1

brahmasUtra vritti by sadAsivendra saraswati brahmasUtra vritti by sadAsivendra saraswati brahmasUtra vritti by sadAsivendra saraswati brahmasUtra vritti by sadAsivendra saraswati
dhyAna shlokas
We meditate on the light of the self which is established only by
Vedanta, which is free from beginning, middle and end, which is full of
happiness and which is complete - shloka 1
Salutations to lion-like Vyasacharya a leading expert in moving in the
forest of Vedanta, killer of the intoxicated elephant like opponents and
who is respectable (virtuous) - shloka 2

We extol that Sankaracharya with holy feet, who has attained the status
of the sun towards the multitude of darkness of delusion of those who
are praising him and who is the foremost doctor of the disease of
transmigration shloka 3.
We contemplate on our glorious teacher, by whose sun-like speech the
continuation of darkness in the form of delusion is destroyed and who is
like the sun to the lotus-like Vedanta shloka 4
By the strength of service to the lotus feet of my glorious teacher, I
compose as per the capacity of my mind, a brief commentary on brahma
sutra which is in keeping with bhashyam. (i.e, the main commentary of
Sankaracharyaji) shloka 5









2

Here indeed glorious Vyasacarya, habitat of Badri forest, composed this sutra to
ascertain logically the group of introductory points, which is superficially known
through the words of Vedanta and which is the means for the activity of thinking
people.

athAto brahmajijnAsA ||1|| (3 words)
atha atah brahmajijnAsA.
Thereafter, therefore the desire to know Brahman.
Here (in this sutra) by the word atha, the status of the desire to know in the form
of being after the accomplishment of the four-fold qualifications is said. By the word
atah the possibility of accomplishing the four-fold qualifications is said. By the
expression brahma jijnAsa the status of unknown Brahman being the subject
matter and the status of known Brahman being the purpose is suggested.
And in this manner being the revealer of a qualified person, etc. which is the basis
of the activity of a thinking person, this sutra is the introduction to the entire
analysis beginning with the chapter of samanvaya. Therefore at the outset itself this
sutra has got a connection to the entire brahma sutra.
Since by the sentences of Vedanta which are the subject of analysis, there is an
expectancy from this sutra for the ascertainment of their meaning, so this sutra
has connection to sruti. In this manner the connection of all sutras to sruti
should be seen.
Particularly, since this sutra is the indicator of the logic which is ascertaining the
commitment of Vedanta sentences dealing with Brahman, therefore this sutra has
got connection to sastram which is in the form of analysis of Brahman. In this
manner, in later ones ( i.e, sutras of this chapter) also the connection to scriptures
should be figured out.
Since by the aphorisms starting with athAto brahmajijnAsa are establishing the
convergence in Brahman by revealing that all the sentences of Vedanta are
committed to Brahman, therefore all of the sutras till the end of the chapter have
connection to this chapter dealing with samanvaya (i.e, convergence).

Since in the first quarter, the sentences of Vedanta which are having clear indicator
of Brahman are analysed, therefore all the sutras till the end of this quarter have got
a connection to the quarter.

Because of being the first, connection with any section is not there. However the
connection of later section is of that (section) with this (section). Therefore the
connection of this adhikarana is not mentioned (here).
3

In opponents view, because of not starting the analysis, freedom would be
attainable through other means. However, in the final established conclusion, there
is a possibility of starting the analysis. Thereby knowledge based on that analysis is
established. Thus freedom through knowledge alone is established. This is the
difference in result.
Here (in this adhikarana), the subject matter is the analysis of the sentences of
Vedanta. Here the doubt is - whether this (analysis) should not be done or should
be done because of the possibility and impossibility of the subject matter and result.

That alone which is doubtful and purposeful, can be the subject matter of enquiry.
Whereas Brahman being the content of very clear I cognition is doubtless. And by
its knowledge, the purpose in the form of freedom not being served, it cannot be the
subject matter of enquiry. Therefore the enquiry of the sentences of vedanta which
is having impossible subject matter, etc. should not be done. This is the
opponents stand.
However the established conclusion is Reality which is Brahman which is non-
seperate from the self and which is known from the sruti is doubtful on account of
not being the content of I cognition. And by its realisation, freedom in the form of
removal of evils is tenable. Therefore the analysis of the sentences of Vedanta
having possible subject matter, etc. should be done.
Whereas the meaning of the sutra is Here (in this sutra) for the purpose of
removal of meaninglessness due to its being just a restatement and also for the
purpose of motivation of people into the activity of study, the word should be done
has to be added.
Objection Even then its meaninglessness remains as it is because the words
should be done cannot be connected to knowledge and desire which are the
meaning of the primary word jnA (to know) and the affix san respectively.
This is not a defect. Here by the original word jnA immediate knowledge (of
Brahman) which is the result is indicated by inclusive implication. And by the affix
san enquiry born of desire is indicated by exclusive implication.
Consequently (as a corollary), the status of immediate knowledge being the means
for freedom and sentences of Vedanta being worthy of enquiry is obtained.
And in this manner through word and implication the meaning of the sutra is
For a qualified person who is endowed with the four-fold qualifications the analysis
of the sentences of vedanta is to be done for the purpose of direct realisation which
is the means for freedom. Since there is the possibility of logical connection of the
sense of injunction to enquiry.
There is no defect in this interpretation.
4

BRIEF PRESENTATION - Samanvaya adhyaya jijnasa adhikarana
brahmavicaratmaka sutra 1 :
1) First adhikarana One sutra.
Sutra 1 Sutra 1 Sutra 1 Sutra 1 - -- - (2 words)
Thereafter therefore the desire to know Brahman.
Visaya vakya (Tai), (Ch),
.... (Br U).
Main idea Three stages to liberation :
i) Prepare yourself for Vedanta analysis by attaining sadhanacatustayasampattih.
ii) Do analysis of Vedanta vakyas to get atma jnanam.
iii) Attain moksha since knowledge alone gives moksha.
This sutra gives the introduction (anubandha) for the entire brahma sutra.



Objection - In this manner, the status of Brahman being the object of enquiry
through the analysis of Vedanta was told ( in sutra 1) . That is meaningless because
of the non-establishment of the very nature of Brahman due to the absence of
distinctive features. Considering this objection, it is said

janmAdyasya yatah || 2|| (2 words)
janmAdyasya yatah
The creation, etc. of this world is from which,(that is Brahman).
Here (in this adhikarana) , the connection to the previous adhikarana is in the
form of an objection. Here in the objectors view, there is non-establishment of
freedom due to the non-establishment of the nature of Brahman.Whereas in the
final conclusion, there is establishment of that freedom. This is difference in the
result.
Here, the subject matter is sentences like from which these living beings are born
... (Taittriya 3-1)
Whether birth,etc. which is heard there (in that sentence) is the distinctive feature of
Brahman or not? This is the doubt.
5

Features like creation, etc. being located in the world, it cannot have their location in
Brahman. Therefore these (features) cannot be the distinctive features of Brahman.
And truth, etc. mentioned in the sentences truth, consciousness, bliss (Taittrita 2-1)
etc. will be the distinctive features of Brahman is also not correct because in the
world they (the words truth,etc.) are established to be having different meanings
and therefore not known to be distinctive features of one Brahman. This is the
opponents view.
The established conclusion is birth, etc. i.e, the group of features beginning
with birth, i.e, birth, sustenance and dissolution of this world which is presented by
the means of knowledge like perception takes place from which Brahman; for that
Brahman causality of birth, etc. of this world is the non-intrinsic feature and truth,
etc. is the intrinsic feature.
It is not proper to say that the words, the meanings of which are established to be
different in the world cannot be the distinctive characteristic of one Brahman as
satyadi, etc are having one unqualified whole as their meaning. Thereby they are
culminating into one Brahman and therefore these words can be the definition of
Brahman.

BRIEF PRESENTATION - Samanvaya adhyaya janmadi adhikarana brahma
lakshana sutra 2 :
1) Second adhikarana One sutra.
Sutra 2 Sutra 2 Sutra 2 Sutra 2 (2 words)
From which birth, etc. of this (world , that is brahman).
Visaya vakya

7 .......(tai U)
Main Idea Brahman has distinctive features (lakshanam). The tatastha
lakshanam in the form of janmadi is given explicitly and the svarupa lakshanam in
the form of satyam, jnanam, anantam is given implicitly.
Therefore brahman exists.





6


Objection In this manner (as a corollary) the omniscience of Brahman being the
cause of the world was suggestively told by you. That is not proper; because Vedas
being eternal, Brahman cannot be the cause of the (entire) world. Considering this
objection, the author says

sAstrayonitvAt || 3|| (1 word)

First interpretation -
Being the cause of scriptures, Brahman is omniscient.
The connection of this (adhikarana) to the previous adhikarana is in the form of an
objection.
In the opponents view, the result is non-ascertainment of the omniscience of
Brahman. In the final established view, the result is its ascertainment. This is how
the result should be seen.
The sentence beginning with - those that are called Rigveda, etc. are just an
exhalation of that great being - is the subject matter of the discussion. The doubt
is whether that statement does not establish the omniscience of Brahman as the
creator of Vedas or it does establish that (omniscience).
The objectors view is - that sentence does not establish the omniscience (of
Brahman) as the creator of that (veda). Because in another sentence O Virupa, by
eternal speech (may u glorify), etc. the eternality of Vedas is heard.
Whereas the established conclusion is that Brahman is the cause of the
scriptures i.e, Rigveda, etc. which are equivalent to omniscient. The status of being
that (cause of Vedas) is satrayonitvam. Therefore this sentence establishes the
omniscience of Brahman, because of Brahman being the cause of the Vedas. What
was said by the opponent that because of the mention of eternality of Vedas in
sruti, ( brahman cannot be omniscient). That is not proper, because the sentence of
sruti talking of eternality of Vedas is supposed to be meant for glorification of Vedas
in keeping with the sentence of sruti asya mahato bhutasya which is talking of
the creation of Vedas.
And it is not proper to say that because Vedas have got a creator, it has the status
of being product of a person, since there is no acceptance of the idea that they were
composed after perceiving the subject matter.
This is the first interpretation.
7

Second interpretation
Brahman is not available for other means of knowledge because
Brahman is the subject matter of scriptures only.
Or when Brahman is defined as being the cause of the world, then suspecting its
knowability through other means of knowledge, the author says sAstrayonitvAt.
Since discriminating feature and means of knowledge are both meant for
ascertaining Brahman, therefore the connection between the previous and this
section is in the form of the status of having the same result.
Here (in this adhikarana), the difference in result is In the objectors view,
inference alone is established as the object of analysis. Whereas in the final
established view, the sentences of Vedanta are established to be the object of
analysis.
The sentence like I am asking you about that being known through the
Upanishads , etc. is the subject matter.
Does this sentence establish the knowability of Brahman through scriptures or does
it not establish that, when this is the doubt.
The objectors view is Due to brahman being an established thing,
it has the status of being known through other means of knowledge. Therefore this
sentence does not establish that (status of Brahman being known only through
scriptures).
Whereas the final established view is - Scriptures like Rigveda, etc. being the
yoni i.e, means of knowledge for which Brahman is called sastrayoni. Its status is
satrayonitvam. Therefoe (because of that status) i.e, because of having scripture
alone as a means of knowledge, this sentence tvam tvau aupanishadam purusham
prcchami is establishing its knowability only through that one (i.e, scriptures only.)
Moreover, the knowability of Brahman through other means of knowledge which
was told (by you) . That is not there. Because Brahman does not have form, etc.,
thereby the status of brahma being known through other means of knowledge is
impossible. Thus ends the established view.
This is the second interpretation.



8

BRIEF PRESENTATION - Samanvaya adhyaya sastrayonitvAdhikarana
sarvajnatvam/pramanam sutra 3 :
3) Third (sastrayonitva) adhikarana One sutra.
Sutra 3 (1 word)
i) First interpretation - 11
Brahman is the cause of scriptures.
Visaya vakya .......
Main idea - Brahman is sarvakaranam being the cause of the world and even Vedas.
So brahman is sarvajnah.
ii) Second interpretation 1 9 1
Brahman is that for which scriptures is the (only) means of knowledge.
Idea - Brahman being the subject matter (object) of sastra only, it is not available
for other means of knowledge (anadigatam).
Thus by laskhana (sutra 2) and pramanam (sutra 3, 2
nd
interp.), the existence of
brahman is established.





















9

Connection to sutra 4 This is in the form of an objection.
In this manner the nature of Brahman in the form of being known only through
scriptures was told (by you), but that is not correct, since the scripture is committed
to reveal something else. Considering this objection, the author says
tat tu samanvayAt ||4|| (3 words)
Tad (brahma) tu (purvapakshavyavrittih) sAstra pramAnakam
samanvayAt.
That brahma is revealed by all Upanishads because all the sentences of
Vedanta have their convergence with commitment to Brahman.
The word tu is to show dismissal of all opponents.
First interpretation -
The connection (of this adhikarana) to the previous one is in the form of an
objection.
In the objectors view, untenability of the activity of seeker into Vedanta is the
result. (since Brahman is not known thro vedanta.)
In established view, establishment of that activity (into vedanta) is the result. (since
Brahman is known only thro vedanta).
Here (in this adhikarana) all the sentences of vedanta are the subject matter.

Are those (sentences of vedanta) committed to reveal doer, etc. which are
subservient to the activity or are they committed to reveal Brahman which is eternal
and ever- established. When this doubt is raised -

The objectors (mimamsakas) view is - If vedanta sentences are committed to
reveal eternal established Brahman which is neither acceptable (fit to be taken) nor
rejectable (fit to be dropped), then there will be a situation of vedanta being useless
and having expectancy of other means of knowledge. Therefore vedanta sentences
are only committed to reveal doer, etc. which are subservient to action.

The established view is The word tu occurring in the sutra is meant for
dismissal (exclusion) of the opponent view. That brahma is presented in vedanta.
Why? Because of convergence. sam means very well i.e., with commitment.
anvayAt means because of connection of all vedanta sentences to Brahman;
Therefore sentences of vedanta are committed to revealing ever-existent brahma
and not committed (to revealing) doer, etc. because vedanta sentences are
occurring in different context (or section). And to say that because of non-difference
of context, vedanta sentences are committed to prescribing meditation is not proper;
10

because many sentences like, you are that, etc. are being found in vedanta which
are devoid of any injunctions (on upasana).
Moreover uselessness which was suspected is improper because there is possibility if
purpose in the form of removal of evil (being served).
And dependency (which was suspected) is not there, because Brahman which is
devoid of form, etc. being not available thro other means of knowledge, therefore
it is not possible for vedanta sentences which are revealing that Brahman of having
expectancy of other means of knowledge. Therefore by indicators like beginning,
etc. it is established that the vedanta sentences are committed to revealing Brahman
alone. Thus ends the first interpretation.

Second interpretation -
Or (in the other interpretation) incidentally having referred to the view of partial
supporter even though(he accepts) Brahman being know through sentences of
vedanta as established earlier, but he accepts that through the injunction for
upasana, considering this the author says tat tu samanvayAt- that Brahman is
definitely the subject matter of scriptures due to convergence.

With the earlier section, there is an incidental connection.

Here in objectors view (ekadeshi), the result is establishment of freedom through
meditation. In the established view, it (freedom) is by knowledge (of Brahman).
This is the difference in result.

There (that difference in result being so), whether vedanta sentences are revealing
Brahman as the object of injunction or are they presenting directly (independent of
any injunction). When this doubt is raised.

The objectors view is Due to absence of indicator in the form of activity, etc.
the grasp of the power of the word to convey any meaning is not possible with
regard to merely existing object. And also that which is intent on prescribing activity
or withdrawal alone is the scripture and therefore if vedanta is merely revealing just
existent Brahman, it will not have the status of being the scripture. Therefore
vedanta is revealing Brahman as the object of injunction of meditation only.

Whereas the established view is Sentences of vedanta are revealing that
Brahman as such (i.e., independent of injunction). How? because of convergence,
i.e, because with commitment they (vedanta sentences) have connection to
that (independent Brahman).
And what was said (by you) with regard to merely existent object, there is no
grasping of the power of the word due to the absence of indicator in the form of
11

activity, etc. That is not correct. Activity and withdrawal alone are the indicators is
not a binding condition because in expressions like A son is born to you ! also
through the indicators in the form of joy, etc. the grasping of word power (to reveal
their meaning) is possible.
But also what was said that which is committed to prescribe activity, etc. alone
can have the status of being called scripture . That is also not correct. Because by
revealing something beneficial, the status of being scripture is tenable for vedanta.
This is the direction of further thinking.
Thus ends the second interpretation.


BRIEF PRESENTATION - Samanvaya adhyaya samanvayAdhikarana
svatantra brahma sutra 4 :
4) Fourth (samanvaya) adhikarana One sutra.
Sutra 4 Sutra 4 Sutra 4 Sutra 4 (3 words)
That brahman is revealed by all vedanta because all vedanta sentences
have their convergence with commitment to independent brahman.
The word tu is to show dismissal of all opponents.
Visaya vakya all vedanta sentences .
Idea Dismissal of opponents and establishing the commitment of all upanishads in
brahman.
First interpretation dismissal of mimamsakas.
Brahman is not subservient to any karma. The taparyam of all Vedanta vakyas
analysed through shadlinga method is to reveal brahman and not karta, doer, etc.
Second interpretation Dismissal of Ekadeshi.
Brahman is not the object of upasana vidhi. After getting self-knowledge, nothing
has to be done. Aparoksha jnanam itself will give moksha.
The first four sutras give the basic essence of all vedantic teaching
, ,
For the sake of liberation, one should do the analysis of brahman which is the cause
of all, omniscient and which is revealed with commitment by all Upanishads.
The idea conveyed here is further elaborated in the rest of the samanvaya adhyaya
upto sutra 134.


12

In this manner by these four aphorisms, it was arrived at that brahman alone is the
cause of the entire world, is omniscient, is the central theme of all vedantas.
Objection - In this regard the Sankhya said that being immutable (changeless),
brahman cannot have the power of doing and therefore cannot be the cause of the
world. Also then being compromised of the three factors (sattva,rajas and tamas)
pradhana which is endowed with the power of doing is alone the cause of the world.
To dismiss this view, the author says

IkshaternAshabdam ||5|| (3 WORDS)
(pradhAnam jagat kAranam) na asabdam (avedapramAnakam) Ikshateh
(IkshitrsravanAt) |
Pradhanam (of sankhya) is not the cause of the world because it is not
mentioned in the Upanishads because of the mention of seerness (of the
cause).
The connection of this adhikarana by the previous one is in the form of an
objection.
But the result in objectors view is establishment of a special (sampad) kind of
meditation of oneness with pradhanam.
The result in established conclusion is the establishment of the knowledge of the
oneness with brahman. This is to be noted.
The subject matter is the (Chandogya) sruti sentence starting with Existence
alone upto that deliberated.
There (in the sruti sentence) whether that cause of the world referred to by the
word Sat is it pradhanam or brahman, when this is the doubt.

The opponents view is - This is pradhanam (which is the cause of the world).

Whereas the established conclusion is Pradhanam is not the material cause of
the world. Why? It is the one with no word of sruti as support (asabdam); this is an
adjective (pradhanam) containing the sense of reason; thus asabdatvAt i.e, because
it (pradanam) does not have the support of the Vedas as a means of knowledge.
Why does it not have the Vedas as a means of knowledge ? because of seeing
(thinking, deliberating). Here the word ikshati referring to the root to see is the
indicator of its meaning (the idea given by the word ikshati) because of the mention
of seerness (in sruti with reference to brahman). And it is well-known that inert
pradhanam cannot have the status of being seer because it is the quality of a
conscious being.
13

And in changeless brahman there is no absence of the power of knowledge and
activity due to the glory of maya, everything being tenable.
Therefore brahman alone which is the existence principle, which is the seer, and a
conscious entity is the cause of the world. This is the meaning.


Doubt that fire saw ..that water saw, in this manner with regard to even inert
things also seerness was mentioned. Therefore let seerness be there in pradhanam
also in a figurative sense. Having considered this doubt, the author says

gaunascennAtmashabdAt ||6|| (4 words)
(Ikshati shabda) gaunah cet, na AtmashabdAt.
If you say that the usage of the word seer is in a figurative sense; that is
not so because of the word self used in sruti.
Like in water and fire, the word seer can be applicable to pradhana also in a
figurative sense. If this is what you say, that cannot be so. Why? Because of the
word self .
The idea is the seer, the existence principle which is the subject under discussion
started from the sentence sat alone and it saw is referred to be the word devata
through the expression that this god and again there is mention of the word self
by the sentence - through this individual which is the self (with regard to that sat
only ).


Doubt Let the self be used with regard to pradhanam also because of that word
(self) having several meanings. Having considered this doubt, the author says -

tanniShtasya mokshopadeshAt ||7|| (2 words)
tan(sat)niShtasya mokhopadeshAt.
For the one who is abiding in that (sat), there is the mention of
freedom.
(Therefore pradhanam cannot be the meaning of the word sat)
Pradhanam is not the meaning of the word self because having referred to the
subtle existence principlewhich is under discussion, by the sentence that, the
self. And having taught Svetaketu who is a sentient being the identity with that
(sat) i.e, being of identical nature by the sentence You are that and then through
14

the sentence then he will be one with brahman there is mention of freedom after
exhaustion of prarabdha (for that person who is abiding in the self).

Therefore for a conscious entity abindace in insentient is untenable and for one who
is meditating on that oneness due to faith, freedom is not possible. On the contrary
evil can befall him. Thus the word self is committed to revealing a conscious being.
This is established.


Doubt Going by the maxim of showing Arundhati star with the help of big objects,
let there be the teaching of the self through the teaching of pradhanam. Considering
this doubt, the author says

heyatvAvacanAcca ||8|| (3 words)
(pradhAnasya) heyatva avacanAt ca.
And since there is no mention (in sruti) of the negatibility (of
pradhanam).
If pradhanam alone which is the non-self is denoted by the word sat, then here ( in
this Upanishad ), pradhanam would be the subject matter of teaching by the
sentence that is the self. You are that.
With the consideration that by listening to that teaching (regarding pradhanam),
that aspirant should not be abiding in that pradhanam due to the ignorance of the
real self, the scripture desirous of teaching the main (real) self would have talked of
the negatability of pradhanam.
Or (swamiji to see which conveys better)
In that case, the scripture desirous of teaching the main (real) self would have
talked of the negatability of pradhanam, with the consideration that by listening to
that teaching (regarding pradhanam), that aspirant should not be abidiing in that
pradhanam due to the ignorance of the real self.
But the scripture does not say so. Therefore because of there being no statement in
the sruti of the negatibility of pradhanam, (pradhanam is not referred to by the
word sat ).
By the word ca (in the sutra, another reason is suggested) because of the
contradiction to the initial statement knowledge of all by the knowledge of one.



15


Doubt In this manner (as described in the last four sutras), having negated the
status of pradhanam in the form of being the cause of the world through its
negation of being the gateway for the teaching of the self, the status of selfness (ie,
being denoted by the word self) and the secondary seerness (ie, status of being the
seer in a figurative sense); Now the author presents three aphorisms to negate the
same (ie, the causal status of pradhanam) through three independent reasons

svApyayAt || 9|| (1 word)
Because of the merger (of jiva) into ones own self.
(Therefore brahman alone is referred to by the word sat and not
pradhanam.)
Because of merger into ones own self which is conscious, which is referred to by the
word sat, which is the subject matter under discussion. Because of the mention of
merger by the sruti sentence O amiable one, that time in sleep he becomes one
with existence. Since the root in in the prefix api is in the sense of merger.
Therefore that (consciousness) in which there is merger of all individuals during
sleep due to the absence of particularization created by limited adjunct and which is
referred to by the word sat; That brahman alone is the cause of the world and not
pradhanam. This is the meaning.

gatisAmAnyAt ||10|| (1 word)
Since there is unanimity of understanding (that sentient brahman is the
cause of the world and not pradhanam.)
Since gati means understanding i.e, the knowledge of consciousness being the
cause found in Vedanta sentences like from the self space is born, is unanimous.
Therefore pradhana is not the cause of the world. This is the meaning.

shrutatvAcca ||11|| (1 word)
Because it is revealed (so in sruti that brahma alone is jagat karanam).
It is indeed mentioned in Svetasvatara Upanishad, after introducing omniscient
brahman He is the cause, he is the master of the master of the organs, no one is
his creator and none is his master.
Therefore omniscient brahman is the cause of the world and not inert pradhanam or
anything else. This is established.
16

(BRIEF PRESENTATION - Samanvaya adhyaya samanvayAdhikarana
pradhana nirakara sutras 5 to 11 :
Fifth adhikarana 7 sutras.
Sankhya and yoga mata believe that pradhanam which has three gunas and has the
capacity to create, is the cause of creation. This is dismissed by vedanti.
Several reasons are given why sat cannot be pradhanam.
Main logic is that
Only a conscious entity can deliberate and visualise the creation.
A conscious entity cannot have oneness with an inert entity.
Due to the strength of sruti which explicitly and implicitly presents the cause
of creation to be a conscious entity. Pradhanam is nowhere mentioned as the
cause.
Chapter 6 of Chandogya Upanishad is the basis of analysis to establish Brahman to
be the cause of creation and not pradhanam.
A brief presentation of the ideas conveyed by these sutras-
Sutra 5 - Sruti mentions sat as the cause of the world and that cause to be a seer.
Pradhanam is not that.
Sutra 6 Pradhanam cannot have seership in the secondary sense also.
Sutra 7 Moksha is oneness with sat. Jiva can have oneness only with a conscious
entity and not an inert entity.
Sutra 8 Sruti does not support the idea of oneness with pradhanam leading to
oneness with Brahman.
Sutra 9 Merging or oneness is only with a conscious entity as indicated in deep
sleep experience.
Sutra 10 All Upanishads unanimously declare a conscious entity only to be the
cause.
Sutra 11 Sruti directly presents sat as a conscious entity.






17

(BRIEF PRESENTATION - Samanvaya adhyaya samanvayAdhikarana
pradhana nirakara sutras 5 to 11 :
Fifth adhikarana 7 sutras.
Sankhya and yoga mata believe that pradhanam which has three gunas and has the
capacity to create, is the cause of creation. This is dismissed by vedanti.
Several reasons are given why sat cannot be pradhanam.
Main logic is that
Only a conscious entity can deliberate and visualise the creation.
A conscious entity cannot have oneness with an inert entity.
Due to the strength of sruti which explicitly and implicitly presents the cause
of creation to be a conscious entity. Pradhanam is nowhere mentioned as the
cause.
Chapter 6 of Chandogya Upanishad is the basis of analysis to establish Brahman to
be the cause of creation and not pradhanam.
The ideas conveyed by these sutras are as follows-
Sutra 5 - Sat is mentioned in Chandogya as the cause of the world. Nowhere does
sruti present pradhanam as the cause of the world because sruti is presenting
seership in the cause which is not there in pradhanam.
Sutra 6 Also seeing in secondary sense as mentioned in the case of fire, water,
food cannot be taken for pradhanam because in the same context, sruti uses the
word self indicating that the cause is a conscious entity
Sutra 7 Also sruti gives the teaching of liberation for a jiva who has oneness with
the self thereby indicating that conscious jiva cannot have oneness with an inert
entity, but only with a conscious entity.
Sutra 8 Also oneness with pradhanam is not a stepping stone for oneness with
Brahman because sruti would have later negated that oneness with pradhanam and
there is no such negation mentioned in sruti.
Sutra 9 Since in deep sleep, the senses and mind are withdrawn and one merges
with oneself. Merger of jiva can be only with conscious entity.
Sutra 10 Since there is uniformity in all upanishads of presenting the cause of
creation as a conscious entity.
Sutra 11 Since there is an upanishad sentence which directly presents sat as a
conscious entity.

18

In this manner, even though it is established that all vedanta sentences dealing with
qualified or unqualified Brahman through the injunction on meditation and directly
are committed to unqualified Brahman only, now this section which is in the form of
the analysis of the sentences dealing with unqualified Brahman is started
AnandamayobhyAsAt ||12|| (2 words)
Anandamayah (brahman) abhyAsat.
Blissful is the supreme self because of te repetition of the word bliss (in
sruti).
As in Ikshita adhikarana, the repeated reading of secondary seeing by the sentence
that fire saw was not the determinant (i.e, not conclusive) of the status of
(pradhanam) being the cause of the world. Unlike that here in the expression
anandamaya repeated reading is not non-determinant with regard to the suffix
mayat having the meaning of modification. Thus with the previous section, this
section has a connection in the form of counter-example.
* In the opponents view - the result is the establishment of the individual self as
the blissful one.
* According to those who follow the final established view - the established
conclusion is the establishment of the knowledge of oneness with unqualified
Brahman.
* And according to partial supporter In both the opponent and Siddhantis views ,
the establishment of meditation alone on jiva and Brahman is the result.
This is the distinction in interpretation.
In Taittriya Upanishad it is heard starting form the product of food upto another
inner self is the blissful one. (This is the subject matter).
There in that sentence whether supreme Brahman - which is the subject of
discussion in the sentence truth, consciousness, bliss, etc., alone is meant by the
word anandamaya or like in the case of annamaya, etc. jiva which is something
other than Brahman is meant. When this is the doubt...
The opponents view is that some other entity i.e, jiva is meant.
Whereas the established conclusion is anandamaya is parmatma alone. Why?
Because of repetition, i.e, because there is frequent repetition of the word ananda
in the sense of Brahman only. This is the meaning.


19

Objection Since the word Anandamaya is in the sense of modification only.
Therefore it cannot mean the supreme self.Having considered this doubt, the author
says
vikArashabdAnneti cenna prAcuryAt ||13|| (6 words)
vikArashabdat na iti cet na prAcuryAt.
Because of the word (suffix mayat) having the sense of modification ,
anandamaya is not the supremem self. If this is the argument. This is not
so because there that (suffix mayat ) is in the sense of abundance.
Brahman is not referred to by the word anandamaya. Why? Because of the word
denoting modification i.e, because of the suffix mayat denoting modification and
because Brahman cannot be the modification of happiness. If this is the doubt.
That is not so. Why? Because of (the meaning) abundance. Because the suffix
mayat in this context is denoting abundance of happiness. This is the meaning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The author mentions one more reason for the suffix mayat being in the sense of
abundance.
taddhetuvyapadeshAtcca || 14|| (2 words)
tadhetuvyapadeshAt ca.
And because of its mention as the source of that ( happiness. Therefore
anandamaya is the supreme self.)
With regard to that happiness, the status of brahman being its cause is mentioned
(in sruti) by the sentences this supreme self makes the people happy. Therefore
the blissful one is the supreme self alone. This is the meaning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And also because of the following reason, the blissful self is parmatma alone, thus
says the author
mAntravarNikameva ca gIyate ||15|| (4 words)
mAntravarNikam eva ca gIyate.
And that which is declared in mantra portion, the very same Brahman is
presented (in brahmana portion also).
Having introduced the subject matter with the knower of brahmanattains the
supreme and in this mantra Brahman which is truth, knowledge and limitless .
20

Thus Brahman which was presented in the form of truth, etc. was presented as
something to be known in the innermost. Moreover the very same Brahman taught
in mantra portion (as satyam, jnanam, anantam) is declared in Brahmana portion as
anandamaya because the mantra and brahmana portion should have the same
content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And for this reason also, anandamaya is parmatma (and not jiva), the author says
(in the following aphorism)

nEtaronupapatteh ||16|| (3 words)
na itarah anupapatteh.
Since there is illogicality of any other (being blissful).
Individual self who is not different form God (Isvara) is not anandamaya. Why?
Because of illogicality of jiva having the status of being the desirer and of being
(manifest) in the form of created things as heard (in the sruti) He desired, let me
be many. Let me be born. This is the meaning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And also because of this reason, anandamaya is not jiva says the author (in the
following aphorism)

bhedavyapadeshAcca ||17|| (2 words)
bhedavyapadeshAt ca.
And because of the mention of the difference (between individual self and
supreme self, jiva cannot be anandamaya.)
Since the individual self and anandamaya are mentioned with difference because of
their being attainer and attained as mentioned (in same sruti) He is happiness
indeed; for one becomes happy having attained that happiness. This is the
meaning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doubt then let pradhanam (of sankhya) be meant by the word anandamaya, then
the author (with regard to this doubt) says
kAmAcca nAanumAnApekshA ||18|| (4 words)
kAmAt ca na anumAnApekshA.
21

And because of (the word) desire the acceptance of pradhanam as the
meaning (of the word anandamaya) is not there.
That which is inferred is (called) anumanam i.e, pradhanam which is knowable only
through inference , of that there is no expectation of it ( as the meaning of
anandamaya) i.e, here in this context, there is no acceptance (of pradhanam as
anandamaya).Why ? Because of desire i.e, because in that context there is the
mention of desirerness of anandamaya which is Brahman by the sruti sentence he
desires. Here the negation of pradhanam is incidental. This is to be noted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And because of (following reason) bliss is not jiva , thus says the author
asmin asya ca tadyogam shAshti || 19|| (5 words)
asmin asya ca tadyogam shAsti.
Moreover the scriptures declare the identity with that parmatma of this (enlightened
jiva) in that (blissful Brahman) with reference to parmatma.
In this means in the blissful self under discussion; of this means of this jiva who is
enlightened (with regard to this self). tadyogam means the union in the form of
absolute identification (ie,being of that nature), becoming one with that in the form
of liberation. The scripture declares that union beginning with whenever this
aspirant becomes fearlessly established in this (parmatma) which is imperceptible
(ie, free from gross body), bodiless (free from subtle body), undefinable Brahman.
Then itself he attains fearless Brahman. Therefore anandamaya is not jiva, but teh
very supreme self. This is the meaning. However this is the interpretation of the
partial supporter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------









22

But in the view of the honourable Sri Sankaracarya the interpretation of
the aphorisms is as follows
AnandamayobhyAsAt || 13||
Anandamayah (anandamayabrahmapucchashabdah) abhyAsAt
Brahman referred to in the description of anandamaya is independently
presented (in its own right) because of its repetition occurring in the
mantra that follows.
Just as in Ikshati adhikarana, there was ascertainment of Brahman on account of
primary seeing and therefore repeated mention of secondary seeing was non-
determinant ; Unlike that here since there is sameness of the status of the word tail
in the form of being an indicator of supportness and/or partness. Therefore repeated
reading (mention) of tail as a part will not be non-determinant. In this manner, with
that section, this section will have a connection in the form of counter example.
Whereas the result is said earlier.
Here whether by the sentence -Brahman is the tail which stabilises - is Brahman
presented here as being a part of anandamaya or as an independent entity, when
this is the doubt.
The objectors view is Brahman is presented as a part (of anandamaya).
Whereas the established view is By the word anandamaya occurring in the
aphorism, the word Brahman mentioned in the sentence brahman puccham
occurring in anandamaya is indicated. That (word Brahman) is meant to convey
independent Brahman. Why? Because of repetition, i.e, since independent Brahman
alone is repeated in the verse(rig mantra) which follows he becomes non-
existent. This is the meaning.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what was said by you that the word tail is meant to denote a part, with
regard to that the author says :

vikArashabdAnneti cenna prAcuryAt ||13||
vikArashabdAt (avayavaparabrahmapucchashabdAt) na iti cet, (tat) na, prAcuryAt.
Because of the use of a word denoting a limb (part), that is not so (i.e,
Brahman is not an independent entity). If this be the objection, that is not
correct because the word tail is used to denote abundance (i.e, majority
of the usage of the term denoting part).

Because of the word tail denoting part, the word Brahman which is in apposition
23

(being in the same case) with the word tail is not denoting Brahman as an
independent entity. Ifthis is your objection.
Then it is not so. Because of abundance i.e, because of repeated usage of the word
part, Brahman is said to be the tail and not with the intention of revealing it
(Brahman) as a part.
Also on account of mentioning (the word tail) together with the word stabiliser, the
word tail is committed to revealing support. And therefore Brahman is presented as
an independent entity.
Because of this following reason also, the word tail is denoting support, thus says
the author
taddetuvyapadeshAcca ||14||
tad hetuh vyapadeshAt ca .
And because of the presentation of that Brahman as the cause of all
products, (Brahman is meant to be an independent entity).
Because of presentation of Brahman as the cause of the group of its products in the
sentence He created all this, (thereby Brahman is presented independently or
thereby the word tail denotes support).

____________________________________________________________________

Because of following reason also, Brahman mentioned in the sentence containing the
word tail is an independent entity, thus says the author

mAntravarNikameva ca gIyate || 15||
mAntravarNikam eva ca gIyate.
And the very same Brahman which is presented in mantra is declared here
(in the puccha sentence in the brahmana).
Brahman which is the subject matter of mantra as truth, consciousness and
infinite, that very same Brahman is presented as an independent entity in the
sentence in the brahmana portion Brahman is the tail because both the mantra
and brahmana portion have the same content. This is the meaning.

____________________________________________________________________




24

Why anandamaya is not presented as an independent entity in the sentence
containing the word tail (this doubt can be there). Therefore the author says

netaronupapatteh || 16||
na itarah anupapatteh.
The other one (i.e, anandamaya) cannot be the subject matter because of
untenability.
The other one i.e, anandamaya is not here the main subject matter because of the
untenability of its being the creator, etc. mentioned in the subsequent sentence due
to its having limbs like joy, etc. This is the meaning.
Also because of following reason (anandamaya) is not the central theme here, thus
says the author
bhedavyapadeshAcca ||17||
bhedavyapadeshAt ca.
Because of the mention of difference (between anandamaya and
Brahman. Anandamaya is not the main subject matter).
Because of the mention of difference between anandamaya and Brahman in the
form of attainer and attained in the sentence Having attained this happiness, this
one (i.e, jiva) becomes happy. This is the meaning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doubt Since in the sentence ananda is Brahman, the word ananda refers to
Brahman. Therefore here also anandamaya is inferred to be Brahman (this can be
the doubt). Therefore the author says
kAmAcca nAnumAnApekshA ||18||
kAmAt ca na anumAnApekshA.
And the expectation of inferring blissful one to be Brahman on account of
the word ananda is not there.
That which is sought after is kAmA ie, happiness. Just because it is seen (found) to
be Brahman, therefore Brahman status of even anandamaya thorugh inference
should not be expected because mayat is prescribed in the sense of modification.
(ie, just because ananda is Brahman does not mean that anandamaya is also
Brahman).

25

Also because of the following reason, anandamaya is not the central theme, the
author says
Asmin asya ca tadyogam shAsti || 19||
The scripture declares oneness with that Brahman of this jiva who is
enlightened with regard to this Brahman.
By the sentence whenever alone indeed......... , the scripture declares the oneness
with that Brahman on the part of this anandamaya which is the individual jiva who is
enlightened with regard to this Brahman which has been talked about in the
sentence containing the word tail. Therefore i.e, because here anandamaya is not
the central theme, Brahman alone which is mentioned as the tail is an independent
entity which is unqualified and to be known. This is established.
















26

BRIEF PRESENTATION - samanvaya adhyaya anandamaya
adhikarnam sutras 12 to 19 :
This adhikarana presents 2 aspects each sutra is interpreted according to ekadeshi
and parama siddhanti with the purvapakshi presenting the opposing stsand.
This analysis is done with the help of the second chapter of Taittriya Upanishad.
Two sentencees are analysed anyontara atma anandamayah and brahma puccham
pratishta - in the context of the entire chapter to arrive at the tatparyam of this
Upanishad.
Ekadeshi is a partial supporter- The focus of his discussion is on the word
anandamaya which is the central theme. According to him anandamaya is
brahman. Liberation is oneness with anandamaya brahman thro meditation.
Parama Siddhantis view is The focus of the discussion is on the sentence
brahma puccham pratishta . Brahman is the central them of the discussion and not
anandamaya. Starting from the beginning of the chapter - brahmavid apnoti param
followed by satyam, jnanam, anantam brahma right upto brahma puccham pratishta
to the end, the same brahman is talked about. Liberation is oneness with
nirvisesha brahman thro self-knowledge.
Depending on which sentence the focus is, the sutras are interpreted
Sutra 12 AnandamayobhAsat ||
Ekadeshi view anandamaya is brahma because the word ananda with reference
to brahman is repeated at several places in Vedanta.
Parama siddhanti In the sentence brahma puccham pratishta , the word
brahman is the central theme because of the repetition of the word brahman again
in the immediately following rig mantra shloka. The subject matter of the brahmana
section and the mantra section being the same.
Sutra 13 vikArascenneti cet na prAcuryAt ||
Ekadeshi view The mayat pratyaya in the word anandamaya cannot be taken in
the sense of vikara i.e, modification, as done for annamaya, etc. It should be taken
in the sense of abundance or plentitude. i.e, brahman is full of abundance of
happiness.
Parama Siddhanti The word puccham in the sense of vikara should not be
taken to mean avayava i.e, part, but should be taken in the sense of abundance of
repetition of the word puccham in annamaya, etc., in the sense of support.
Support is different from the supported. Therefore brahman is an independent entity
which is the support of annadamaya alss.



27

Sutra 15 tadhetuvyapadeshAcca ||
Ekadeshi view Brahman is mentioned as the source of ananda for all jivas.
Therefore brahman must be full of ananda ie, anandaprAcuryah to be able to give
ananda to jivas.
Parama siddhanti Brahman is presented as the cause of everything and that
which is the cause is different from anandamaya which is a product.
Sutra 16 mAntravarNikameva ca gIyate||
Both the mantra and brahman portion of the Upanishad have the same content.
Ekadeshi view The same parmatma presented earlier in mantra portion satyam
jnanam anantam - is finally presented as anyontara atma - in the brahman portion.
Parama Siddhanti The same parmatma presented in mantra portion as -satyam,
jnanam anantam is presented as -brahma puccham prathishta -in the anandamaya
section.
Sutra 17 bhedavyapadesAcca ||
Ekadeshi view Jiva the experiencer, cannot be anandamaya which is that which
is experienced. Sruti mentions the experiencer to be different from the experienced.
Parama siddhanti The anandamaya i.e, Jiva is mentioned as the attainer and
brahman as that which is to be attained. What is to be attained is the central theme
not the attainer.
Sutra 18 kAmAcca nAnumAnapeksha ||
The Sankhya view is refuted by Ekadeshi there is no acceptance of pradhanam
(which is inferred) to be anandamaya because of the word desire which is not
possible in inert pradhanam.
Parama siddhanti kAmAt has both the meaning desire and that which is
desired. That which is desired by all is ananda. Because of the mention of the word
ananda as brahman , it cannot be inferred that anandamaya (which has mayat
pratyaya in the sense of modification) is brahman because of the difference in the
meaning. i.e, brahman is anandasvarupa, but brahman is not anandamaya.
Sutra 19 asmin asya ca tadyogam shAsti ||
Ekadeshi view sruti mentions oneness of jiva with anandamaya brahman.
Parama siddhanti sruti mentions oneness of enlightened (anandamaya) jiva with
independent, unqualified brahman and not with brahman which is part of
anandamaya.

Thus it is established that brahman presented by the sentence in anandamaya
portion of Taittriya Upanishad is presenting an independent, unqulaified entity and is
not a part of anandamaya. One has to gain abidance in that brahman for liberation.

28

7) Seventh (antar) adhikarana (samanvaya adhyaya) 2 sutras
Now the author mentions an exception to the convergence (of Vedanta sentences)
into unqualified brahman which was established earlier in the manner described
Sutra 20 - ||20|| (2 words)
Antah taddharmopadeshAt.
The inside one is parmatma because of the mention of his qualities (or
features).
Just as earlier (in the previous adhikarana), there was establishment of unqualified
brahman because of many evidences consisting of these 3 main ones the word
brahman, the word anandamaya and the repetition of ananda (or repetition of
brahman referred to as tail in anandamaya portion). Similarly here let the
transmigratory individual be the golden being becasue of many evidences such as
having the form, etc., since in this manner there is emergence of the opponents
view with the help of reasoning given by the earlier established view, therefore with
that (earlier) section), this (present) section has connection in the form of
example.
Whereas the difference in result should be seen as - in opponents view
ascertainment of meditation on lower (apara) brahman. In established view
ascertainment of meditation on higher (para) brahman.
In Chandogya sruti it is said the being who is inside the sun, who is golden, etc.
(this is the subject matter).
There (in that statement) whether this being is a transmigratory soul who has
attained excellence because of extraordinary meditation and action or does it mean
the Lord who is ever-established. When this is the doubt
The opponents view is The inside one is a transmigratory (but exalted) jiva.
The established view is That which is mentioned as which is inside the sun
and which is inside the eye is parmeshvara only and not a transmigratory soul.
Why ? because of the mention of the qualities of that i.e, since of that Isvara the
qualities in the form of being free from all sins are mentioned in the sentence. Since
based on maya, for the purpose of favouring the world, it is tenable for Isvara to
have golden beard, etc. Thus there is no contradiction. Therefore the one inside the
sun and eyes is the supreme Lord only. This is the meaning.

29

Alternative translation suggested
And the quality like having the golden beard, golden hair, etc. of parameshvara
which is maya-based and for the purpose of favoring the world is tenable and thus
there is no contradiction.


Moreover (one more reason why the one inside the eye and sun is parameshvara
only)
Sutra 21 Sutra 21 Sutra 21 Sutra 21 - -- - (3 words)
bhedavyapadeshAt ca anyah.
(The inside being talked about here is different from aditya devata,)
because of the mention in other scriptures of the difference (between the
inside one and aditya devata).
The being which is heard to be inside the sun and the eye is other than jiva which is
identifying with the body of the sun (solar disc).
Why? Because of the mention of difference i.e, because of the mention of the jiva
identifying with the body of the sun from the parmatma who is presented as the
inner controller in the antaryami (brahmana of Brhdaranyaka upanishad) as One
who is remaining in the sun, etc., since there is mention of difference of those two.
Here also because of the mention of the word inner, there is recollection of that
self. (Therefore, because the supreme self who is different from the individual self
identifying with the solar globe, is mentioned as the inner controller by the
statement one who remains in the sun, etc. and thus there is the mention of their
difference. It is established that parameshvara alone should be meditated on as
being inside the sun and the eye.

8) Eighth (Akasha) adhikarana samanvaya adhyaya - 1 sutra.
Doubt- Just as in the previous section, the status of having form, etc. was
interpreted differently due to unswerving indicators of brahman such as being free
of sins; But unlike that here the vedic usage in the form of the word space
cannot be interpreted differently on account of the indicator because sruti is
stronger than the indicator. This can be the doubt . Therefore author says
Sutra 22 - 1~q (2 words)
AkAshah tallingAt.
The word space denotes brahman because of the indicatory marks of that
brahman.
30

With the previous section, this section has the connection in the form of counter
example.
Whereas the result in the opponents view is (ascetainment of) meditation on
udgitha with the idea of elemental space and the result in the established conclusion
is (ascertainment of) meditation with the idea of brahman. This should be seen.

There (in the chandogya sentence) whether elemental space is referred to by the
word space or supreme brahman, when this doubt is there
It is elemental space - is the opponents view.
Whereas the established view is By the word space brahman alone is
understood. Why? Because of its indicatory marks i.e, because the creation of all
great elemtns, etc which is indicatory marks of that brahman is seen in this
sentence.
And the point objected to that compared to an indicator (clue), sruti is more
powerful is not valid. Because subduing of one vedic word space is appropriate for
favouring many sruti sentences which are in the form of indicators of brahman.
And so because of the other scriptural sentence space alone is greater than all
this, brahman alone referred to by the word space is the object of meditation in
udgitha. This is established.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9) Ninth (prAna) adhikarna samanvaya adhyaya 1 sutra .
The author extends the reasoning used with regard to space elsewhere (in the
following aphorism)

Sutra 23 - 9 (3 words)
Atah eva praNah.
(The word prana refers to brahman alone) because of this very same
reason alone (because of having its indicators in the sentence.)
Here (in this section) a distinct connection is not expected because this section is an
extension (of the previous one). Or just as in the previous section the subduing of
the vedic word space was proper because of unswerving indicators of brahman; but
unlike that here the subduing of the word prana is not proper because the
indicators like entry, etc. is common with the vital air. Therefore there is no non-
deviation from ( or faithfulness to) brahman on the part of those indicators. Thus
there is a connection in the form of counter example.

31

The result to be seen is: In opponents view ascertainment of meditation on
prastava (which is one part of sama mantra) with the attitude of prana (air-
modification). Whereas in the established view the result (ascertainment of
meditation on prastava) with the attitude of brahman.
In the Chandogya Upanishad in the context of udgitha it is mentioned O, priest,
do you know the devata of prastava? Having started thus and what is that
devata ? (When that was the question) CAkrayana said
It is prana, etc.(This is the subject matter).
There (in that sentence), by the word prana whether brahman is meant or air-
modification, when this is the doubt.
The opponents view is It is air-product.
Whereas the established view is by the word prana brahman alone is denoted.
Why ? because of this alone i.e, because of its indicatory mark alone as it was said
in the previous aphorism. The idea is because entry, etc. of all beings mentioned in
the sentence they (beings) enter into vital air alone. etc. which is the indicator of
that brahman is seen in this sentence.

And it should not be argued that by the sentence (in satapata brahmana)then (in
deep sleep) speech merges into vital air, it is heard (this entry, etc.) into the air-
modification also, because there only the entry of the organs is mentioned ( and not
of all beings).
Therefore i.e, because of non-swerving indicators of brahman, it is established that
brahman alone which is denoted by the word prana is the object of meditation.

10) Tenth (jyotiscaraNA) adhikarna samanvaya adhyaya 4 sutras
Just as in the earlier section dealing with prana because of the presence of
unswerving indicator of brahman, the word (prana) denotes brahman. Unlike that
here in this sentence there is absence of that (indicators of brahman). With the
connection in the form of a counter example, the author says
Sutra 24 Sutra 24 Sutra 24 Sutra 24 - -- - (2 words)
JyotishcaraNAbhidhAnat |
The word light (in the sentence 3-13-7 of Chandogya Upanishad) denotes
brahman on account of the mention of feet (in previous section).

Here (in this section) in the opponents view the result is ascertainment of the
meditation on the light in stomach (digestive fire) with the idea of sun, etc.
32

In the established view it is with the attitude of brahman.

In Chandogya sruti it is stated Now that which shines above this heaven or above
everything, etc. (This is the visaya vakya).

There (in that sentence mentioned), by the word jyotis is the light of the sun, etc.
meant or brahman. When this is the doubt.

The opponents view is - It is sunlight, etc. (meant by the word jyoti).
Whereas the established view is By the word jyotis in the sentence above
heaven , brahman alone is understood. Why? Because of the mention of quarters
i.e, because of the mention of four-footedness in the sentence earlier to this jyotis
sentence i.e in the sentence one quarter of this (brahman) is all beings and its
immortal 3-footed nature is in heaven. Therefore brahman alone is meant by the
word jyotis. This is the meaning.


Since by the sentence Gayatri indeed is all this, the metre called Gayatri is
introduced and therefore that alone is the object of meditation and not anything
else. Considering this doubt, the author says

Sutra 25 77 7 c (9 words)
chandobhidhAnAt na iti cet na tathA cetorpaNanigadAt tathAhi darshanam.
Because of the mention of the metre called gayatri (brahman is not the
object of meditation) , if this is the doubt. Then (we say) it is not so
because in that way (thro the Gayatri metre) there is the mention of the
application of the mind (for meditation). For so, it is seen.

Because of the mention of the metre i.e, because of the mention of only the metre
called Gayatri in the previous section, brahman is not the subject matter of
discussion. If this is the doubt. That is not so. Why? Because that way thro the
metre called Gayatri, there is mention of the application of the mind to brahman
which is obtaining in that (metre).
(With regard to that), there is an example That is how the finding is i.e, elsewhere
also in the sentence the followers of rik veda meditate indeed on the supreme
self as inhering in the great hymn called uktha. The idea is they meditate on the
self in the great hymn as the one obtaining in it. Thus meditation of brahman thro
the effect is seen. That which is seen (drshtum) is called seeing (darshanam).
Therefore brahman itself is indicated in the previous sentence (section) and not the
metre. This is established.
33

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also because of following reason, brahman alone is the subject matter in the
sentence talking about Gayatri. Thus says the author

Sutra 26 -

c 26 || (3 words )
bhUtAdipAdavyapadeshopapatteh ca evam.
And this is so also ( brahman is subject matter in Gayatri sentence)
because of the tenablility of the representation (statement) of the beings,
etc. as the feet.
Because only with regard to Brahman, there is tenability of the expression that
Gayatri is four-footed thro living beings, earth, body, heart. For the
representation of the beings, etc. as the feet is not possible for Gayatri which is in
the form of the assemblage of letters.
Therefore brahman alone is the subject matter of the Gayatri section and therefore
in the jyoti sentence that very same brahman is recognized because of connection to
heaven. This is established.


Earlier the expression divi by the 7
th
case, heaven is indicated as support. And in
the word divah by the fifth case, heaven is indicated as the limit. Thus the
recollection which was told by you is not there because of the connection to heaven
mentioned with difference in cases. When this is the doubt, the author says -
Sutra 27 - 7 7177 || 27|| ( words)
upadeshabhedAt na iti cet na ubhayasmin na api avirodhAt.
Because of the difference in statement due to difference in case endings,
(recollection will not be there) is not correct because in both cases there is
no contradiction.









34