commencement of each creation. Therefore these are non-eternal. However, their import will be same as in the previous creation.

The Sruti passages that mention the creation of Vedas, state it from the point of view of their manifestation. This may also be taken from the point of view of the secondary abhimana deities. The non-eternality of Vedas is not at all intended by these passages. There is no question of non-eternality of Vedas that are undoubtedly eternal. This is stated in Brahmanada Purana.

If Vedas were not eternal, then, the use of special words Sruti, Veda etc, would not have been justified.

These are called Vedas, because, these are always present; called Sruti, because, these are heard by all, and called Amnaya, because, these are ever present in God’s mind in the same way. This is stated in Varaha Purana.

But for the eternality of Vedas, the reference to them as seen would not have been justified.

It is not justified to say that the letters, the Vedic words and Vedic sentences are not eternal. Because, this are always present in God’s mind and the God is omniscient.

It is also not justified to say that it is only the impressions of these that are present as in the case of Jar etc., objects present in the mind. Because, this will go against the fact that there is a recognition of these. This is already stated.

The non-eternality of Puranas also is in the sense that their wordings are changed in each creation.

Therefore, the letters that are manifested in the sound that is an attribute of Akasha, the Vedas that are the sequencial arrangement of these are eternal.

It is not correct to argue that the Vedas are not the valid source for the knowledge of the Supreme God since no sentence can convey an object that is just there. It is observed that the objects mutually related are conveyed by the sentences.

One knows the meaning of the expressions “the mother”, “the father” etc., when these are used with reference to the persons concerned introducing them by pointing out to them by extending fingers etc.

He who insists that the sentences communicate only such entities that are related with the activity has to realize that the so called activity is not related with any further activity but still it is communicated by the sentence. If it is contended that an activity need not be related to any other activity for being communicated, it is in the case of other entities that they have to be related with some or other activity for being communicated, then two standards are set for the communication by the sentences, and this is accepting something more than needed.

Sentences such as “She is your mother”, “He is your father”, “You are beautiful” do convey the entities that are not related to any activity but that are just there. It is the experience of all that these sentences validily convey these objects.

A sentence has no other purpose than conveying its meaning. This is done in case of communicating the entities that are just there.

A person proceeds to do something when he knows that it is desirable to him and witdraws from something when he knows that it is undesirable to him. Therefore, all sentences communicate siddha only.

It is acceptable by all schools of thought that grammar, etymology etc., communicate facts only without relation to any activity. If these branches of knowledge are not accepted as communicating, then, verbal communication itself becomes impossible. This is stated in Naradiya purana.

The Vedas and the other sacred literature convey the supreme God Narayana who is omniscient, creator of all, free from the defects and inadequancies, and Supreme. Veda, Itihasa purana and other scriptures convey him. The other things i.e. Dharma etc., are conveyed only to enable us to understand his glory.

The convention that the Vedas convey the identity between the Jivas and Brahman is not tenable, because, there are no Pramanas to support this contention.

Further the contention that the difference between the Jivas and the Brahman is already known by Pratyaksha and Anumana, and therefore the Sruti passages only re-state what is already known and hence are not Pramana is also not tenable, because, one of the parties to the difference viz., Brahman cannot be known by Pratyaksha or Anumana. Hence the Sruti passages that convey the difference are not mere restatements of what is already known. Hence, these are Pramanas.

The contention that Ishvara can be known by inference is also no tenable, because the absence of God also can be proved by inference.

The syllogism ‘the products earth, trees etc., that have no known producer have a producer i.e, Agent because, these are products can be countered by a counter syllogism ;the products earth, trees etc., do not have a producer, i.e, an agent, because, the producer as envisaged by you is not acceptable to us.

If, for the second syllogism “akaryatva” is stated to be ‘Upadi’ i.e, a conditioning factor, then we say that ‘Sarirajanyatva’ is Upadhi for the first syllogism.

If the difference is established by Pratyaksha and Anumana, then, the Sruti that is supposed to convey abheda will be Apramana. Consequently, if Abheda Sruti is Apramana because it is opposed to Pratyaksha and Anumana, then, there is no question of Bhedasruti being treated only a anuvada or re-statement. A stronger pramana will not be Anuvada; it will strengthen what is already conveyed by durbala Pramana.

Though normally sruti is superior to Pratyaksha and Anumana, when these are Upajivya the Sruti is not Pramana as against these. Because, these Upajivya Pramanas provide the subject matter for Upajivaka Pramana i.e, Sruti.

Even for advaitin the subject matter of Abhada Sruti viz, Jiva and Ishvara are provided by the Pratyaksha and anumana. While arguing for anuvaditva of Bheda Sruti Advaitin stated that Ishvara is known by Anumana and Jiva is known by Pratyaksha. Hence, if abheda is opposed to these Pramanas, then abheda Sruti cannot be Pramana. As regards the Bheda between Isvara known through Anumana and Jiva known through Pratyaksha, the very experience conveys the difference since every one knows that Jiva is not Sarvakarta.

Agama that is in conflict with the experience of Saksin cannot be considered as Pramana. In that case even the experience of Agamapramana may have to be treated as Apramana.

Further, there being many Pramanas in a given case affirms its validity. When many mention the same thing and it is also confirmed by observation, it results in the affirmation of its validity.

When there is no dispute in respect of the contention made, then only, mentioning of second and further Pramanas results in anuvada i.e., re-statement. In the present case, the abhedavadins oppose bheda and therefore, there is a need to affirm Bhedapramanya by Sruti.

When something is opposed to many Pramanas, then it is Apramana. This is observed in the case of Suktirajata.

The contention that ‘Suktirajata is Apramana, not because, it is opposed to many Pramanas but because, it is defective’ is not correct, because, whetever is opposed to many Pramanas that is bound to be defective. In fact, the fact of its being defective is detected by the opposition of many Pramanas.

The senses eye, ear etc., free from the defects constitute Pratyaksha, Tarka i.e Anumana free from the fallacies is inference, the statements free from the defects are Agama. The Skshijnana is called Anubhava. The defects are detected by the Superior Pramanas. The auperiority of Pramanas is on two grounds viz.

• 1. Many Pramanas supporting the matter concerned

  2. A Pramana being superior by its very nature.

Between these two criteria that which is superior by its very nature has to be preferred to that of the support of many Pramanas, Upajivyatva etc., constitute the grounds for the superior nature of a Pramana.

Conveying the objects as they are, constitutes Pramanya of Pramanas. This is primarily done by the knowledge. The knowledge is of two types viz.

• 1. Anubhava i.e experience

  2. Bahya i.e derived from outside

Between these two experience is superior.

Pratyaksha, Anumana and Agama constitute Anu-Pramana. Among Pratyaksha, Anumana and Agama, the Agama is normally superior. However, when Agama is in conflict with Upajivya Prtyaksha etc., then Upajivya is superior.

This Pararthanumana is stated to consist of Prtijna etc., three or more avayavas. However, these are superfluous, since Upapatti i.e, the presentation of Hetu that has Vyapti is the chief requirement and the statements of Pratijna, Hetu etc., are only intended to present the Hetu that has Vyapti to the mind of the person who has to infer. Without reminding the presence of Hetu that has Vyapti, the mere Pratijna etc., statements will not help him. Depending upon the need of the person any one of these avayavas can remind him of the presence of Hetu that has Vyapti. Therefore to insist on three or more avayavas is superfluous.

Presentation of Hetu that has Vyapti constitute the chief element in the process of reasoning to infer. This can be brought about by the statement of Pratijna alone, Hetu with distant alone, Upanaya or Nigamana alone.

From experience it is clear that any one or two or three of these can lead to the reasoning necessary to the inference depending upon the need of the person who is to be enabled to infer.

Virodha i.e, syntactical incongruity, Adhikya i.e, extra words, Nyunata i.e, incompleteness, Asangati i.e, absence of reciprocity, these are the defects of reasoning. Virodha i.e, incongruity is of two types viz.

• 1. Svatah i.e, arising out of one’s own statement, action etc.

  2. Anyatah i.e, pointed out by another Pramana. Jati is self contradiction.

These defects along with Samvada i.e acceptance of the disputed point, and Anukti i.e, keeping mum, constitute nigrahasthanas.

Arthapatti is presumed something to justify what is already known but needs justification.

Comprehension of similarity in something that was seen before by now seeing a similar objects is Upamana.

Abhava is comprehended in two ways.

• 1. By Anubhava i.e, experience

  2. By Yoga anupalabdhi i.e, non-comprehension of an entity even when appropriate means to comprehend it are operating. The absence of bliss etc., is comprehended in the first way and absensce of Jar etc., is comprehended in the second way. The first way comprehending abhava is Pratyaksha while the second is Anumana. Sometimes the absence of jar etc., entities is also comprehended by Pratyksha.

Arthapatti and Upamana are varieties of Anumana.

Agama is of two types : Nitya i.e, eternal and Anitya i.e, created.

Pratyaksha is of three types viz, Isvara Pratyaksha, Yogi Pratyaksha and Ayogi Pratyaksha. All these three arise by senses. The senses of Vishnu and Lakshmi are eternal, of the nature of consciousness, and part of their very nature. The senses of others are of two types viz.,

• 1. Senses that are part of their very nature.

  2. Senses that are not part of their very nature.

The later are of three kinds: Daiva, Asura and Madhya.

Since the Aksa i.e, senses move towards the objects the knowledge obtained by them is called Pratyaksha. The senses of God are Aksa in the primary sense since these never perish. In the case of others as their senses develop through ego at the commencement of creation and subside again during destruction, these are Aksa only in secondary sense.

Sambhava is also a form of reasoning. Therefore, it is not a separate Pramana. Anumana establishes things when duly supported by Pratyaksha and Agama. In other cases, there is no certainty about its conclusions. This is all stated in Brahmatarka.

Now, the Pramanas that convey Bheda are Uipajivya and therefore, are superior. Therefore, it is proper to take even the so called Abhada Sruti as conveying Bhada only. If Bheda is not conveyed by Pratyaksha which is Upajivya Pramana here, then, how can Bhada sruti be considered as anuvada, and if bheda is conveyed by Prtyaksha, then, how can Abheda Sruti remain without being repudiated?

Unless the subject under reference is already conveyed by some other Pramana earlier, the later Pramana will not be anuvada. If it is contended that the earlier Pramana i.e, Pratyaksha is inferior, then, later Pramana i.e, bheda Sruti willnot be anuvada at all. Therefore, bheda Srutis are superior.

In case the statements that are in conflict with all other Pramanas are considered as authoritative and superior then, the purport of the statements such as ‘Idam agre naiva kinchana asit’ etc. (There was nothing at the commencement of the creation. It was all sunya. Therefore the Sunya is the cause of the world etc.) has to be taken as authoritative and as the purport of the entire scripture, without any scrutiny, on the ground that it has apurvata since it is opposed to all other Pramanas.

It cannot be argued that such a purport is opposed to reason and therefore cannot be taken as authoritative, because, in the openion of those who consider the opposition of other Pramanas as the ground of apurvata, the opposition of reason will be a merit. In case the purport of the statements such as ‘Idam vaagre naiva kinchana etc., is considered as supported by reason, then, it will be anuvada.

The correct position is, whatever is supported by other Pramanas that cannot be denied. If it is contended that Bheda is not supported by Pratyaksha and Anumana, then, Bheda sruti will not be Anuvada and will validly convey Bheda. In either case Bheda Sruti are authoritative and superior.

It is not correct to say that when there are many Pramanas in a matter the second and later Pramanas are not authoritative as these merely restate what is already conveyed. It is observed that when there are many Pramanas in a matter , there is affirmation of it. If such a position is not accepted, then, Abhyasa etc, will not determine the authoritativeness. All have accepted the fact that Abhyasa determines the Purport.

In case Abhyasa is not accepted as a determinative of purport by the Advaitin, then, the abhyasa i.e, repetition of ‘Tatvamasi’ nine times will have to be considered as mere anuvada i.e, restatement but not as an authority in respect of Abheda.

Establishing the difference between Soul and the God with the help of Scriptures. (Part-2)

If it is contended by the Advaitin that repletion of Tattvamasi’ is intended for those who are not able to comprehend Abheda by the first statement, then we also say that Bheda Sruti is meant for those who are not able to comprehend Bheda by Pratyaksha. Therefore, many Pramanas in a matter are intended only to affirm the matter concerned. Therefore, ‘Tattvamasi’ etc. Sruti statements do not convey abheda at all. All Sruti passages convey the supremacy of Vishnu only.

It is stated by Lord Krishna himself –

There are two sentient beings in this universe viz, Ksara and Akshara. All sentient beings other than Lakshmi are designated as Ksara while Lakshmi who does not undergo any change is Akshara. The highest Purusa is distinct from these two and is designated as Paramatma. He is the ruler of all, he is eternal, and he supports all entering into them.

I am designated as Purushottama both in the Vedas and other sacred literature since I am superior to both Ksara and Akshara. He who knows me in this way without any misunderstanding, knows all, and he worships me with complete devotion. This secret knowledge is given to you. Realising this, attain the direct knowledge of me i.e, the Supreme God, and attain liberation.

The entire sacred literature chiefly conveys Vishnu the Supreme God and nothing else. Dharma etc, other matters, are conveyed only secondarily. This is because, the entire sacred lintended to lead to the Purushartha i.e, liberation which can be obtained only by his grace.

The chief purport of all Vedas is to declare the supremacy of Lord Vishnu. The other matters such as Dharma etc, are conveyed only secondarily.

It is most appropriate to say that the purport of the entire scriptures is to convey the supremacy of Lord Vishnu only. Among the goals of life Moksha i.e, the salvation, is the supreme goal.

Bhallaveya Sruti states that among Bharma, Artha etc., goals of life, Dharma etc. are not permanent. It is only Moksha that is eternal. Therefore, a wise person should aspire to obtain Moksha.

The Mahabharata also says that the other goals such as Dharma, Artha etc. are not permanent and the misery is not completely eliminated by them. Therefore, these do not lead to the highest happiness. It is Moksha that gives highest happiness for those who rotate in the cycle of birth and death by releasing from it.

This Moksha cannot be obtained without the grace of God.

The Narayana Sruti says that one will become free from this miserable cycle of birth and death only by the grace of Narayana and not by any other means. Therefore, those who desire to be free from this Samsara should meditate upon Lord Narayana only.

The Kathaka Upanishad says that God cannot be attained by discourses, by intelligence, or by vast learning. God can be obtained only by one whom he chooses to bestow his grace upon. The God will reveal himself only to such a chosen person.

God himself declares in the Gita “I shall immediately lift from Samsara those whose mind is fixed on me.

The Skanda Purana says: Creation, sustenance, destruction, regulation, enlightment, veiling, bondage and liberation all these are due to the Supreme Lord Hari. He is absolutely independent.

The Supreme Lord Janardhana gives knowledge to the ignorant, liberation to the enlightened and bliss to the liberated.

The Supreme Brahman i.e, Vishnu binds all in the cycle of birth and death, liberates all from the same and enables the liberated to realize the bliss which is of very nature.

It is observed that the love of God is especially obtained by knowing the excellence of his qualities and not by thinking as identical with him. The superiors are displeased if one thinks that he is equal to them. The kings harm those who think themselves as kings; on the other hand, if one talks of the excellence of their qualities, they will grant all his desires.

The Sauparna Sruti says: Lord Vishnu will not have that much affection for anyone which he will have for one who knows the excellence of his qualities.

One will obtain liberation by the love of God. Therefore, all Vedas chiefly convey him only.

O Arjuna ! he who knows me as Supreme Purusa without any distortion, knows me well and he worships me with complete devotion.

In this way Lord Krishna himself has declared that he will be very much pleased with those who know the excellence of his qualities. Therefore, all Srutis and smritis chiefly convey the supremacy of Lord Vishnu.

There is no Pramana to indicate that the purport of Sruti is abhedha i.e, Jivabrahmaikya.

Bheda i.e, difference is comprehended either as adjective or as substantive. But these very positions of adjectives and substantive depend upon Bheda i.e, difference. Similarly Bheda is comprehended having a reference to Bharmi i.e, that which is differentiated and Pratyogi, that from which it is differentiated. But these two positions depend upon Bheda. Therefore, the very concept of Bheda i.e, difference cannot be sustained.

This objection against the very concept of Bheda is not tenable, because, Bheda i.e, difference is an internal attribute of the object concerned. It constitutes the very nature of the object concerned.

It cannot be argued that Bheda cannot be the very nature of the object concerned since its comprehension needs a reference to Bharmi and Pratyogi. Because, the concept of Aikya i.e, Abheda of Advaitins also needs a reference to Bharmi and Pratyogi, but still it is considered as of the very nature of Brahman. The absence of the comprehension of the difference even when the object concerned is comprehended, can be explained on par with the absence of the comprehension of Abheda even when Brahman is comprehended.

The fact is, Bheda is comprehended as soon as an object is comprehended. An object is always comprehended as distinct from all other objects. The statement – ‘The difference of the object’ has to be understood like the statement – ‘the nature of the object’ the nature of the object is the very object but still it is stated as ‘of the object’.

I case, Bheda i.e, difference is not an internal attribute of the object concerned, then when an object is observed the fact of its being distinct from all other objects will not be comprehended at all. If its distinction from all other is not comprehended, then, one may mistake even oneself to be the jar etc. Such doubts never arises.

Normally, one comprehends an object as distinct from all other objects and only in such cases where there is some similarity he entertains doubts. No one entertains any doubt in respect of himself whether he is Devadatta or jar etc., other objects. Normally one comprehends an object as distinct from all others in general, first, and then only as distinct from jar etc., particular objects. Therefore, there is no reciprocal dependency in the comprehension of the object and the difference.

The objection viz., in case the object and its difference from all other objects are comprehended simultaneously, then, there will be the contingency of Dharmi and all Pratyogins being grasped simultaneously, is not tenable. Because, the comprehension of these together as a group is possible as in the case of the comprehension of thousand lamps.

Advaitins also have to accept visesa within one entity. They have accepted the distinction of Brahman from all others by quoting the Sruti ‘Neti Neti’. It results in repetition if Visesha is not accepted. The distinction from the Jar and the distinction from the cloth cannot be one and the same. Therefore, the comprehemsion of the difference is quite logical.

The attitude of considering as Mithya even such things that are established by Pramana is the attitude of a daylight robber. Things that are established by Pratyaksha cannot be repudiated by inference. The inference that are opposed to Pratyaksha are invariably fallacious inferences.

The appearance of sukti as rajata is considered as false on the ground that its falsity is brought out by a stronger Pratyaksha but not by mere inference.

If what is established by Pratyaksha is rejected merely on the ground of inference, then one has to go to the extent of saying that Prithivitva is not present in Prithivi also as it is not found in Ap etc., in the other four.

Therefore, what is established by Pratyaksha cannot be considered as erroneous merely by inference.

In the light of this, the inference that oppose Bheda are fallacious as these are opposed to Sruti, Smriti, Pratyaksha and Anumana.

The contention that there is no Bheda i.e, real difference but it is accepted as Vyavaharika i.e, empirical, is not correct. Because, the concept of Vyavaharika i.e, Sadadadvilakshana that which is neither real nor unreal is not tenable.

He who claims that Asat is not comprehended, cannot deny it unless he has comprehended it, and he cannot deny it if he has comprehended it. Further, the distinction from Asat cannot be comprehended unless Asat is comprehended.

The Suktiraja comprehended in an illusion is not Sadasadvilakshana, because, on sublation one states that he saw the silver that did not exist. It cannot be urged that it is not non-existant since it is experienced. In an illusion non-existing is comprehended as existing and existing as non-existing. Such reverse comprehension is illusion.

The contention that Asat is not comprehended in illusion is not tenable. The anirvachaniya rajat that is comprehended in the illusion has to be comprehended as Sat during the illusion. This Satva of Anirvachaniya Rajat is Asat. The comprehension of this Satva of Rajata has to be accepted.

It cannot be urged that this Satva is also Anirvavhaniya i.e, Sadasadvilakshana. This will lead to infinite regress. Further the Anirvachaniya status of the very first step i.e, Suktirajata is not yet established. In the absence of its establishment the whole chain of Anirvachaniya will break down.

Further, if Rajata was Anirvachaniya, then, the sublating experience would have referred to it as Anirvachaniya Rajata.

The word Mithya conveys Asat. There is no proof to say that there is Sadasadvilakshana entity. Acceptance of such an entity is opposed to experience. Only Sat and Asat are experienced. Thus, there is no Anirvachaniya i.e, Sadasadvilakshana entity. According to Advaitin Asat is not comprehended. However, Bheda is comprehended. Therefore, Bheda i.e, difference is Sat. Hence it is not justified to argue for the absence of Bheda.

The difference between Jiva and Paramatma conveyed by Sruti cannot be denied. If it is contended that what Sruti conveys is not true, then the Abheda conveyed by the Sruti will also not be true.

How can those who say that Sruti conveys untruth claim to be the followers of Veda? Buddhists are declared as non-followers of Veda only because, they say that Vedas convey untruth.

In the light of the above the Supremacy of Lord Vishnu is the purport of the entire Veda.

Further, Jiva-Paramatma Abedha cannot be the purport of Veda as it is opposed to all Pramanas.

Firstly, it is opposed to one’s own experience. No one experiences that he knows all, he is the master of all, he is free from the sorrow and he is free from the drawbacks. One the contrary every one experiences in the opposite way. These experiences cannot be considered as untrue as these are not opposed by any Pramana.

There is no Sruti passage that teaches Abheda. On the other hand all Sruti passages teach Bheda. For instance, ‘Thou art not that’ is taught nine times with sutiable illustrations. Here Abheda is not taught.

Just as a bird, tied by a string, flying in different directions and not finding any resting place returns to the place where it is tied, similarly, all these beings have God as their source, sustained by the God, and find their abode in God even after liberation.

Just as, my dear, the bees prepare honey by collecting the juices from the different kinds of trees and put them together.

And just as these juices are not able to discriminate themselves as I am the juice of this tree, I am the juice of this tree’ similarly, my dear, all these Jivas are with the God but do not know that they are with the God.

Consequently, these are born as tiger, lion, wolf, boar, worm, fly, gnat or mosquito, whatever these are, due to this ignorance.

These rivers, my dear, the eastern flow towards the east, the western towards west. These flow from sea to sea. These join the sea. Just as these rivers do not know as ‘I am this one, I am this one’, similarly, my dear, the Jivas who come from the God, do not know that they have come from the God.

These are born as tiger, lion, wolf, boar, worm, fly, gnat or mosquito, whatever these are, due to this ignorance.

This three being entered by the God remains sucking water and rejoicing.

Uddalaka asks his son Svetaketu ‘My dear! Bring a fruit of that Nyagroda tree’. The son brings, ‘Revered Sir, here it is’. ‘Break it’. ‘Revered Sir it is broken’. ‘What do you see there?’ ‘Revered sir, these extremely fine seeds’. ‘Break one of these’. ‘Revered sir it is broken’. ‘What do you see there?’ ‘Revered Sir, nothing at all’.

Then, Uddalaka said to Svetaketu ‘My dear, that very subtle one i.e, the God whom you do not perceive, verily, because of his support this big Nyagroda tree exists.

Uddalaka told Svetaketu ‘Put this salt in the water in a vessel and come to me in the morning’. He did so. Then, Uddalaka asked him ‘Bring me the salt put in the water yesterday night’. Svetaketu searched for it in the water and did not get it as it was completely dissolved.

My dear, take a sip of water from this end, how is it? ‘Salt sir’. Take a sip of water from the middle, how is it? ‘Salt Sir’. Take a sip of water from the end, how is it? ‘Salt Sir’. ‘Throw it away and come to me.’ Svetaketu did so. It is there only, the God is present there but you do not observe him.

My dear, just as a person brought from the Gandhara region blind-folded and left in the forest where there are no human beings etc.

Then, when his speech merged into Manas, Manas into Prana, Prana into Tejas and Tejas into the Supreme God, he does not know etc.

My dear, they bring him dragging by hand and saying that ‘he has robbed and he has committed the theft, heat the axe for him’. If he has committed the theft, then he is a liar. Being a liar he is covered by untruth. Hence, when he hold the heated axe he is burnt and killed. But if he has not committed the theft, he is truthful. Being truthful he is covered by truth. Hence, when he hold the heated axe he is not burnt and he is released.

Similarly,a person who obtains a right preceptor acquires the right knowledge of the God.

Thus, the nine illustrations are given only to explain the difference between the God and Jivas.

There cannot be any identity between the bird and the String, the juice drops of the flowers of different trees, rivers and sea, the Jiva of a tree and the God present in it, the seed and the subtle element in it, the water and the salt in it, the Gandhara region and the person returned to it, the ignorant sick person and the God who regulates his senses, the thief and the stolen articles. The statements his senses, the thief and the stolen articles.

The statements ‘Being supported and dependent upon the Sat i.e, that God’ ‘Those who do not know it, will be born as the tiger, lion etc.’ ‘Having arisen from the Sat i.e, the God’ ‘Those who do not know it, will be born as tiger, lion etc., state that those who do not know the difference between the God and Jivas suffer.

A person who comes out of the house and enters again into the house will not become identical with it. In the passage ‘These rivers come out from the sea and enter back into the sea and the sea remains the sea’ the difference is stated. Other wise the statement would have been as ‘these become the sea’.

Therefore, the rivers come out of sea and enter into the sea (through the clouds). The sea remains the same sea. The rivers will not become sea. The distinct water particles of the rivers will not become identical with the water particles of the sea. Such a position will not stand to reason. In that case, a few people who enter into a congregation of people will have to be treated as becoming identical with them. This is against the experience and without the support of any reason.

In the passage “He enters into the God” the word ‘Sva’ refers to the God. This meaning for the word ‘Sva’ is found in the Sutra ‘Svatmana cha Uttarayoh’.

The Supreme God Vishnu is designated as ‘Sva’ because of his independence. He is designated as Atma, because, he is all pervasive. He is designated as Brahma, because, he possesses infinite attributes. He is glorious and he is imperishable. This is stated in Pramopanishat.

The word Apita refers to the entry only, because, the word ‘Svam’ is mentioned in the accusative. In case identity was intended to be conveyed, the word would have been used as ‘Svena’ with the instrumental case.

Just as a bird enters into ots nest, similarly, Jiva enters into the God during the deep sleep and liberated states. However, he is distinct from him.

My dear, similarly, this Jiva moves towards different objects (during the waking and dream states), not finding any other resting place rests in God only (during the deep sleep state).

In this passage also the word Manas refers to Jiva and the word Prana refers to God. In the passage ‘where the Jiva enters into God’ these two only have a reference.

Jiva is designated as Manas because, he is of sentient nature, he is designated as Pudgal, since he goes to hell, he is called as Anusayi and Sansari since he is affected by his deeds.

The God is called Prana since he directs all. He is called San as he is free from the drawbacks.

In the passage ‘All beings arise from the God designated as Sat; these are sustained by him and have his as their ultimate support.’ Bheda i.e, difference (between the God and Jiva) is stated.

Lord Vishnu is different from the Jivas, because, he is the creator, supporter and the abode after liberation.

Just as in the passage “I shall enter into these three deities with Jiva i.e, Aniruddha form and create names and things’, the word Jiva refers to the God, similarly, in the passage ‘being entered by Jiva i.e, the God Aniruddha, the Vrksajiva remains sucking water and rejoicing’ the word Jiva conveys God. Sruti stated that the word Jiva is a name of the God Aniruddha.

Lord Visnu is designated as Jiva, since he sustains the senses of Jivas entering into the bodies of sentient and non-sentient. By mixing the great elements by the process of trivritkarana he makes the Jiva rotate in the cycle of birth and death. To be distinct from the Jiva is his characteristic. The Jiva experiences joy ecen when he is in a three, because of the presence of the God in ti.

In the passage ‘Having entered into these three the Jiva, i.e, God Aniruddha’ it is not correct to take as ‘Samsari Jiva entered again into these three’, because it is already clear that these three are sentient beings in view of the earlier statements ‘the Tejas saw’, ‘the Ap saw’, ‘these three deities’. Therefore, in this passage the word Jiva refers to God only.

In the passage ‘being entered by Jiva i.e, the God Aniruddha, the Vrksa Jiva sucks water and rejoices’, the word Jiva refers to the God only. However, one who sucks water and rejoices in Vrksa Jiva. A non-sentient being cannot rejoice.

Body is the place for the sorrow and for the Joy. But the body is non-sentient and is made out of Prakrti. It is the sentient in the body who experiences these.

In the passage ‘left by the God this (body) dies, the God does not die’ also, the word Jiva refers to the God.

‘Bereft of Jiva i.e, God Aniruddha, one dies. The Jiva i.e, God Aniruddha does not die.’ In this passage also, the word Jiva refers to the God.

The Sansari Jiva is not primarily the sustainer of life. A person is declared dead when God leaves his body.

In the passage ‘My dear! That very subtle one i.e, the God whom you do not perceive, verily, because of his big Nyagrodha tree exists’. The word Anima refers to the God only. Because, later it is stated ‘The God is subtle, he is the essence of all, regulator of all, his will is infallible, he is the Lord of all, you are distinct from him.

With reference to seeds the expression ‘Anvyahiva’ is used in feminine gender and with the particle Uva i.e, as it were. Therefore, the word Anima (that is used in masculine) does not refer to the seeds. It cannot also be said that Svetaketu is not observing the seeds.

The expression aitadAtmya means belonging to the God or of the Lordship of God. In the phrase ‘sa Atma’ the word Atma refers to God only.

In the sutras ‘Dyubhvadi ayatanam Svasabdat’ ‘Na anumanam Atatacchabdat’, ‘Pranabhritn cha’ and in the passage ‘Tameva ekam jAnath AtmAnam’, since the word Atma which is a synonym of the word ‘Sva’ is used, the God is referred to and not Prakrti or Jiva. This is stated by Vedavyasa himself.

Therefore, the word ‘Atma’ primarily refers to the God only.

The supreme God Hari is designated as Atma because he is everywhere and he knows all. The others are called Atma only in the secondary sense. Their attributes are limited.

In the passage ‘Prana merges into the Tejas, and the Tejas into the Supreme God, he does not know’ the dependency of the Jiva on the God only is stated by pointing out that when the God takes in the Prana etc., the Jiva will not be able to know and function through them, and when the Goad allows these to function through them, and when the God allows these to function out then only the Jiva knows and functions through them.

When the God endows Jiva with the Prana etc., then, the Jiva knows and functions but when these senses are made functionless, then, he is not able to know anything.

In the passage “He robbed, he stole’ also since only an object that is different from the robber could be robbed, the difference is stated in this illustration also. One who thinks himself to be the God unmindful of the distinction is a robber only. He who gives up his own is not a robber.

The unwise who talk of the identity (between Jiva abd Brahman) without knowing the true teachings of Sastra, engaged only in debate, afflicted with the lust, anger, and arrogance are the robbers of the scriptures since they do not know the purport of the scriptures correctly.

Those who steal the Brahman by hiding his true nature, will never enjoy bliss, their minds are immature and inauspicious, they always look for the drawbacks and never seek God’s attributes, their very constitution is that of Tamas and therefore , their goal is Tamas only.

The God is distinct in respect of his very nature, by the evidence of the scriptures, and for the very purpose of comprehension. Therefore, there will be no scriptural harmony if one considers himself to be identical with the God. This is stated in Mokshadharma.

Like the bird and the string to which it is tied, like the juice of flowers of different trees, like the rivers and sea, like water and salt, like the thief and the stolen property, like the person and the country of Gandhara, the Jiva and God are distinct and have distinct characteristics. Though the God is distinct and is regulator of Jiva, the ignorant do not realize this because of his very subtle nature. One who knows the distinction from the God attains liberation but those who do not realize it, will remain in bondage. This is stated in Paramopanishad.

The ignorant who do not realize that Lord Visnu regulates senses, vital airs, Manas etc., of all Jivas, God is distinct from Jivas, and thinks that he himself is the master of his body, senses, vital airs and mind continues to be in bondage. But he who realizes the distinction between the God and himself will attain liberation. Those who do not realize this distinction will be in bondage.

Svetaketu had become conceited thinking that he himself had studied the entire Veda without realizing that it was God who had bestowed this knowledge on him. This conceit is removed here by teaching him that he is entirely depended upon the God.

“some say that before creation there was nothing, it was all void. This view of some debaters is also refuted here.

Some ignorant persons consider the sacrifices, gifts etc., only as the highest good without knowing the true purport of Sruti. Their wrong thought is also refuted here. It is already pointed out that some ignorant persons talk of identity between Jiva and Brahman and their view is rejected.

The process of creation by the God is explained from the passage “Sadeva somya idam agre asit’ etc., to convey that all are entirely dependent on God.

By knowing one all others are known on three grounds viz. (1) Pradhanyat i.e, on account of the God being most important. (2) Sadrsyat i.e, on account of others slight similarity with the God. (3) Karanatatvat i.e, on account of God being the cause.

Not on account of all others being unreal as contended by Advaitin. By knowing the real, one will not the unreal. One who knows Sukti (the adhisthana) will not know Rajata (the aropa). Because these two comprehensions are opposed to each other. (One who comprehends the superimposed will not know that on which it is superimposed and One who knows that on which something is superimposed will not know the superimposed.

One who does not know Rajat that is superimposed by realizing that it is not really Rajata knows Sukti (the adhisthana of superimposition) on the contrary if he still comprehends Rajat (without realizing that it is not Rajata) he does not know Sukti.

The comprehension of the absence of something needs the knowledge of that elsewhere. If such a position is not accepted the comprehension of the absence itself becomes impossible.

By the knowledge of the most prominent the unimportant are as good as known (that is to say, the purpose of knowing them is superfluous). For example when the most important person of the village is known, invited or destroyed, it is stated the whole village is known, invited or destroyed. Similarly, when the cause i.e, the father is known, the son is known, and one states that I know that this boy is the son of this person. (Similarly by the description of God’s creation ) it will be known that this world is God’s creation.

By the knowledge of one woman one knows other as women on account of similarity. Such similarity is intended to be conveyed here by the example “My dear, just as by knowing one lump of clay, all clay-made things are known’ etc.

Otherwise the word ‘one’ and ‘lump’ would be purposeless. ‘By the knowledge of clay’ would have been sufficient. The other clay objects do not consist of this one lump of clay. Therefore, it is only similarity that is intended to be conveyed here.

‘My dear, just as by knowing one gold nugget all that is made of gold is known’; ‘My dear, just as by knowing one nail-cutter all that is made of iron is known’ – in these examples also the words ‘Eka’ and ‘Mapi’ will be superfluous. All golden objects are not made of only one nugget of gold. All iron objects are not made of a nail-cutter.

The words other than Sanskrit words are produced by the sense of speech and therefore are not real. But in the exmple ‘the Sanskrit word Mrittika is eternal’ it is stated that ‘the words other than Sanskrit words are produced and therefore are not eternal but the Sanskrit word Mrittika is not produced (it is only manifested) and therefore it is eternal.’ This is the meaning of this Sruit.

Here the word ‘vAchArambhaNa’ is not used in the sense of Mithya. To read this word as ‘vAchArambhANamAtra’ is reading something that is not found in the Sruti text. In that case the words ‘iti’ and ‘nAmadhEya’ will become superfluous.

The Supreme God who is omniscient, ruler of the minds of all, superior to all, independent, created all the things truly at all times.

Whatever the god has created that is true. Nothing is sublated later. The Supreme God receives the sacrificial offerings and bestows the fruits on the sacrificers. O, the affluent Indra and Brhaspati! the world governed by you is real. All the gods know your task of protecting this world. I declare the great and true deeds of the Supreme God.

This world is going on endlessly as it is. It was never sublated in the past and will never be sublated in future.

Ignorant persons who do not know the great power of the Supreme God say that this world is not real. The God has created this world truly and therefore is designated as Satyakarma.

Some say that this world is unreal and sublated. It has no Lord. It is not developed through the stages of Prakrti, Mahat, Ahankara etc. It has no definite cause. The ignorant who had such a view indulge in cruel activities and lead the world towards destruction.

The world is sometimes compared to the dream, etc., only to bring out its non-eternal nature, changing nature and the nature of its dependency. It is not intended to convey its sublating nature i.e, falseness. The omniscient God Lord Visnu knows it all the time. Therefore it is not correct to say that it is sublated by the knowledge. However, it is always dependent upon the God. The world is called as Mayamaya as it is created by the Prajna i.e, Knowledge of the God. It is called as Anrta as it is occupied by the God. The world is eternal as a continuous flow. It is never sublated by the knowledge. The God is called ‘A’

And the world is ‘true’ or ‘Satya’ . Since the world is entirely dependent upon the God he is designated as ‘Asatya’. God is the regulator of the reality of the real like the sun regulating the reality of the rainbow. Satya is the secret name of the Supreme God. Pranas i.e, Chaturmukha Brahma etc., Gods are called Satya and he is the regulator of their Styatva.

O Lord! Your will is called as Mahamaya, Avidya, Nityati, Mohini, Prakrti, Vasana etc., by innumerable names.

It is called Prakrti as it does great things, it is called Vasana as it creates.

The God is called Aa, the knowledge pertaining to him is called AvidyA. That which is plentiful is MayA and his will is called mAya as it is plentiful. The God’s will is called by all these names. The God is the very embodiment of his will which is of the nature of his bliss.

The entire Veda conveys the difference of the God from all i.e, Jivas and Jada. This difference is nothing but the supremacy, independence, omniscience etc., attributes of the God. The distinction from others is the very nature of the God. The distinction is the very nature of an entity. The term ‘Sva’ in the word ‘Svarupa’ indicates its distinction from all others. The sruti ‘Neti Neti’ etc., conveys the distinction of God from all others. All other Srutis also convey the same.

The God who is in me is Brahman i.e, Gunapurna.

The God who is in me is in the Sun and the God who is in the Sun is in me.

The God who is in Aditya is in me.

In all these the reference is to Antaryamin i.e, the God present within. The God who is in Purusa and is in Aditya is one.

“Aa” refers to Brahman and the word ‘Aham’ conveys Brahman. This is the secret name of Brahman. The God is called ‘Aham’ since nobody can leave him. He is called ‘Tvam’ as he is always in front. He is called ‘Sah’ as he is beyond senses.

All case suffix forms of the word Asmad, Yusmad, and Tat conveys the God. All numbers also convey the God though he is one. All these convey him since he is independent and supreme. These convey the Jivas and Jada only secondarily. The verbal suffixes also convey him. Lord Visnu is everywhere. He is distinct from all and he has many forms. Thus states Narayana Sruti.

Such knowledge of the God which conveys the fact that he is present in all beings which are mutually distinct and distinct from Him, he is imperishable, he has no internal distinctions and is Supreme is Satvika knowledge. This is stated by Lord himself in the Gita.

The difference is not unreal. All beings are happy by the grace of the Supreme God who is praised by the God Indra. This position (the Supreme God being the support and the others being dependent upon him) is the true position.

I offer prayers to the Supreme God of great glory during the sacrifices in order to obtain the happiness.

The God is real, the Jivas are real, their difference is real, their difference is real, their difference is real.

The evil minded shall not pray him, the evil minded shall not pray him, the evil minded shall not pray him.

The God is absolutely independent, omniscient, omnipotent, has infinite bliss and is supreme while the Jiva is entirely dependent upon the God, has very limited knowledge, very limited power; suffers, and is very inferior.

The difference is not Vyavaharika. He who knows the Supreme God at the heart and in his great abode, enjoys all desires being together with the omniscient God.

Reaching the Supreme God of infinite bliss, the liberated moves into these worlds assuming the forms that he desires and enjoying the things that he desires, sings these Saman hymns.

One Chaturmukhabrahma sings the Rigveda hymns, One Chaturmukhabrahma sings the Gayatra Saman, One Chaturmukha recites the Pauruseya literaure and One Chaturmkhabrahma meditates upon Lord Visnu.

The liberated reaches the Supreme God, attains his true nature and moves along with those who are liberated with him and also who are liberated earlier, eating sporting, moving on chariots with women.

In case only nirvisesa chinmatra remains after liberation, then, by what the liberated can see and what he can see, by what he can smell and what he can smell, by what he can know and what he will know, by what he can see him by whom he knows all this, and by what he can know himself the knower?

Just as pure water poured into pure water, one will attain similar nature.

Then, the liberated getting rid of undesired Punya and Papa, attains similarity with the God in respect of being free from sorrow.

The God is the abode for the liberated. The liberated will have the eyes and the ears, they will have affection for the other liberated, they will have gradation in respect of knowledge. Some among these will sport in the Milk ocean, some others in the forests. These will be as calm as lakes and will see the God.

All those who are liberated from the transmigration find their shelter under the God. They enjoy the bliss in a graded way the Chaturmukha being the highest among them.

In all these, the difference even after liberation is stated.

Having obtained this knowledge the liberated will attain similarity with me. These will not be born again at the time of creation, nor will these suffer at the time of destruction. The liberated will get all the desires excepting the power to create, sustain etc. This is clear from the context and the inability of the Jivas to create.

The Atman is indestructible, his attributes are also indestructible’. In this passage it is stated that the attributes of Atman are also indestructible.

‘In this respect only you have confused me by saying that there is no knowledge after liberation’. By this remark the ceasing of knowledge is objected to by Maitreyi.

Therefore, the statement ‘If Atman alone remains after liberation, whom can one see and by what’ etc., is only a prasangapadana i.e, pointing out an adverse consequence. In this passage it is not intended to state the absence of knowledge to the liberated, nor is it the intention to state that the knower will not know even himself.

The Parama Sruti clearly states that ‘Jiva knows himself as ‘I’. He undergoes the experiences of Joy and sorrow. He is eligible for the bondage and the liberation.

The Moksadhrma states that there cannot be a greater sorrow than being steeped in ignorance.

In the passage ‘there is no second’ it is stated that whatever the God does not see as second i.e., distinct, that does not exist as second i.e., distinct. Because, in the following sentence it is stated that whatever he sees as distinct that is only distinct. The reason is also stated that the God’s comprehension cannot be false.

In the passage ‘the Abhimani deities of Karma and the liberated Jiva attain the identity of thought with the imperishable Supreme God’ the Ekibhava i.e., identity is in respect of thought only, or it is identity of place with the forms of the Gods that are in Mikocean etc., places.

Let my desire be the same as that of the God, let my heart think in the same way in which the God thinks. Let those things delighted to the God be delighted to me (thus prays the liberated).

After liberation my thought will follow the thought of the God. Therefore, now also my thought is as per his thought.

The sages whose desires are fulfilled attain the place where the God is present.

The liberated attain the blissful God.

From these Sruti passages the identity of thought and place is indeicated.

If the identity of the very nature is to be taken, then to mention Karma and Jiva will not suit the context. Even according to them (Advaitins) Karma does not attain identity with Brahman in liberation.

If the withdrawal of Karma is intended, then it will be common with the other fifteen Kalas. Stating the withdrawal of the other fifteen Kalas and the deities, to state the identity of Karma and Jiva is meaningless. No special purpose is served by this.

The Rajata that is sublated is not considered as ‘became identical’ with Sukti.

The locative use as ‘in the imperishable God’ indicates the distinction. If the identity was intended the statement would have been as ‘become the Supreme.’

The mention of the identity between the Jiva and the God indicates only the similarity of thought. It also indicates the common place. It never indicates the very identity of their nature as the two are different in nature. The difference is in respect of independence, and dependence, and infinite nature and finite nature.

This is stated in Parama Sruti.

The passage ‘One who knows Brahman will become Brahman only’ means that he attains the greatness. This passage has to be understood like the statement that ‘A Sudra who worships a Brahmana with devotion will become a Brahmana’. A Sudra who worships a Brahmana will not become the Same Brahmana.

All Jivas are called Brahma, the liberated Jivas are called Parabrahma, Prakrti i.e, Lakshmi is called Paramabrahma and Lord Achuta is called Paramamahabrahma. Therefore, neither the liberated nor Prakrti i.e., Lakshmi has the glory of Lord Vishnu. He alone is independent, infinite and has the six attributes.

You are infinite with an immeasurable form. They cannot achieve your greatness.

The Supremacy that cannot be achieved by the Chaturmukhabrahma, Siva is yours. It is very natural to you.

Just as all other luminaries, though distinct from the great luminary the Sun, are not visible in his presence, the liberated Jivas, though distinct from the Supreme God are not observed in his presence. This kind of unobservedness is called Apyaya. This expression does not convey the identity.

This says Narayana Sruti. Therefore, the idea of Jivesvaraikya i.e., the identity of Jiva and Brahman is against all scriptures.

In the same identity of Jiva and Brahman is against all reason also. The doctrine that only one Jiva is affected with ajnana is not tenable. If all are projected by one Jivas ajnana, then he who knows that all these are projected by one Jiva’s ajnana cannot proceed to instruct his disciples. One who knows that he is undergoing a dream will not undertake any effort to distribute his dream property to the dream children. But in the dream itself he may do so as he is not aware that he is undergoing a dream.

Further, as there are many projecting themselves as teachers, it cannot be determined by whose Ajnana all these are projected. In case of dream. After one is awake he only remains. This is not the case in the case of Ajnana.

It cannot be said that ‘let each one think that all are projected by his ajnana’. There cannot be many variants of the same thing. Therefore, the correct position is, these are not projected.

Further, there is no proof to hold that each one should think that these are projected by his own Ajnana.

In case it is Ajnana connected with the disciple that is responsible for the projection of all, then, when such a disciple becomes a Guru, he will realize that he is projected by the Ajnana of his disciple and it is not in his hands to get out of it. Thus, his very understanding of the scriptures will be a disadvantage for him.

Further no one will be able to get liberation. As soon as one studies the scriptures he will realize that he is projected by the Ajnana of his disciple, that disciple will similarly realize when he studies the scriptures. This chain of the Ajnana of disciples projecting will continue endlessly and one has to helplessly wait for getting out of it.

In case this one Jiva whose Ajnana has projected all happens to have the conviction of difference, then, the idea of difference will never be withdrawn. Consequently no one will be able to attain the liberation of the Advaita type. Whatever way he projects that will be the position for all. If he projects the eternal hell, all will have to have the same.

There is no proof to hold that all are projected by the Ajnana of one Jiva.

‘If the five fold difference were created, then only, these would have perished. But these differences are known and maintained by the Supreme God. The Supreme God alone is unparallel.’ This is the meaning of the verse ‘Prapancho yadi vidyeta etc.’

The expression “Prapancha” means the five-fold differences. These differences are not non-existent, because, these are known and maintained by the God. MAyA means God’d understanding. It is this that comprehends and maintains the difference. Therefore, these differences are called mAyAmAtra. Since these five-fold differences are known and maintained by the God, these are not illusory. There cannot be illusion on the part of the God.

Then, how is the statement ‘Advaitah Sarvabhavanam’ to be understood? This is explained by ‘Adhvaitam Paramarthata’. From the point of view of supremacy God only is the Supreme. He alone is the Supreme of all. If this import is not derived, then, in the phrase ‘Advaita Sarvabhavanam’ the word Avaita alone would have been sufficient. ‘Sarvabhavanam’ would be superfluous.

When it is said that among all he is without a second, it means that there is no other that is equal to or superior to him. Only others will have equals and superiors.

In the following verse it is said that the difference would have been withdrawn if it were projected by something. This indicates the difference is not projected. It is taken as Nivartate i.e., withdraws, then, the use of the verbs as ‘Nivarteta’ Vidyeta’ indicating Prasanga i.e., a position, and the use of the word ‘Yadi’ would be improper.

Further, if the verb Vidyeta is not taken in the sense ‘were created’ then the use of the verb ‘Nivarteta’ would be unsuitable, since there is no Vyapti relation i.e., concomitance between existence and withdrawal.

Therefore this statement i.e., Prapancho YadiVidyeta conveys the fact that the world is beginning less and real.

One understands (the reality of the world and the Supremacy of God) only from the instructions of the right teacher. It is only the ignorant who say that there is no difference.

The Universe consists of five differences viz., the difference between the Jivas and the God, Jadas and the God, among the Jivas, Jadas and Jivas and among the Jadas. This difference is real and beginning less. If it has a beginning, then it would have ended; it never ends. This difference is not a projection of illusion. If it were projected by illusion it would have been sublated. It is never sublated. Therefore it is only the opinion of the ignorant that there is no difference, on the contrary the wise clearly know that this fivefold difference is known and maintained by the Supreme God Visnu. Therefore, the difference is real. The God is Supreme. This is stated in Parama sruti.

In Maitreyisakha stating that now the obstructions for the right knowledge will be mentioned, it is stated that one should not have the company with those who cry to remain in the group of the followers of Veda by advancing false arguments, deceptive and mesmerizing illustrations. These are daylight robbers and these lead to misery.

The common people deluded by the false arguments and deceptive illustrations advocated by those who reject everything pertaining to Atman will not be able to understand the true meaning of the Vedas.

Rejecting everything pertaining to Atman is Nairatmyavada.

In case it is stated that the world is projected by illusion, then two real worlds have to be envisaged. Unless there is a real Sukti, a real Rajata, and similarity between these two no illusory projection of Rajata is possible.

In the dream also the objects are caused by the Vasana in the mind and therefore are real. These are projected as outside objects.

In the case of body and self identity notion, the similarity in respect of the two being in the same place is present.

In the case of ‘the conch is yellow’, ‘the sky is blue’ etc., also the yellow color etc. are found elsewhere. The similarity between these yellow objects and conch etc. in respect of dravyatva etc., is found.

Therefore, no illusory projection is possible unless there are two similar other objects viz. Adhisthana and Pradhana.

The Superimposition of Anatman over Atman is never observed. None will have the illusion that he is other than himself. The Advaitins do hold that this world which is not Atman is superimposed on Atman.

If Atman is superimposed on Atman, the, Antman itself will be real, and if such real is without a second, then, Anatman alone will be real but not Atman.

Further, if the world is superimposed on atman, then it would not have been observed as different from that. For instance, Rajata that is superimposed on Sukti, is not observed as different from Sukti. Moreover, one and the same cannot simultaneously appear as many. No one will observe himself as many.

The differences cannot be caused by the unreal conditions. In an illusion the absence of knowledge of the true position and the knowledge of the wrong position are not untrue but it is the content of the wrong knowledge that is untrue.

In this way “Thinking of One jiva everywhere” theory has many fallacies. However, to avoid the lengthening of the text, the discussion is closed here.

Establishing the Universe as real (Part-3)

There is fallacy of any kind in accepting the world as real.

Such of the Advaitins who accept the theory of many Jivas and say that the difference among these Jivas is caused by unreal adjuncts, also will have the fallacies that were shown in respect of “Theory of One Soul”. The propagandists of One soul do hold that the difference among the Jivas is due to unreal adjuncts. But it is never found that the differences are caused by the unreal adjuncts.

The very tenet of unreal adgunct and the difference caused by it is untenable. It is already shown that the superimposition of Atman over Atman is not possible. Even the magical projection of an object is observed only when a similar object exists and a locus i.e., adhistana to project such an object exists.

Without a real Adhistana i.e, locus and a real Pradhana i.e, a similar object no illusiory projection is possible even in a dream or a magical projection.

In the case of dream the objects seen are the manifestations of the VasanA stored in the mind but these are wrongly comprehended as if these are outside objects. In the case of magical projections the body of the magician, the pieces of cloth etc., help by him are projected as the army, tiger etc.

In the absence of Adhistana and Pradana the world is not an illusory projection. It is real. This is stated in Brahmavaivarta.

It is also stated that the magician is not able to see his magical projection. But the God sees the world all the time. Therefore, the world is not an illusory projection.

One who sees the things directly will never see the illusion. Lord Vishnu sees everything directly. He sees the world. Therefore, the world is not an illusion.

In case it is stated that one and the same Brahman undergoes the transmigration and the liberation on account of real adjuncts, then, this Brahman has to undergo the transmigration all the time since the transmigrating Jivas are always present. Therefore, attainment of such Brahman is not a liberation at all. He is always associated with the adjuncts.

It cannot be contended that the Suddha Brahman is not associated with the adjuncts. If these adjuncts are to be associated with such Brahman who is already associated with an adjunct, then, for the association of that adjunct another adjunct already associated has to be envisaged and so on. Thus, it leads to infinite regress. It also cannot be contended that the same adjuncts cause the difference and condition the Brahman because, this will lead to the fallacy of Atmasraya.

The concept of unreal adjunct is not tenable for the following reasons: The concept of unreal adjunct could be maintained only if the presence of Ajnana is maintained. Because, without the presence of Ajanana unreality of the adjunct cannot be maintained. Now, the presence of Ajana cannot be maintained without an unreal adjunct. This is because, the Jiva when differentiated by Brahman by means of unreal adjunct only can be the locus of Ajnana.

It will not help to say that it is Suddha Brahman who is the locus of Ajnana. In that case, even liberated will continue to have Ajnana as it is found in Brahman himself. Further, since this Ajnana present in Brahman has to be treated as natural and real there will be contingencies of the presence of two reals viz. Brahman and Ajnana. According to Advaitin a real entity never ceases to exist. Hence, Ajnana will remain for ever. Therefore, interdependency of Ajnanasiddhi and Mithyopsiddhi as stated above is unavoidable.

Further, there will be the fallacy of circular arguments also as follows: the presence of Mithyopadhi depends upon the presence of Ajnana, the presence of Jiva depends in the presence of MithyopAdhi, the presence of Ajnana depends on the presence of Jiva. This is a circular dependence.

It is also not correct to hold that it is Suddha Brahman who is the locus of Ajnana due to Bhrama i.e., illusion. Because, the presence of illusion depends upon the presence of Ajnana, and the presence of Ajnana depends upon the presence of illusion. Thus it leads to the fallacy of anyonyAsraya i.e., interdependence.

Vatsasruti states that there are innumerable groups of Jivas countlessly more that the past and future Paramanus (atoms) and past and future moments of time. Therefore, the transmigrating Jivas are never exhausted.

Skanda Purana states that in the thousand yojana long hall constructed by Vishvakarma there are innumerable groups of Jivas. Even in the place of a Paramanu there are innumerable Jivas. They are subtle in their nature and gross in their bodies. These remain as stated above by the power of the Supreme God.

The Advaitin’s claim that the inexplicability of falseness is more a compliment than a drawback is not correct. To brand a perceived object as Mithya a superior Pramana and a superior argument than the perception is needed. In the absence of such a superior Pramana to prove the contrary, the truth of what is seen is established by the very fact of its perceiving.

To eat the food that is actually seen requires no further evidence to prove it . On the other hand, if some body says that it is not food, then, to check up as to why it is not food a proof is necessary.

What is observed by perception, that cannot be denied without a superior Pratyaksha, Agama or Anumana. A tree that is at a distance is seen as short. This is known. Therefore, by reasoning it is comprehended to be tall. The fact of perception being slow and distorted in respect of distant objects is also established by superior perception.

The claim that the world is Mithya is not established by any Pramana. Particularly, the Mithyatva of knowledge, ignorance, joy, sorrow, difference from the God and other Jivas etc., is never observed. Therefore, the transmigration is true. According to advaitin, whatever is true that never vanishes. Therefore, Advaitin can never have liberation.

In case that which is proved by Pratyaksha is considered as Mithya merely by argument without the support of a superior Pratyaksa, then, let Atman also be false. The fact of all other things being considered as false itself is an argument that can support this contention. To posit in two different ways viz., Atman as Satya and all others as Mithya is an excess of assumption.

To consider Atman as Adhistana for superimposition is not justified since an illusion involving the superimposition on Atman is not established. If stating something that is not explicable is a compliment, then, let the acceptance of Atmamithyatva also be a compliment which is inexplicable.

Since the experience itself is a result of Avidya and the inexplicable nature of this Avidya is a compliment and something to be real needs the support of arguments, let the Jar etc., be the knower, Atman be the non-sentient, experience without experiencer, illusion without Adhistana and such other self contradictory things be acceptable.

It is contended that the Jivas are not different but it is only due to the adjuncts that the differences arise, then, there would not have been differences arise, then there would not have been differences in the experiences of joy, sorrow etc., of different persons. Just as the person who undergoes joy, sorrow etc., in the different parts of his bodu is one, the Jiva who undergoes joy, sorrow etc., in different bodies would have to be one. Further, one and the same person would have to experience the joy, sorrow etc., occurring in all bodies.

Further, just as by the removal of one finger no liberation could be attained by the removal of one adjunct i.e,, one body, no liberation is possible, since, innumerable adjuncts i.e., bodies would be still persisting.

The adjuncts being disjunct does not make any difference in the light of the statement in Mahabharatha viz., even the headless bodies were killing their enemies raising their arms with the weapons seeing the enemies with the eyes in their fallen heads.

Further, whether the adjunct conditions a part of Atman or the whole of it. In case it is stated to condition only a part, then the Atman will be an entity with parts. The entities with parts are considered as perishable by Advaitins. If it is stated that the adjunct conditions the whole of Atman, then it cannot cause any difference among the Jivas. In case, parts are conceived as arising from the adjunct itself, then, the question arises whether by the same or by another adjunct. If it is by the same adjunct, then, it leads to the fallacy of Atmasraya i.e, self dependency; if it is by another adjunct, then, that adjunct also needs another to cause the part and so on. This leads to infinite regress.

Since God i.e, Saguna Brahman is everywhere there can be no difference caused by the adjunct between Isvara and Brahman. Those that are unlimited in respect of space and time cannot have any difference caused by the adjuncts.

Further, since one and the same Isvara is associated with all adjuncts and since the difference caused by these is illusory, this one Isvara will have to undergo the experiences of Joy and sorrow of all just as one and the same person experiences the pleasure and pains occurring in different parts of the body.

Since both Isvara and Suddha Brahman are unlimited in respect of space and time, there can be no difference between then caused by the adjunct. Therefore, no Suddha Brahman different from Isvara who undergoes suffering could be conceived. Consequently, the transmigration will be a natural course and there can be no end to it.

Now, is the transmigration to Visista i.e., Jiva or Suddha Brahman? If it is stated that Suddha under goes transmigration, then, it will be a self contradictory statement. To avoid this, if it is stated that Visista i.e., Jiva undergoes transmigration , then there arises the further question whether this Jiva is different from Brahman or the same one. If it is the same one, then, the fallacy of self-contradiction is already pointed out. If it is different, then, whether it is eternal or pershible? If perishable, then, it has to perish. There is no hope of liberation.

If it is eternal, then the difference will be real, and will persist even after liberation. If it is contended that its basic nature is one but it assumes difference by the adjuncts, then , as its very naure is contaminated by the adjunct it is no longer Suddha. Something that is of impure nature can never become pure even according to Advaitin. As against the contention that the adjunct is superimposed , the fallacies of Anyonyasraya etc. are already pointed out.

It is also not correct to say that the difference is due to the difference in Anadhikarma. Because, the difference of Anadhikarma can be posited only on the ground of the difference due to adjuncts and the latter is posited only on the former. This again leads to Anyonyasraya.

Thus, there are innumerable fallacies in Advaitaposition. However, the discussion will be closed here to avoid the lengthening of the text. To conclude, we declare that abheda (non-difference) is not the purport of Sruti as it is against all evidence.

Brahman of Advaita cannot be conveyed by the Sruti since he is not conveyed by any word by Vachyavrtti. Nor he can be conveyed by Laksanavrtti, since, that which is not conveyed by any word by Vachyavrtti cannot be conveyed by Lakshana also. Thus, being non-comminicable and unknowable, it is good as Sunya (of Buddhist).

Advaitins do not also say that it can know itself, since, one and the same cannot be both the agent and the object.

Neither the very Brahman could be known nor anything else. There is no knower. There can be no knowledge without a knower. Therefore, in the absence of a knower and a known, the so called knowledge is as good as void. Therefore, there is no difference between void theory of Buddhists and Advaita. Knowledge without a knower and a known is never found.

Further, since the difference between Isvara and Jiva is not known by any other Pramana the denial of it i.e., Abheda cannot be the purport of Sruti.

The Mahopanishat states that the entire scriptures chiefly convey the Supreme God who possesses unlimited number of attributes, who is absolutely free from defects, who is unique and distinct from all others. The scriptures does not convey anything else.

Therefore, it is established that Lord Narayana is conveyed by the entire scriptures as unique and distinct from all others.

Chapter Two (part-4)

Supremacy of Lord Visnu is Established

Chaturmukhabrahma, Shiva, the other deities and all other Jivas are designated as Ksara, because, their body perishes. Goddess Lakshmi is designated as Aksara, because, her body is imperishable. Lord Hari is superior to these two. Lord Hari is Supreme as he possesses independence, power, knowledge, bliss etc., attributes infinitely. Therefore Lakshmi, Chaturmukha etc., all are entirely under his control. Lord Hari creates, sustains, destroys, regulates by vidhi and Nisheda, gives knowledge, veils by ignorance, puts in bondage and releases the satvik souls. He also enables Goddess Lakshmi to manifest, to remain without a perishing body, to function as per his order, to know all directly and to have eternal bliss. It is Lord Hari who enables all to function. None else can create, sustain etc. Lord Hari is absolutely free from the drawbacks. Thus, states Parama Sruti.

Chaturmukhabrahma, Sesa, Suparna i.e., Garuda, Sakra i.e., Indra, Surya, Guru i.e, Sanmukha etc., all Jivas are Ksaras, Goddess Lakshmi is Akshara. Lord Hari is superior to both these. Thus states Skanda Purana.

Whomsoever I wish to make Ugra i.e., Rudra I shall make him so; I wish to make Chaturmukhabrahma I shall make him so; I wish to make a wise sage I shall make him so; I shall wield my bow to kill Rudra the destroyer who cut the fifth head of Chaturmukhabrahma. I shall make all to rejoice. I enter Dyuloka and Pritviloka ( all world above and below).

I shall make Chaturmukhabrahma superior. However, my superior is in the ocean. He who is in the ocean and whom even wise do not know completely, he who is designated as Aksara and under whose control all function, he from whom the Goddess Lakshmi the mother of all arises, he who creates the Jivas in Prithvi etc., worlds with the physical body as per their deeds by his great power, he who has entered into the planets, men cattle and all other sentient and non-sentient beings to regulate them and he from whom there is no Superior, is the Supreme, greater than great, one beyond the senses, has infinite forms, possesses infinite attributes, ancient, above Prakriti.

He is true knowledge, and acts with true knowledge. It is he who is called Parama Brahman.

Rudra who causes the bondage to the Jivas obtained his greatness by worshipping Lord Visnu who bestows the desires of his devotees, whose wishes always come true, and who is splendid.

O, Asvini deities! You obtained a prosperous place by the grace of Lord Visnu only.

Chandra arose from the mind of the Supreme God, Indra and Agni arose from the mouth, Vayu from Prana.

In great destruction of the universe Narayna alone was present. There was no Four faced Brahma, Rudra or Agnisoma. There was Dyuloka and Prithviloka.

There was Narayana alone. No Four faced Brahma nor Sankara. Narayana remained silent, he thought. Then Visva(Vayu), Hiranyagarbha (Four faced Brahma), Agni, Yama, Varuna, Rudra, Indra were born.

Before creation Vasudeva alone was present. There were no Four faced Brahma, Sankara, Indra, Surya, Guha, Soma or Vinayaka. Thus the srutis state.

‘There is none higher than him but there is a lower.’ In this statement it is affirmed that there is lower. If there were no lower, then, the next statements ‘that is full with him’ and ‘he who is Superior has no prakrita form, who is free from the drawbacks’ will be contradicted. That which is referred by Idam in the statement “Tena idam purnam’ is referred to by ‘Tatha’ in the next statement ‘Tato yad uttarataram’. Otherwise the statement that ‘Yasmat Param na’ will be contradicted.

Lord Visnu who is conveyed by all names is declared to be the Supreme. All names are his names. He is distinct from all others, independent, he is same along and Supreme. These sruti statements declare his overlordship by stating that the names of all other gods are primarily his names.

All Vedas declare that he is absolutely free from the drawbacks, he is necessarily present before creation while all other gods do have some or other drawbacks, they are not present before creation. They are not conveyed by all names.

Vasudeva revealing himself in his origination. There is no other form of creation of him. Four faced brahma etc. are born by obtaining the body as stated in the scriptures.

The body of Lord Hari which is aprakrita and of the nature of Janana, Ananda etc., is beginning less and eternal while the body of four faced Brahma etc., are non-eternal. Lord Hari only reveals himself while others are born.

Chapter Three (part-5)

Infinite Auspicious attributes of Vinsu are established

He who is absolutely free from the drawbacks, possesses all auspicious attributes, Independent and on whom all are dependent, is Lord Visnu. This is stated in Paramopanishat.

He who possesses infinite attributes eternally, who is always free from drawbacks, Independent, has no birth and death, is the Supreme Visnu.

Narada said –

If Visnu is free from all defects, how is it that he too is born among men and seen suffering from worry, wounds, ignorance and sorrow? O, fourfaced Brahma! This doubt is piercing my heart like a dart. This dart cannot be removed by ordinary men. Kindly remove this by your wise words.

Brahma said –

Lord Visnu will not assume the body that is generated by the contact of man and women. But he reveals himself through his eternal body consisting of bliss and consciousness that is absolutely free from defects. This is his birth and nothing else.

However, to mislead the evil souls and those who have to be delayed in obtaining libveration, he will show as if he also has sorrow, ignorance, fatigue etc., though he is always pure and possesses auspicious attributes. How can there be any wounds or ignorance to the One who is independent and has unique qualities? He will show these only to make the liberation difficult for some. These evil persons will not attain liberation consequent on their wrong knowledge. These will go to darkness.

Therefore, one should realize that the Supreme God Visnu is free from defects and he only reveals himself.

The attributes, activities etc of Visnu constitute his very nature. These are not different from him. These are not different from one another also. Even though these are not different from him, these are presented as different because of Visesa. This presentation as different is something like that of svarupatva. The svarupatva is not different from svarupa but still it is presented as different. It is by this visesa that guna-guni etc , that are not different are presented as different.

In Advaita, Brahman and its abheda with the Jiva are not different. But still they talk of Brahman and the abheda it has as different. In case, even between abhada and abhinna,, bheda and bhinna, bheda i.e., difference is accepted, then it will lead to infinite regress.

Further, the status of the adjective and substantive will be known only when their relation is known. This again leads to infinite regress.

Therefore, the presentation of the attributes of the God as different from him is only by means of Visesa a power pf the God which is beyond ordinary logic. This Visesa which presents the difference between guna and guni, also presents its own difference with the guni.

There is no difference between avayava and avayavi, guna-guni etc., in respect of the God. There is no difference among the different gunas of the God. He who thinks of such differences will go to the dark world. Just as the rain pouring on the top of mountains goes down, similarly, he who thinks of the difference between the attributes of the God and the God will go down.

In the statements ‘space is everywhere’, ‘god depends upon himslef’, ‘The timeis eternal’ the same entity is stated to be related with itself, similarly the God is gunasvarupa as well as gunabhakta. This is stated in Brahmatarka.

By obtaining the knowledge of Visnu as possessing infinite auspicious attributes one will get rid of transmigration, obtains the bliss unmixed with sorrow and remains near the God. The God is the abode for the liberated, superior to them, and their lord. The liberated are under his control and he is their ruler all along. This is stated in Prama sruti.

The God is the resort of the liberated. The liberated will enjoy his desires being with Chaturmukhabrahma.

From Manushyottama upto four faced brahma all enjoy the bliss multiplied by hundred in an ascending order, thus, the sruti declares. This is stated inm Padmapurana.

It is established that God Narayana has infinite attributes absolutely free from the defects and is Supreme.

This work describing the glory of the Supreme God Visnu is composed by the third incarnation of Vayu whose three incarnations are described in Balittha etc., Vedic hymns. This Vayu is an embodiment of strength, knowledge and support to the world. He is respectfull to all. He was directed by the God to take three incarnations. In the first incarnation he destroyed Kauravas and their army. In the third incarnation, composing the works that describe the blissful God obtained the name Madhva. This work is composed by him in his third oncarnation.

O, Narayana ! I prostrate at your feet. You are independent, Lord of all, absolutely free from defects, possess infinite attributes and supreme.

Thus ends the “VishnutatvaVinirnaya” composed by Sri Madhvacharya.

Dedicated to Lord Krishna