SATYANVESHANA

INQUIRY INTO THE TRUTH

A translation and explanation of Satyanveshana, the introduction to SarvankasA, a Sanskrit commentary authored by Mahamahopadhyaya Sri K.S varadAchArya on Tatva-muktA-kalApa of Sri Vedanta dEsika

TRANSLATION AND EXPLANATION BY KRISHNA KASHYAP And a team of students of Sri K.S.Varadachar 6/17/2011

SATYANVESANA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SATYANVESANA (INQUIRY INTO THE TRUTH)- ABOUT THIS PAPER ........................................................................ 3 ABOUT THE AUTHOR: SRI K.S VARADACHAR BY - SIRUNGATTUR, NADADUR SRIBHASYA SIMHASANAM, KALAI MAMANI SRI S. N. SRIRAMA DESIKACHARYA ...............................................................................................................................................3 ABOUT THIS TRANSLATION OF SARVANKASA: .......................................................................................................................4 SATYANVESANA (INQUIRY INTO THE TRUTH) ........................................................................................................ 5 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................................5 Purpose: ............................................................................................................................................................5 satyAnvEsana- Inquiry into the Truth is a difficult task ................................................................................7 What is truth? ......................................................................................................................................................9 BRANCHES OF KNOWLEDGE OF ARSHA SAMPRADAYA(VIDYA-STHANANI) .......................................................... 10 WHAT IS DHARMA? ......................................................................................................................................................11 FOUR SASTRAS (CHATUSSASTRANI) .................................................................................................................................12 VEDANTA SASTRA- A HISTORIC PERSPECTIV ........................................................................................................ 12 BEFORE THE EMERGENCE OF THE THREE SYSTEMS OF PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT (MATA TRAYA) ...................................................12 The schism between later Buddhism and Vedanta ............................................................................................13 No profound vEdAntin existed in 6 or 7 century to counter Buddhist criticisms of vedAanta .......................14 Mandanamisra's allegiance to Vedic methodology undermined his efforts to defeat Buddhists ......................14 THE EMERGENCE OF THE MATA TRAYA ..............................................................................................................................15 THE NATURE OF THESE THREE SYSTEMS (MATA-TRAYA-SVARUPAM) .................................................................. 17 CONCEPT OF NIRVISESADVAITA- ACCORDING TO MODERN THINKERS: ....................................................................................18 THE CONCEPT OF DVAITA ..............................................................................................................................................18 THE CONCEPT OF VISISTADVAITA .....................................................................................................................................20 THE CONCEPTS : BODY-SOUL RELATIONSHIP AND MATERIAL CAUSALITY OF BRAHMAN ARE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND .....................21
SAVISESADVAITA / VISISTADVAITA VIEW OF MANY SAMPRADAYIC SCHOLARS IS SLIGHTLY WRONG: ............................................... 21
th th

SRI MADHVACHARYAS VIEW:.........................................................................................................................................24

ADVENT OF MY RECEPTORS ............................................................................................................................................ 24

THE TEACHINGS HAD TO BE MODIFIED BASED ON TIME, NATURE OF PEOPLE, THEIR LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS .................................................................................................................................................................... 25 THE TRUE INTENT OF THE ACHARYAS ...............................................................................................................................28 ADVENT OF SRI VEDANTA DESIKA: ..................................................................................................................................31 CONTROVERSIES: .........................................................................................................................................................32 First controversy .................................................................................................................................................32 Second controversy: ...........................................................................................................................................33 Third controversy: ..............................................................................................................................................34 Solution: .............................................................................................................................................................34 CONCLUSION: ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 THIS IS WHAT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD HERE: .......................................................................................................................42 If all attributes of Brahman are denied, it is like stating that Brahman is non-entity! ......................................42 Brahman is definitely endowed with attributes: All the vedantic schools agree on this! ..................................42

SATYANVESANA (INQUIRY INTO THE TRUTH)- ABOUT THIS PAPER This is a translation of the introduction to SarvankasA, a Sanskrit commentary by Mahamahopadhyaya K.S varadAchArya on Tatva-muktA-kalApa of Sri Vedanta dEsika. To clarify the intent of the author, I have added some explanations with the permission of Sri VaradAchar. I first met Sri VaradAchar about three years ago in India. I was naturally attracted to his style and started learning from him about vedAnta. The sessions with him were brief but electrifying. He had a profoundly comprehensive way of addressing the core problems of philosophy, and no subject or text was unfamiliar to him. I was more impressed by him than any scholar I had ever met! I returned to the USA and requested his permission to begin a program of study with him via phone. Some of my friends -- Mani Varadarajan, Balaji Srinivasan, Murli Rajagopalan, Dr. Manohara, Srinivasan Iyengar, the late Sri Krishnamachari and a few others got on conference calls, which took place once or twice weekly. These lectures / Q&A sessions sometimes lasted over two hours and continued for two years. Sri VaradAchar asked us to begin by not taking anything for granted, to set apart our biases and preconceptions, and to understand that philosophy was an attempt at seeking truth and not a game of choosing one personality or convention over another. He asked us never to default to "sampradaya or tradition. He taught us to consider the complete context of every AchArya's writings including the philosophical, historical, social and political environment. He told us to always focus on the core questions, and not to devolve into textual reading-between-the-lines and microanalysis.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: SRI K.S VARADACHAR BY - SIRUNGATTUR, NADADUR SRIBHASYA SIMHASANAM, KALAI MAMANI SRI S. N. SRIRAMA DESIKACHARYA

Following is an excerpt from the introduction to the author written by Sri S. N. SrirAma dEsikAchArya Sri varadAchar was born in the year 1922 C.E in Kothimangalam (Tamil Nadu). He got his pancha samskAram under his father and under him he studied kAvya, nAtakas etc. Then he studied Vedas under nAvalpAkam sOmayAjI Sri nArAyana tAta dEsikan right in his village. Then he studied in Chennai at kAkumAnI AdikEsavulu SrEsti samskrita pAtasAla and at Tirupati SrivEnkatEsvara SamskritakalAsAla, where he completed nyAya sAstra at sirOmani level. Then he performed prapatti at the feet of Kothimangalam vAtsya sri vIrarAghava mahAdEsikan. It gives me immense pleasure to remember that he was my classmate in Tirupati. Then Sri varadAchar went to study under the world famous Srimad Abhinava Ranganatha Bramha tantra parakAla swami, and his great disciple, AtmakUr dIkshAchAr for ten years covering advanced granthas pertaining to PrAchIna nyAya, navya nyAya sAstra,

vedAnta and other systems of philosophy (darsana granthas). Thus he became an ubhaya vedAnta mahA pandita as well as a dArsanika. Sri varadAchar wrote a commentary on an advanced nyAya text known as "nyAya manjari" and thus proved his mastery in nyAya sAstra. The government of Karnataka recognized this work and presented him with an award. The paramAchArya of kanchi, after having direct knowledge of his multi-faceted mastery in various sAstras, awarded him a title of "Pandita Ratnam", etched in a gold plate, in 1953, when Sri varadAchar was just about 31 years old. In the year 2002, he got the President's award. In 2003, the RashtrIya Samskita VidyApIta of Tirupati gave the title of "mahAmahOpAdhyAya" to him. Sri varadAchar, though averse to fame, wealth or praise, was given awards such as sAstra ratnAkara, sarva sAstra kalAnidhi etc. even by pundits belonging to other systems of thought. Rare are the people who are pundits in different sAstras. Rare are the people among them who can analyze different sAstras and write commentaries on them. Among such pundits, rare are the people who can teach them. The fact that all these three qualities exist in Sri varadAchar reminds us of the great TrivEni sangama. - sirungattUr, nadAdUr sribhAsya simhAsanam, kalai mAmani Sri S. N. Srirama DesikAchArya

ABOUT THIS TRANSLATION OF SARVANKASA:

I sincerely thank: Sri Mani Varadarajan, Sri Balaji Srinivasan, Sri Ram Madhavan, Sri Viswa Sharma, Sri Murlidhar Rajagopalan, Sri Chakravarthi Srinivasa and Smt Padhma Ranganathan and several others who have corrected the drafts tirelessly giving valuable suggestions. Since the content of this article is a summary of the findings of research conducted over 50 years by Sri K.S. varadAchar, an expert in darsanas, it is quite a daunting task to explain the content in english, especially for a novice like me. Even after editing this document several times, most probably there may be some errors. However, we wanted to publish it quickly considering the fact that the author is about 90 years old now and he wished that this article should be published early even though it is a rough draft. Even though, this article appears to be in its final form, it is still a draft (version 2.0), since there are a number of topics that still need to be addressed here. I sincerely hope that the readers can give us feedback on how we can improve this article. Please send comments to: Krishna Kashyap, contact: kkashyap2011@gmail.com

SATYANVESANA (INQUIRY INTO THE TRUTH)

satyam satyapriyam satyakAmAdiguna samyutam. satyamArga sahAyam tam saranam yAmi sarvasah
In Truth --which itself finds Truth dear which has for Itself a Will that is True which is the abode of all other auspiciousness which is the support for those seeking Truth In that Truth I take refuge with all my heart.

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE:

It is natural for people, who are tired of fleeting pleasures of this world, to look for something blissful and everlasting.The ancient Rshis of India spent their entire lifetime in penance, meditation and contemplation to find such an entity. Having realized their goal, they passed on their wisdom to us through a succession of disciples. Those Rshis called that everlasting entity as Brahman or rta or satya or Truth. According to them, there is no greater goal for a human being than realizing Brahman. The purpose of this paper is not to attempt the extremely difficult task of showing a method for people to realize Brahman, but to find out answers to many difficult questions that may arise such as:

What is the reason behind so many different views held by different AchAryas namely, Sri Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Madhvacharya?

Were these AchAryas, basically intellectual war mongers who have succeeded in breaking up the society into irreconcilable factions? Was this specifically their intent? Is there a way to understand these apparently divergent views in an unified way? Or is it justifiable that all systems and views, though divergent, are still true and are somehow not contradictory? Is Brahman endowed with attributes (savisEsa) or is Brahman attributeless (nirvisEsa)? What is the true conclusion according to the vEdas? What exactly is the position of Sri Ramanujacharya? In the beginning, before creation, were there three distinct entities namely souls, matter and Isvara (Lord), all coexisting together or was there only one entity which is endowed with attributes? Is Visistadvaita, a form of advaita or dvaita or something different from these two positions? What exactly is the body-soul relationship?

What is the nature of causality of this universe?

Can Brahman who undergoes no change whatsoever and is the sole entity that exists before creation, be the material and efficient cause of this variegated universe? If so, how? and how do you explain statements such as bahusyAm, which means Brahman willed that he wanted to become many

What exactly is the message of the ancient Rshis? How come there are so many different schools of thought based on the message of these Rshis?

These questions are very profound and detailed answers to them is beyond the scope of an introductory paper like this. However, brief answers to these questions are presented in this paper and for details one can read the book Tatva-muktA-kalApa with sarvankasA commentary, which is in sanskrit and is about 800 pages long.

SATYANVESANA- INQUIRY INTO THE TRUTH IS A DIFFICULT TASK

The environment we are born into significantly influences and forms our religious convictions. It is normal for people to believe in the doctrines handed down by respected teachers of their tradition. However, if one roots his or her beliefs in the sect or tradition to which one nominally belongs, Is that person willing to accept that the truth may contradict the dearly held beliefs of his or her sect? How many people are willing to find out the truth setting aside their religious convictions? How many are prepared to validate what they have learnt from their preceptors by questioning and contemplation?

As stated earlier, the message of the Rshis was passed on to us through a succession of disciples. It is possible that, since the Rshis lived thousands of years ago, some of the information they passed on, may be lost or polluted. There is a possibility that some errors might have crept in to the teachings as they were handed down to us through a chain of disciples. Hence, a deep study and contemplation of philosophical literature, taking into account the historical, political and other environmental factors, is needed to properly understand our tradition. Such a study can be done only by sincere effort. For those of us who are not lucky enough to have instantaneous enlightenment, there is no other way out.

Most people may ask, why do you want to take this responsibility of finding the truth; we have trust in our teachers, whoever they may be; there is no use in doubting what our teachers have told us since they are truly our well-wishers.

On the other hand, how many people can be contented, if they came to know that a particular traditional view they held so closely to their hearts, may not be true? Many people may have a good reason to just blindly accept their teachers since they are convinced that their teachers are truly knowledgeable and they know what is good for them. There is nothing wrong with such a blind belief, since that may be the only choice for most people.

However, is it not better for everyone to actually know what the real truth is? It is quite obvious that without a firm understanding, mere blind acceptance and adherence to any belief or practice will not last long. One can notice that, as time passes by, trust in blind faith probably wears out in a few generations. The newer generations will question everything and will not have the same level of faith. Hence there is a need for everyone to find out what the truth is.

By now it is obvious to any reader that this subject of Inquiry into the Truth is a very difficult task since it involves a lot of soul-searching. The approach taken in this book is to be really open minded and figure out the truth, whatever it may be. If a person is not open-minded, it is better for that person not to read this paper any further; otherwise some topics discussed in this article may challenge their convictions. I feel that even the very idea of separation of Vedanta into these three systems: advaita, visistAdvaita and dvaita, are just myopic views of some dry philosophers and not the understanding of mature philosophers. Further, this work is not a work written purely with a purpose to be in strict compliance with the current understanding of the traditional people who belong to the major traditions founded by Acharyas (Sri Shankarcharya, Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Madhvacharya), nor there is any effort to contradict the views of the founding Acharyas of these traditions. However, it is the result of contemplation, questioning and learning under great experts in Vedanta and Yoga. I believe that what is written here is the truth. I believe that this work was possible only due to the grace of that divine Brahman. That Lord has guided me in every step and everything in this book is offered humbly at his lotus feet. I request the readers to be patient and think deeply to analyze the issues presented here, rather than immediately respond with criticism after a superficial glance of this paper. Sri Vedanta Desika states in one of his works: a) upayuktEsu vaisadyam. b) trivarga nirapeksatA c) karanatraya sArupyam, iti saukhya rasAyanam: This means, a) One should delve deeper into only important issues which are useful without wasting time on less important pursuits b) One should not be totally consumed by focusing only on 1) Righteousness (charity or community service), 2) Acquiring wealth (artha) and 3) Achieving pleasure (kAma). In other words, one should have time to think of something beyond, namely unlimited happiness (moksa) b) One should be sincere in mind, speech and deed.

These are the essential ingredients for finding happiness. Similarly, we should take into consideration this advice while engaging in the pursuit of truth.

WHAT IS TRUTH?

The term rta means that which is not subject to destruction at any time (trikAla abAdhita satya). rta is same as Brahman, realized by the Rshis. This book is an attempt to find to the extent possible, the true message of the Rshis of India to whom we owe our tradition. This tradition is known as the Arsha sampradAya or the tradition of the Rshis.

We come to know about our tradition, through our current teachers, who may be the followers of some system of thought, such as advaita, visistAdvaita, dvaita and so on, founded by the pioneering AchAryas of the past, Sri Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Madhvacharya and so on. Why is there a difference of opinion among these founding AchAryas? What really is the system of thought propounded by the Rshis? How is that system founded by the Rshis, related to the views of these main AchAryas ? Such a study becomes easier if we try to trace the roots and the development of traditional thought in India.

It is appropriate at the very beginning to clarify some fundamental terms such as satya, rta, anrta, mithya, vyAvahArika satya, paramArtha satya, used in this document as well as in the scriptures and commentaries.

The term rta is meant to address the highest truth, it means that which has eternal unconditional existence or that which does not get negated in the past, present or future (trikala abAdhita satya). According to the tradition of the Rshis and AchAryas, only Brahman is rta. The term satya has a range of meanings. The term satya is used to refer to Brahman in statements such as satyam jnanam anantam brahma. In such cases it is synonymous with rta. This highest level of truth is known as pAramArthika satya, which is same as rta. In fact, in Vedic literature, the term rta is invariably attributed to the cause and the term satya to the effect. In statements such as rtam na atyEti kinchana, which means no one transgresses rta, the term rta means the original cause of everything. In statements such as rtam pibantau in katopanisad, rtam is used to refer to the unavoidable effects of karma, which are due to the will of that eternal truth, Brahman.

The term anrta does not necessarily mean lies, but it is that which is other than the causal truth ie. The term satya generally refers to that which is not negated during its time (or svakAlika abhAdita). The term anrta includes satya. For example, a tree exists. However that tree may get destroyed at a certain point of time due to some event such

as fire and may no longer exist. Such a temporal truth, namely that tree, can be stated as true or satya or even anrta! (not rta). Such temporally true entities are not absolutely true, since they do not last forever. However, they are true, while they exist, and they can be denoted by the term satya. anrta is not untruth. anrta only means that it is not the causal truth or that which is other than rta. However, many authors have used the term anrta to denote mainly untruth or lies or illusion! This is an extrapolated use of that term to suit those times.

The term satya can also mean not lies as commonly used in colloquial speech in sentences such as rAma only speaks the truth.

Some people may think that it is better for each one of us to find truth by our own efforts. However, since the subject is a very subtle one and what we want to find is the one truth which is not negated at any point in time, guidance from great seers, who have dedicated their lives for this purpose, is important. It is not worth re-inventing the wheel. In addition, if mistakes occur in our pursuit of truth, they can profoundly affect our lives. The purpose behind this paper is to find the truth as formulated by our tradition that has come down to us from the Rshis, through the analysis of various different views of AchAryas pertaining to this Arsha sampradAya (tradition of Rshis).

BRANCHES OF KNOWLEDGE OF ARSHA SAMPRADAYA(VIDYA-STHANANI)

haribadra-sUri, a Jain philosopher introduced the concept of shat darsana or six branches of knowledge. He wrote a book called shat-darsana sammucchaya(compilation of six systems) and popularized the concept of six branches of knowledge. These shat-darsanas are not really the way branches of knowledge developed in India. The system of thought came from the Rshis and is known as the Arsha sampradAya. The branches of knowledge of the tradition of Rshis of India are well known by the term vidya sthana. They are - four vedas, six vEdAngas, mImAmsa, nyAya-vistara, purAnas and dharma sAstras making it a total of 14 branches of

knowledge1, as enumerated by Maharshi Veda-Vyasa. These are not just branches of knowledge but also the source of dharma. Maharshi yajnavAlkya confirms this by stating puranAs, tarka, mImamsa, combined with dharma sastras and vedAs form fourteen branches of knowledge2. Further, adding AyurvEda, DhanurvEda, Gandharva and Artha-sastra, some ancient writers mentioned a total of eighteen branches of knowledge.

WHAT IS DHARMA?

Is it just some external process in the form some activity or is it a deep internal mental process aimed at understanding truth that is subtle and is not perceived well by even pious people? As stated by some, dharma is that by which, one attains progress and ultimate good3. It is very subtle and deep truth, which is difficult to understand. One can either define dharma as a path to attain progress and ultimate good or as a path to attain material progress first and attain ultimate good afterwards, depending on the type of the aspirant. Though dharma is of different types and has different steps, it ends up in Jnana or knowledge as stated in the Bhagawadgita All works, O Arjuna end up in knowledge4. For this very reason sage yAjnavalkya declared the eternal truth -ayam tu paramo dharmah yad yOgEna Atma darsanam: This Yoga is the highest dharma, by practicing which, one attains Self (Atman) Realization5. Self here means Brahman or the original cause of everything. The external dharmas, which are of the form of action, may

1
Angani vEdas-chatvaro mImAmsa nyAya vistarah. Puranam dharma sastram ca vidyA hi etaschaturdasa

2
Purana tarka mimansa dharma sastranga misritah vedah sthanani vidyanam dharmasya ca chaturdasa

3
Yatobhudaya nissreyasa siddhih sa dharmah

4 Bhagawadgita 5 Yoga yAgnya vAlkya

change depending on time, as indicated by the statement of the dharma sAstras: Those Dharmas that are relevant to the appropriate times, are explained now6.

FOUR SASTRAS (CHATUSSASTRANI)

In this manner, through these fourteen branches of knowledge / dharma was propagated, as time passed by. However, since, human beings are intelligent and they constantly strive to enhance their intelligence, as time passed by, they were drawn predominantly towards vyAkarana, mImAmsa and nyAya, out of those 14 branches of knowledge. Among these three branches, mImAmsa has two parts pUrva (earlier) and uttara (later). The uttara-mImAmsa is same as the well known bAdarAyana-sutras (vEdanta sUtras). Usually the term mImAmsa refers to pUrva-mImAmsa. In total, these branches are termed chatus sAstras or four sAstrAs (nyAya, vyAkarana, mImAmsa and vEdAnta). These branches of knowledge were propounded by Maharsis Gautama, Panini, Jaimini and Badarayana respectively. Among these, only for the nyAya-sutras, vyAkarana-sutras and pUrva-mImAmsa-sutras, commentaries, written by Rshis Vatsyayana, Pathanjali and Sabaraswami, respectively, are well known and are widely accepted. However, it is ironic that such a well accepted commentary of bAdarAyana-sutras, written by a celebrated Rshi is not available!

VEDANTA SASTRA- A HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE

BEFORE THE EMERGENCE OF THE THREE SYSTEMS OF PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT (MATA TRAYA)

6 dharma Sastras

THE SCHISM BETWEEN LATER BUDDHISM AND VEDANTA

bOdhAyana maharshi wrote a detailed commentary comprising of twenty chapters on vEdAntasUtras. There is an ancient citation7, which indicates the existence of such a detailed commentary of bOdhAyana known as bOdhAyana vritti, which was summarized by Upavarsha. There are several places, where this vrittikAra's view is cited, in Shankara bhasya. Sri Shankaracharya has addressed this author of the commentary on bOdhAyana vritti, with respect, as Bhagavan Upavarsha. This vritti covers purva and uttara mImAmsa. However, both the bOdhAyana vritti and its commentary by Upavarsha are unfortunately lost. After these ancient commentaries, a scholar known as Bhartrprapancha wrote a commentary on the vedanta Sutras. The time of Bhartrprapancha is not well established. However, there is agreement among historians that he was a pre-shankara vEdAntin. His commentary on vEdAnta sUtras supports the idea of modification of Brahmans svarUpa or essential form. He states that just as the ocean transforms itself into foam, bubbles and waves, Brahmans very form undergoes change and it transforms itself into this universe of matter and living beings. Early Buddhist teachings were not contradictory to Vedic view till the time of DingnAga (480-540 C.E). However, during the time of DingnAga, some of the powerful Buddhists, condemned this theory of Bhartrprapanca, stating that anything that undergoes modification has to be perishable and this theory amounts to stating that Brahman himself is perishable. Hence this commentary of Bhartrprapancha also did not survive for long. A particular sect of Buddhism known as mAdhyamika school tried to establish nihilism or non-existence of everything.This view is known as sUnyavAda, which contradicts the Vedic principle of the unconditional existence of Brahman or Atman8. The final goal, according to the Arsha sampradAya is to find out the nature of the truth , namely the one, which exists eternally and unconditionally. The ancient Rshis had meditated and contemplated on truth and had expressed their divine experiences in the form of vEdas. The principle of sUnyavAda denied value to everything including the very existence of seeker or a goal and hence directly opposed this very quest for that everlasting entity, named Brahman. Hence, there was a need for the followers of the Vedic system to uproot sUnyavAda, which was spread by some Buddhists who were getting stronger during those times. This sUnyavAda was a result of pure intellectualism, which was prevalent at that time. The Rshis had

7 See details in GudArtha Samgraha on Sribhasya by Sri mad Abhinava Ranganatha Parakala Swamy.

8 Asti brahmeti cEt vEda. Santam enam viduriti Taittiriya Upanisad

decisively determined that direct experience is superior to mere intellectual reasoning (buddhi), in the assessment of nature of truth (satya or Brahman).

NO PROFOUND VEDANTIN EXISTED IN 6 T H OR 7 T H CENTURY TO COUNTER BUDDHIST CRITICISMS OF VEDAANTA

Probably during this period (400 C.E to 500 C.E) the commentaries of bOdhAyana and Upavarsha became extinct. To oppose such sUnyavAdins like DingnAga, Bharadvaja Udyotakara (6th century C.E) from the nyAya school wrote nyAya vArtika, the great mImAmsa scholar Kumarila Bhatta (7th century C.E) wrote slOkavArtika and Udayanacharya (10th century C.E) wrote kusumAnjali and Atmatatva vivEka. During 6th or 7th century C.E, no profound vEdAntin came forward to counter the criticisms from the camp of Buddhists / sUnyavAdis.

MANDANAMISRA'S ALLEGIANCE TO VEDIC METHODOLOGY UNDERMINED HIS EFFORTS TO DEFEAT BUDDHISTS

However, Mandanamisra, (8th century C.E), who was a great mimAmsa scholar, attempted in some ways to oppose the criticisms of Buddhists in his work named Bramhasiddhi. Later Advaitic scholars such as VidyAranya consider that this Mandanamishra is the same person known as SureshwarAchArya, who wrote BrhadAranya Vartika on shankarabhAsya. This is not acceptable. Mandanamishra was probably a different person altogether. This issue is raised by the work authored by MahAmahOpAdhyaya Sir Kuppusamy sAstri and PP Subrahmanya sAstri, in which they have stated that SureshwarAchArya, is probably not the same person as Mandanamishra since there are refutations of the work Brahmasiddhi (of Mandanamishra) in Sureshwara's vArthika. This Brahmasiddhi of Mandanamisra is not a direct commentary on vedanta sutra, but an independent work.

Mandanamisra, an ardent follower of the vEdas being a mImAmsaka, wanted to defeat the sUnyavAdins using purely Vedic methods. His attempt to defeat sUnyavAdins and establish the existence of Brahman was not successful. He supported a particular view, which requires strict adherence to Vedic injunctions that prescribe meditation on Brahman. This view is known as dhyAna niyOgavAda. The mImAmsakas believed that the Vedic mantras had value only in being a set of injunctions that one should follow (vidhi) or avoid (nisEdha). For example, svarga kamO yajEta is a Vedic injunction - which means, one desirous of heaven should do a particular yajna (sacrifice). The mImAmsakas believed that vEdas do not primarily deal with anything that is an existing entity (siddha vastu) such as ocean or earth or Brahman. For them,

vEdas were purely a set of rules and regulations. Mandanamishra claimed that even if vEdas do not pertain to an existent entity such as Brahman, the very power of the injunction to meditate on Brahman, is enough to provide final goal to the aspirant. Obviously this theory believes in the value of the power of the Vedic mantras themselves, which prescribe meditation on Brahman. Since the Buddhists did not give importance to vEdas, the work Bramhasiddhi of Mandanamishra was not enough to counter their views.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE MATA TRAYA

This is the time when the Buddhists dominated the philosophical scene of India. Sri SankarAchArya was born around this time. It is clear from his works such as the Brahmasutra bhasya, that he was a great logician. He was one of the main leaders that stopped the flood of confusing and fallacious logic (dustarka) of mainly Buddhist scholars of that time. There were different schools of thought established at that time and it is useful to understand their views briefly:

a) sUnya vivartavAda: According to this view, the ultimate truth is Nothing or sUnya and this sUnya appears as this universe of sentient beings and non-sentient matter, which are both not real from the absolute stand point of view. b) vijnAna vivartavAda: There is only one ultimate reality that is vijnAna (which means awareness). This universe is not real but just an appearance of that vijnAna. c) sabda vivartavAda: This view was held by Bhartrhari, who belonged to the vyAkarana school. Bhartrhari believed that ultimate reality is sabda-brahman or sound- as-Brahman. According to him, the sabda-brahman appears as this universe, which is not real from the absolute stand point.

Sri SankarAchArya subscribed to the view known as Brahma-vivartavAda. According to this view: Brahman is the ultimate reality. The universe is just an appearance of Brahman and is not real from the absolute stand point.

Even though Sri Shankaracharya upheld the unconditional eternal existence of Brahman, following the vEdas, he confounded the Buddhists using a form of parinAma-vAda known as Brahma-vivarta vada. According to parinAma-vAda, Brahman in some way transforms himself into this universe and souls. Vivarta-vAda means viruddhataya parinamam, which means that

Brahman undergoes an extreme transformation to become this universe. If the nature of the effect is very much different from the cause, then it is known as Vivarta-vAda. This was the original intent of the philosophers who used this term vivarta. However, modern scholars understand this term vivartavAda as illusory appearance of the universe, which does not really exist. This is probably due to the influence of Buddhist writers.

SunyavAda buddhists believed in non-existence of everything (sarvam sUnyam). Further, this universe according to them is not absolutely real but only relatively real. As stated earlier, Sri Shankaracharya held on to the view that Brahman is absolutely real, eternal and is not subject to any change (nirvikAra). The universe according to him is unreal from the absolute perspective. Brahman is the sole efficient and material cause of the universe and Brahman transforms himself into the universe as indicated in the sutras such as: atmakritEh parinamAt9. He specifically states vikarAtmana parinayAmAsa AtmAnam10. Similarly in his commentary on racanAnupattEsca nAnumAnam11, he specifically mentions the term vivarta to mean vikara, which is same as parinama12. This usage of the term vivarta by Sri Shankaracharya was confusing to the sUnyavAda Buddhists as it appeared that Shankaracharya was supporting them in the sense he used the same term vivarta. They were using this term in a different sense to indicate that the universe is merely an appearance of something that is non-existent. They were not prepared to face Sri Sankaracharya, who appeared to support them as far as the universe is concerned and had substituted the sUnyaVada with Brahma-satya vAda or Existence of Brahman only. Hence these Haitukas, namely, the Buddhists and Jains, during the time of Sri Shankaracharya, had to flee to certain regions in India so as to protect their system of thought. In the tenth century, a great logician Udayanacharya reduced Buddhism in India to merely a name from the perspective of scholars of those times. In the eleventh century, Sri

9 Brahmasutras 1-4-26 10

purvasiddhopi he san atma visesena vikaratmana parinayAmAsa AtmanamWhich means: Even though Brahman existed before, he transforms himself in a special way.
11 Brahmasutras 2-2-1 12 trigunam pradhAnam mridvat acEtanam cEtanasya purusasya artham sAdhayitum svaBhavEna vicitrEna vikAratmana vivartate.

Ramanujacharya attacked the Jain philosophy and practically curbed its influence on people. By a careful study of the history of these philosophers, we can understand that the Vedic system was protected from non-Vedic systems of thought during that time. Hence, Sri Ramanujacharya completed the campaign started by Sri Sankaracharya to protect the Vedic dharma.

Some of the Jain scholars who were defeated by Sri Ramanujacharya, fled towards the western direction. They reached the slopes of the Western Ghats, settled there in a place called venuvana (mudubidare) and started propagating their philosophy. Then, Sri Anandatirtha (or sri Madhvacharya), stopped the influence of those philosophers by preaching bhakti to Lord Sri Krishna in the Udupi region. Hence the remaining Jains, not being accepted elsewhere, were restricted to live only in areas such as venuvana (bamboo forest) during those times.

There are more than twenty commentaries on the vEdAnta sUtras; however, there are three major options: is it bhEda or difference between Brahman and this universe comprising of Souls and Matter, or is it abhEda or non-difference or some kind of compromise between these views, which involves both difference and non-difference?. These three options are addressed by mainly these three AchAryas Sri Madhvacharya, Sri Shankaracharya and Sri Ramanujacharya respectively, who protected the Vedic system of thought and uprooted rival systems by means of commentaries on Brahmasutras and other supporting religious practices. Hence these three AchAryas have a fairly large number of followers. Their names have become eternal in the history of system of Vedic dharma. The three systems propagated by these AchAryas are well known as mata-traya (three opinions). The ideas of other commentators probably can be stated as minor deviations or derivations of ideas presented in these three systems.

THE NATURE OF THESE THREE SYSTEMS (MATA-TRAYASVARUPAM)

The very purpose of these three AchAryas is to protect the Vedic system; hence their views were known as mata trayam or the three views indicating their mutual friendship. However, the modern writers have conveniently forgotten the philosophical kinship of these AchAryas and consider them as sworn enemies who kept on fighting like snakes and mongooses!

CONCEPT OF NIRVISESADVAITA- ACCORDING TO MODERN THINKERS:

Variety in this universe can be known by direct perception or pratyaksa itself. One does not need any scriptural testimony to understand the concept of difference or variety (bheda). Hence, variety or differentiation of any kind present in the srutis is not its real intention. The real import of the srutis is Advaita or non-dualism and hence: all difference which is perceived is only an illusion.

THE CONCEPT OF DVAITA

The followers of Ananda-tirtha believe that whatever is perceived clearly as variety in this universe is during the phase of ignorance. However, the truth, which is perceived during phase of realization, is known only through the scriptures. Hence, the true import of the scriptures is to emphasize that the absolute truth is- there is difference between matter, souls and God. Hence those monistic passages in the srutis should not be understood literally.

The Nirvisesa advaitins question this position, by stating, How would you justify these monistic passages, which indicate identity between Brahman and the universe?:

a) brahma vEda brahmaiva bhavati: One who knows Brahman becomes Brahman, b) Yatha-nadyah syandamanah samudre'stam gacchanti NAMA-RUPE VIHAYA. Tatha vidvannamarupadvimuktah paratparam purusamupaiti divyam. - Mundakopanisad (3. 2. 8 ). This verse means like how different rivers that merge into the ocean and lose their individual identity(name and form), a realized person, having lost name and form, reaches the divine Lord, who is greater than the greatest. here the meaning of nAma rUpE vihAya is: having left name and form, here the meaning of nAma rupAt vimuktah is: losing name and form, c) sivam advaitam auspicious and non-dual, d) aham bramhasmi: I am Brahman .

Will Do you ignore them completely?.

Dvaitins reply:

Just as the words such as va and vA are used to indicate similarity, the word eva is also used to indicate similarity. In certain passages of the vEdas such as vishnurEva bhutva, which means having become vishnu himself, etc. The real intent of the sentence is having become like vishnu even though, literally, it is stated as having become Vishnu himself. Further, the verse nAma rUpE vihAya does not indicate oneness in the final state when a soul reaches the Supreme being, however, the correct way of reading that phrase is nAma rUpE avihAya, i.e it is not to be taken as losing name and form but, it should be taken as without losing name and form. Even in the passage nAma rUpAt vimuktah, the term vimuktah should not be taken as being released from or having lost name and form, but it should be taken as without losing name and form, similar to the word vipriya, which means extremely fond of, instead of understanding it as not fond of. Hence vimuktah should be taken as amuktah, which means, without losing name and form. The word advaitam, should be understood as there is no doubt, because the meaning of the word dvaitam can also be taken as just doubt. Even in the case of the famous mahAvAkya quoted by the Advaitins: aham bramhA asmi, which they proclaim to support their view that I (soul) am Brahman, is not correct. The meaning of that sentence is different as explained below. The word ham means heya or blemish. That which has no blemish is aham. Aham Brahma means Brahman is blemish-less. Similarly the word smi can be understood as limited, since it can be explained as sushtu mitatvat i.e clearly limited. Brahman is not limited, hence can be denoted by the word asmi. Hence the famous sentence aham bramhA asmi means Brahman is blemish-less and is different from jiva. Hence it can be emphatically stated that no-where in the srutis abhEda or non dualism is indicated.

It is clear that dvaita view is exactly opposite to the advaita view. Further, The followers of Sri Madhvacharya, like the Jains, subscribe to the concept that the attributes of a substance that are not inherent in the substance, is at the same time different and non-different from the substance. Let us take an example of danDi, which means a person with a stick. The stick is not something that may stay with the person, forever. However, the dvaita view is that such an attribute, which is separable from the substance, is both one and different from the substance. This is not agreeable to the followers of Sri Ramanujacharya.

Let us examine here if there is any similarity between Visistadvaita and Jainism. It is very well known that Jainism accepts anekAnta vAda or Saptabhangi vAda. The term, Saptabhangi refers to the seven points of view from which reality can be viewed ."Syad' means "from one of the perspectives (stand point)". But it does not mean doubt and it only refers to a particular point of view.

The methodology of seven fold predications, as per this anEkAnta view, are as follows :i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. . syAd asti : From a particular point of view 'It is". syAd nAsti : From a different point of view "It is not". iii) syAd -asti -nAsti : From a still different approach to problem "It is and is not" syAd avaktavyam : From another point of view lt is inexpressible" syAd asti avaktavyam : From a point of view It is and is inexpressible" syAd nasti avaktavyam : From another point of view "It is not and is inexpressible" syAd asti nAsti avaktavyam : From a different point of view It is and it is not and is inexpressible.

THE CONCEPT OF VISISTADVAITA

The opinion of Sri Ramanujacharya is that Brahman is the ever existing reality that is always endowed with attributes (savisEsa) and is to be understood according to the different phases or avathas, ie. In the phase of dissolution or unmanifest state or pralayAvastha or in the state of mokSa (final release), there is only one entity Brahman. In this state there is abhEda (nondifference or unity); and in the phase of creation (sriSti), there is difference (bhEda or plurality) between souls, matter and Isvara, the Lord. Note that non-difference (abhEda) and difference (bhEda) phases are not simultaneous and do not refer to the same state. In the state of pralaya, the term sUksma cit acit visista Brahma is used in Sribhasya. Here Sri Ramanujacharya defines sUksmatva as impossibility of differentiation in terms of names or forms (or nAma rUpa vibhAga anarhatva). In fact Sri Ramanujacharya states in Sribhasya, that in the state of pralaya, even Brahman himself cannot differentiate between himself and his body (or souls or matter)13. This means that in the state of pralaya, Sri Ramanujacharya does indicate that there can be no difference between souls, matter or Isvara. This state is beyond the grasp of intellect. However, Visistadvaita siddhanta is stated in the work sarva darsana samgraha of vidyAranya as essentially identical to anekanta view of Jainism and that it is inferior even to dvaita point of view. For an impartial observer, this is not correct. In the Jainist view, these different points of view refer to the same subject at the same time. However, in the view of Visistadvaitins the bhEda and abhEda are in different phases, namely, during the creation phase and the dissolution phase, respectively.

13 SvEnapi svasarIrataya prthak pratipatti anarha dasa - Sribhasya

THE CONCEPTS : BODY-SOUL RELATIONSHIP AND MATERIAL CAUSALITY OF BRAHMAN ARE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND

Since there seems to be room for different commentaries, this issue cannot be solved by just commentaries and sub-commentaries. Hence, Bhagavad ramAnujAcarya proposed savisesAdvaita, which is consistent with adhyAtma-vidyA or knowledge of the ultimate Atman or final cause and source of everything. Only with such a view the Buddhist arguments can be put to rest. vEdas are not mere words or sounds, but it is the knowledge of the science of creation. In different statements of vEdas, different aspects of material causality (upAdana upAdeya bhava) and body-soul relationship (sarIrA-sarIri bhAva) are explained. The secret of spiritual knowledge (adhyAtma vidyA) is hidden in these concepts. These srutis are named ghataka srutis since they bring about reconciliation. The concept indicated by these ghataka srutis is known as savisesAdvaita. Once this spiritual yogic knowledge is understood, there is no room for contradiction between different commentaries. Words are mere expressions of truth. Once truth is directly perceived, where can there be any room for different interpretations?

There is a rule object does not change, but actions can. This rule applies to instances such as an already existing entity (siddha vastu). For example from the same lump of clay, what can result? If some one asks will it become a pot or a brick or a kettle? Who can tell? Even though these effects are starkly different from each other, they can be formed out of the same lump of clay. It depends on the potter's will!. Hence, this rule is not applicable to material cause of the universe, namely, Brahman. Hence Brahman can change too in some uniquely special ways. The spiritual yogic science proclaimed in the vEdas, supports Brahmans material causality of the universe. In the case of gross matter such as lump of clay transforming into a pot, the transformation or pariNAma is clearly seen. However, in very subtle entities such as Brahman, arguments and confusions are bound to happen. However, if one can search and examine the spiritual science behind it, it will become easy to understand the material causality of Brahman.

SAVISESADVAITA / VISISTADVAITA VIEW OF MANY SAMPRADAYIC SCHOLARS IS SLIGHTLY WRONG:

The usages such as: he is a man, this is an animal and so on are used to denote the soul only. Even though there is difference between body and soul, one experiences one's body as one's self. Hence the term to denote the soul is interchangeably used to denote the body also.

However, many people from the Visistadvaita tradition, who focus only on the words, think that even though body and soul are absolutely different, the words that denote the body are used to refer to the soul, only due to the fact that soul is not visible and is the inner controller (antaryami) and one needs a concrete reference, namely the body to refer to the soul. This is not true that the body is very different from the soul, since the body-soul (or sarIra sarIri) relationship is not simple, but a very profound and complex concept. The meaning of yathA vrikshO vanaspatiH tathaiva purusOmrsA (BrhadAranyaka 5-9-28) should be contemplated deeply. The meaning of this verse is: We know that when a branch of a tree is cut, it sprouts back and a new branch grows. Similarly how the spirit pervades the body and is related to the body is a mystery. Only when this mystery is understood, the words of Bhagavad Ramanujacharya in vedArthasamgraha : non-duality is justified (Abhedah samarthitah) can be understood. Abhedah or non-duality between Brahman and this universe, indicated in this sentence of Vedarthasamgraha is not unintended, but actual. Note that it was not stated as by justifying body soul relationship, the statements that indicate non-duality are justified. If that was the intent, a sentence like: sarIra-sarIri bhAva samarthanEna- abheda vAkyani samarthitani, should have been used. The sentence used in Vedarthasamgraha is Abhedah Samarthithah, which means the intention of Sri Ramanujacharya is that there is some kind of actual identity between Brahman and the Universe. We have to find out what that relationship is. This is a major topic which is discussed in detail in this book: SarvankasA, a commentary on TatvamuktA-kalApa.

It is important to know what really the term sAstras mean. Why do we need to know the meaning of this term? What is the purpose here? Before answering these questions, let me first give a brief introduction here:

This question has probably bothered many people since time immemorial: How can you prove that Brahman exists? The answer from the school of Naiyayikas (logicians) is by method of inference. Their typical logic could be: for example, we see a pot and infer that there has to be a potter, who has made this pot. Then we extend this logic further: actually everything needs a creator and this wonderful universe also needs a creator, who by definition has to be omniscient. Hence we know that such a creator exists and a good term to denote that creator is Brahman (which means big in Sanskrit).

However, Vedantins agree that proof by Inference cannot even be applied in the case of Brahman! For this question of proof of existence of Brahman, the traditional vedantic answer is that Brahman exists because the vEdas say so! This answer is not acceptable to most modern people. The obvious question here is: what are vEdas or sAstras? sAstras should not be taken as some old literature written on palm leaves! The word sAstra is derived from the verb root sas sAsane or to rule. The meaning of sAstras is that it is a set of rules of this universe, which cannot be transgressed. Hence the primary

meaning of sAstra is nothing but rta or the nature of the ever existing causal entity namely Brahman. Brahmans nature is known by knowing the science of this creation, since Brahman has unfolded himself into this universe! By knowing the effect, the cause can be known. Hence, by knowing this universe in detail, the cause of the universe, namely Brahman can be known. The term sAstras means the science of creation or srsti vijnAna. Since the vEdas, in written form, do contain this science of creation, they are also known as sAstras, in a secondary sense. It is ironic that the secondary sense has become the commonly accepted view! However, the real meaning of sAstras is the science of creation. Since this concept is very subtle, for the sake of simplicity for people to understand, the later writers explained the proof of existence of Brahman in this way: Brahman exists since the sAstras, which are just the text of the vEdas supports the existence of Brahman. This is acceptable in a secondary sense, since the text of the vEdas deals with the science of creation. However, it is an altogether mammoth task to actually realize and experience the science of creation, which is explained in the vEdas. Once a person knows the science of creation, by experience, there is no doubt that such a person can directly realize God, who is the primal cause of everything, and there is no need of any other proof.

Hence the existing well known explanation of the sutra sAstra yOnitvat that the existence of Brahman can be known only by sAstras known as vEdas, is to only satisfy the devout people. The ancient meaning of this sutra is: sAstrasya yOnih sAstra yonih, which means Brahman is the origin of sAstras, and this is the meaning, which is acceptable to sUtrakAra (bAdarAyanA).

It has to be understood that Brahman is of the form of knowledge or Jnana. It is stated in the creation texts such as bahusyAm14: which means that He was all alone and willed to become many, ie. This universe of souls and matter is some sort of an expansion of Brahman. The vEdic statements : vijnAnEna AtmAnam vEdayate and vEdanta vijnAna suniscitArthAh etc. mean: From Vijnana, one can know the Atman or Self (jnana svarUpa within) and These sanyasins have determined the vijnAna, ie. the essence of the knowledge of the universe, as explained in the vEdas / Upanisads, clearly without doubts. Jnana is internal or understood only by dhyana or meditation or focusing within oneself. The very form of Atman (Brahman) is jnana and the knowledge of this variegated universe is vijnana. Vijnana is clear and deep knowledge and not just superficial knowledge. Jnana is internal and with respect to that, Vijnana is external. Jnana is like the seed; vijnana is like the tree that grows out of that seed. By investigating Vijnana or

14 Taittiriya Upanisad

the knowledge of creation (the universe with living and non-living entities), one can find the source, which is Jnana or Brahman, which is internal. Hence, Sastra or scripture is of the form of Vijnana, which is the detailed understanding of this science of this created universe. However the real knowledge of Atman (adhyAtma) is only realizable internally within ones self; it cannot be explained to others. For this very purpose a different explanation of the statement sAstra yOnitvAt was given as: Brahmans existence can be known only by vEdas (sAstra or scriptures in the form or texts). This explanation is appropriate only to the most pious of the people who have real faith.This topic has been explained in detail on pages 412-414 of this book (SarvankasA commentary on Tattva muktA kalApa).

SRI MADHVACHARYAS VIEW:

Sri mAdhvAchArya felt: why bother about these difficult concepts such as vivarta / parinAma vAdas. SarIra- SarIri bhava is all the more harder concept to understand for the common people, since even some pundits are confused about it. It is easier to enhance the devotion or bhakti of people towards Brahman, by using the views of the Logicians (nyAya school), who believe that Brahman is only the efficient cause of the universe and not the material cause. If one progresses in the path of Bhakti, it is possible for that person to know everything anyway. Hence Sri mAdhvAchArya thought that this is sufficient for the common people. Sri Madhvacharya basically formulated his bhasyas to address the requirements of common people, without focusing on the problem of identity of souls and Brahman. Hence he reinterpreted or in other words rejected the scriptural texts that indicated identity, using his expertise in the Sanskrit language.

ADVENT OF MY RECEPTORS

As more and more pundits expressed their opinions about these difficult concepts, the confusion of textual analysis of vEdas became more intensified. What should ordinary people who are caught in this web of controversy do?

It seems like for this very same purpose, a great expert in different schools of philosophical thought (darsanas) and a great thinker, Srimad Abhinava Ranganatha Parakala Swamy was born on this earth. He never valued unnecessary protocols and supported only the truth rather than the personalities or the tradition (sampradaya) they belonged to. He used to often say openly in front of several people: I will not agree if someone says Bhagavad rAmAnuja is the only avatAra purusa (divine saint who has descended here to preach the ultimate truth)!. He

strongly believed that even though various later writers explained different philosophical works in different ways, the original pioneers in different systems of philosophy are all great saints. Depending on the level of maturity of the aspirants around them, and based on the times and places they belonged to, these saints had to use different words and strategies to teach people. However, many later writers who explained the works of these pioneering founder AchAryas, probably could not extricate themselves from their own preconceived opinions and turned these philosophies upside down by focusing too much on the words.

In essence, the work started by Sri SankarAchArya was completed by Bhagavad rAmAnuja.

When I was trying very hard to digest the meanings of the teachings without paying attention to symbolisms, by contemplating on these for a long time, I had the grace of the all knowing bhagavan Sri Ranga Maha Guru (Sri Ranga-vishnu), of Hedathale, due to whose causeless mercy, all the douts within me melted away just like how fog disappears in the sunlight. Several times, Bhagawan Sri Rangaguru clearly told that If Sri Ramanujacharya was born at the time of Sri SankarAchArya, he would also have followed the methodology of Sri SankarAchArya. Similarly, if Sri SankarAchArya had taken birth at the time of Sri Ramanujacharya, he would have followed the path of Srimad Ramanujacharya. There is no doubt that their hearts are one and the same. The difference in the usage of words and style of language are consistent with their times and is unavoidable.

THE TEACHINGS HAD TO BE MODIFIED BASED ON TIME, NATURE OF PEOPLE, THEIR LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

It is agreed by all, that the vEdas are very difficult to comprehend and hence to determine the meanings logically, the Brahma-sutras were written. Students with deep background in philosophy know that the opinion of Bhagavad Ramanujacharya is consistent with the words of Brahmasutras. Knowing well that if one takes up an orthodox position, it will not be acceptable to rationalists (haitukas), Sri SankarAchArya authored his bhAsya on Brahmasutras in a unique way to only win over those Buddhists of that time. This aspect becomes clear, when one notices certain subtle points. For example, there is no mention of vEdas in the adhyAsa bhAsya which is the introduction given by Sri SankarAchArya in his Brahmasutra bhAsya. The purpose here was to make those rationalists be comfortable by letting them know that he was not from a different camp but a friend. With all his efforts, Sri SankarAchArya tried to influence the rationalists (haitukas) of those times to become followers of vEdas (vaidikas), However, his successors mixed vEdanta sAstra with excessive logic and effectively tried to convert these

Vaidikas back to Haitukas!. So powerful is this mAyA!. Sri SankarAchAryas unique approach to the Brahmasutras, is only for the appeasement of those rationalists of those times. It should be noted that nothing can be established by mere logic as stated by Bhagavan Vyasa in Brahmasutras: tarko apratistAnadapi. Hence, it is obvious that, since Brahman is beyond logic, one cannot find Brahman by using the process of logical analysis. People who use logical process to determine Brahman, will certainly end up in concluding that the final goal is nothing or sUnya. For example, if some one is asked the question do you find micro-organisms in a lake by looking at it without using a micro-scope?, that person will certainly say no I dont see any micro-organism. However, if one sees through a microscope, one may find microorganisms in that lake, because micro-organisms are not visible to our bare eyes. Understanding Brahman using logic alone is like searching for micro-organisms just by looking at them through our bare eyes. Logic is not altogether useless. However, one should limit logic to the extent permissible by the Vedas. Hence, since the limit of logical analysis, which is in accordance with Vedas, is verily Brahmasutras. If one crosses these limits of Bramhasutras, acceptance of nihilism (or sunyavada) is unavoidable. This is the border between Buddhist and Vedic philosophies. Even in Vedanta, sUnya is accepted. One of the names of Lord Vishnu in the vishnusahasra nAma is sUnya as in vIrahA visamah sUnyah. The meaning of sUnya has to be understood in the right sense. The process of logical analysis ends up in sUnya or nihilism, because the aspirant is looking for something, which is not available in this sensory universe, namely, Brahman, which is beyond the realm of senses or mind. Vedantins arrive at that same point, using Vedic logic and this point is known as pUrna or complete. If the symbolisms and language issues are avoided and the meanings alone are contemplated, sUnya and pUrna are not different concepts. They are one and the same goals arrived from different perspectives. The fact is, the classical mAdhyamika Buddhists insist on understanding the term sUnya to mean total void, which is not acceptable to vEdantins. The bottom line is that Brahman can be perceived only through actual experience.

The pioneering achAryas, are all knowing and very capable. However, they had to teach in a way that is consistent with the people of those times and had to be suitable to the different levels maturity of those aspirants. One should not confuse the common people15 is a famous rule. Only those people who are deep thinkers can understand this truth. Hence the AchAryas were careful in their teachings not to confuse the masses.

15 na budhhi bhedam janayEt - a general rule, also stated in Bhagawadgita

Many followers of Sri Ramanujacharya do not know that he clearly stated that, the world is NOT real!. It is stated in Sribhasya that Jiva and matter cannot be categorized as unconditionally true!. In Janmadi adhikarana Sribhasya: while explaining satyam jnanam anantam brahma, Sri Ramanujacharya states: satya padam nirupAdhika sattA yOgi Brahma Aha. Tena vikAraspadam acEtanam tat samsristah cetanasca vyAvrittah: which means, the term satya refers to Brahman, who exists unconditionally. Hence, since they undergo modification of some sort, matter and the souls associated with matter do not belong to the category of truth (satya). They are known by different names since they do not have unconditional existence.

Similarly several pundits of Advaita do not know that Sri SankarAchArya did not intend to explain that the world as unreal, in the sense that they seem to understand it now. Even though Sri Shankaracharya has mentioned that the universe is an illusion in many instances, in his commentary on Arambhanadhikarana, he states that: The universe exists in all the three times past, present and future just like Brahman. The universe is not different from its cause Brahman. In the commentary of Sri Sankaracharya on BrahmaSutra 2-1-17 (satvAccAvarasya), it is stated that yathA ca kAranam brahma trisu kAlesu satvam na vyabhicarati, Ekam ca punah satvam athOpi ananyatvam kAranat kAryasya - which means - Just like how the Brahman, which is the cause does not lose its existence (sattva) in all the three times - past, present and future, the universe which is the effect does not lose its existence in all the three times- past, present and future; Hence the effect is not different from the cause. It should be noted here that the effect is karya or universe and karya is satya or real!

MahaMahopAdhyAya Rama-subrahmanya Sastri has supported this view in his work AnubhAsya gAmbhIryam, which talks about Shankarabhasya.

It should be noted however that Sri Shankaracharya, later on in that same adhikarana (tadananyatva adhikarana), states that, Brahman, from an absolute perspective does not transform, since he is nir-vikAra or is not subject to change. The transformation of Brahman is explained, for the sake of common people who should meditate on iswara, who is saguna brahman.

Obviously, insistence by Sri Shankaracharya that Brahman really does not transform is for the purpose of satisfying the Buddhists of those times, since all things that undergo change have to be perishable according to those Buddhists. Instead of resorting to nirvikAratva or impossibility of transformation, It was possible to explain it in a different way such as, since, human intellect cannot really comprehend Brahman, such rules do not apply to Brahman. However, Sri Shankaracharya found it convenient to explain it in a way suitable to the Buddhist

audience, so as to win them over, by stating that Brahman is not subject to any change. We will go into some more details of the concept of nirvikAratva later in this article.

Then, what is the real meaning here? It just means that, There are different levels of truth. This is clearly indicated by the Vedic statements: satyasya satyam (truth among truths), or satyam ca anrtam ca satyam abhavat which means satya or Brahman became truth and non-truth. Here anrtam does not mean lies or illusion. anrtam means not rtam or something which is non-eternal. The truly eternal entity is only Brahman. Hence, some of the later Advaitic writers have not faithfully represented the views of Sri Shankaracharya. Hence it is well said that the curse of a preceptor is his disciples

THE TRUE INTENT OF THE ACHARYAS

In the beginning, the Buddhists were not against the vEdas. Eventually the later generation of Buddhists resorted to logic and started questioning vEdas and became anti-Vedic. Among the later Buddhists, the leader was DingnAga. People like DharmakIrti, who were followers of DingnAga were great logicians of those times. Due to the intellectual superiority of such people the Jain and Buddhist philosophies were firmly established in India during the period beginning from 2nd century C.E to the end of 7th or 8th century C.E. Even though great philosophers like Bhartrprapanca had tried hard to uproot these philosophies, their efforts did not succeed.

During this time the masses were captivated by the divine outpourings of love and devotion to Lord Vishnu and Lord Siva by the saints belonging to the Vaishnava tradition known as Azhvars and those belonging to Saiva tradition known as nAyanmArs, respectively. Hundreds of temple towns known as divya kshetras sprang up. The common people at that time were attracted to these saints due to the fact that their hymns were in local dialects instead of Sanskrit, which was difficult to comprehend. However, the intelligent Buddhist pundits remained very strong. The country was not completely free from the clutches of such powerful Buddhist pundits. Even though the traditional view is that the time of Nammazhwar is during the beginning of Kaliyuga, which is roughly 3100 B.C.E, this date is not justifiable. Nammazhwar probably lived during 7th or 8th century C.E.

It is important to delve deeper into this concept of vivarta / parinAma in order to explain how this universe consisting of mud and rocks can be a product of Brahman who is pure consciousness. During those times,when Buddhist Pundits were quite strong, Sri SankarAchArya started describing his views pertaining to creation / causation of the universe, using the phrase vivarta instead of the term parinAma. Vivarta means viruddhatayA vartanam ie. The effect exists in

an opposing form or in a very different form from the original cause. In the sadvidya portion of Chandogya upanisad this classic analogy of a lump of clay is given to explain the material causality of Brahman. Like how a lump of clay transforms into a pot and other effects, it is stated that Brahman transforms himself into this universe. In this analogy, the cause, namely the clay is visible in the effect, namely pot. Here, the theory of illusion does not fit in. The effect is not any illusory appearance of lump of clay, but it is a particular form of the cause, which is named as pot, due to its shape. The instance of clay is just an analogy to Brahman being the material cause of the universe. However, Brahman, who transforms himself into this universe of sentient and insentient, is not visible in this universe, to ordinary people(ajnanis), unlike in the case of the analogy, since clay is visible in the pot. Hence instead of the word parinama, it makes sense to use the term vivarta, which means that the effect has attributes, which are very different from the cause, namely Brahman. It is also true that the term vivarta can be used to denote: parinAma or transformation which is vividha : different in number ie. Or having various forms or variety, or vilakshana : very different, or vichitra : surprisingly different. Actually these two terms vivarta and parinAma mean the same thing. As stated earlier, If a cause transforms itself into an effect, which is starkly different, then the term vivarta is used. Hence vivarta means extreme transformation or extreme parinAma (transformation). It should be noted that SarvajnAtma muni in his Samkshepa sArIraka (2-61) states - vyavasthitE asmin parinAmavAde svyam samAyAti vivarta vAdah, which means, Once parinAma vAdA is established, automatically the vivartavAda will follow (indicating that they are not opposing concepts). It should be noted that Sri Sankaracharya in his commentary on Brahmasutra 2-2-1 (racanAnupattEsca nAnumAnam), states trigunam pradhAnam svabhAvEnaiva vicitrEna vikAratmanA vivartate in which he uses the word vivarta, in the place of the word parinAma. This statement means: The original causal matter with three gunas (satva, rajas and tamas), by its own nature, transforms itself into different forms. Here in this section, which is dedicated to the Samkhya theory, primordial matter, which is the cause, transforms into the effect. Here the term parinama is a natural fit, since it is not an extreme transformation. If it is stated that, Brahman transforms into the universe, then it is a case of extreme transformation, since Brahman is of the form of pure consciousness and the universe does not seem to be made of pure consciousness to the ordinary people. Even here in this section (sutra 2-2-1) pertaining to Samkhya theory, Sri Shankaracharya uses the word vivarta to describe it. Hence, these terms are definitely interchangeable. Even vAcaspatimishra agrees with this understanding of this statement. The great literary genius Bhartrhari has used the terms vivarta and parinama interchangeably many times in places such as: eko rasah karuna eva nimitta bhedAt bhinnaha prithak prithak iva Asrayate vivartAn Avarta budbuda taranga mayAn vikAran (uttara rAma charitam - 3-47). This means, one emotion mercy itself due to different reasons takes different forms (vivartAn) like how an ocean transforms itself into its variegated forms such as bubbles and waves.

It is enough to state emphatically that, due the fact that it has been used by legendary Sanskrit scholars in their writings, it is clear that, the term vivarta is a form of vikara or parinama, which means transformation.

However, the popular meaning ascribed to this term vivarta by recent writers of advaita philosophy is appearance of something which does not exist or it is an illusory appearance. This meaning is not correct and was probably derived by the philosophical writings of post Shankara-Advaitic writers, who were influenced by the Buddhist doctrines of mAdhyamika school.

However, this strategy of Sri SankarAchArya, who used the term vivarta instead of parinama, successfully confused the Buddhists since it seemed that Sri SankarAchAryas views were very close to their philosophy and was agreeable to them, though he firmly upheld the vEdas. If the portions of the samanvaya adhikarana of Sri rAmanuja Bhasya which deal with the nishprapancIkarana niyOga vAda, dhyAna niyOga vAda and vAkyArthajnAna vAdas are carefully examined, this aspect becomes clear to the people with sharp intellect. Any further analysis of this topic is beyond the scope of this introductory paper. However, it should be noted that for Ramanujacharya, parinAma vAda is same as vivartvAda according to the rule in na vilakshanatva adhikarana of Brahmasutras. In the sutras such as Atmakrteh, parinAmAt, the term parinAma explained in the vEdas is the one which is in accordance with the view of bAdarAyana, the author of Brahmasutras. The concept of parinAma vAda and vivarta vAda are explained in detail in the pages 458-464 of this book sarvankasA commentary on TatvamuktA-kalApa.

In this manner, Sri SankarachArya, with his powerful logic defeated the Buddhist pundits, and by his simple yet astounding lyrical hymns nurtured the Vedic bhakti marga or path of devotion. Even though the Buddhist pundits were defeated, the post shankarAchArya Vedic pundits, due to their predisposition and ego of scholarship, held on to the view that the path of bhakti is for the common people and not for the scholars. Why talk about such a view of those times? Even now, some folks, though they practice panchAyatana pUjas, which are rituals (path of actionkarma marga), still think that they belong to the path of knowledge or jnAna mArga!. Some of them, who are obsessed with mere logical analysis, believe that the path of bhakti is not a Vedic doctrine!

In this manner, even though Sri SankarAchArya succeeded in silencing the Buddhist pundits, his later followers, not able to win over the influence of their own pre-dispositions, verily engaged in destroying the Vedic path and encouraged Buddhism though in a modified form. Hence their efforts worked against the true intent of Shankaracharya. If one studies the commentaries of bhAskarAchArya and opinions of yAdavaprakAsa, this aspect becomes clear.

During the 11th century C.E, SrirAmanujAchArya stopped the spread of Buddhist doctrines and helped re-establish the Vedic bhakti path, which is extolled in the statements of rigvEda such as na rite shrAntasya sakhyAya devAh, which means The Gods will not be friendly to those who

do not surrender to them after being exhausted and tired of all other paths. This is the path of bhakti marga, which is prevalent all over India from southern tip of Kanyakumari to the Himalayas in the north, in the hearts of pundits and common people alike.

ADVENT OF SRI VEDANTA DESIKA:

In this manner, even though the Vedic dharma was established well having uprooted the opposing philosophies, after the time of Sri Ramanujacharya, came a major personality: Sri Harsha, who had attained success in meditation on Buddhist tantras known as the chintAmani mantras. He used to declare that the victory belongs to me or the mAdhyamika Buddhists in any logical battle and no one else can win!. He attacked Vedic dharma in many ways using a complex form of logic known as vitanda, in which the point is to defeat the opponent with or without establishing any position of his own. It seems as if for this very purpose of defeating this Sri Harsha, Sri Vedanta Desika, who was a great scholar and, according to hagiology, was sought by none other than that Lord Sri Hayagriva, the very epithet glorified in the vEdas, came to this earth during that time. He used complex logic in his book satadUshani and refuted the positions of Sri Harsha, sUnya vAda and nirvisEsa advaita vAda. These systems of Sri Harsha, SunyavAda and nirvisEsa advaita threatened the very position of Brahman. Sri Vedanta Desika solidified the position of Vedic savisEsa vAda by the two books: tatvamuktAkalApa and sarvArtha siddhi. Surprisingly sAyana mAdhavAchArya, the author of the commentary on vEdas, states that this SriHarsha was defeated by Sri SankarAchArya!

In this manner, Sri Vedanta Desika removed the obstacles in the path of establishment of Vedic dharma. sAyana MadhavAchArya, who thought that his purpose was to uphold the vEdas, having ignored the contributions of Vedanta Desika and his preceptor Sri Ramanujacharya, stated that Sri Harsha, was defeated by Sri SankarAchArya. He could not understand the secrets of Bhagavad rAmanujas views and wrote a book known as sarva darshana samgraha, which seems to have its sole intent to declare that Sri Ramanujacharyas view was the most inferior among theistic philosophies. In that work he has stated that Ramanujacharya's views are a subset of the Jain philosophy !. This reminds us of the popular yoga sutra, which states svarasa vAhI vidusOpi tathArUdhobhinivEsah, meaning Even people who are really sincere, knowledgeable and have the noblest intentions are not exempt from the strong influences of their prior pre-conceived opinions and influences on them. Bhagavad yAmunAchArya echoes the same idea in his words Those people whose minds are colored by their background and personalities, though very knowledgeable, are subject to delusion. This is the power of mAyA (delusion).

As far as the subject matter is concerned, there is no difference between the views of Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Shankaracharya. However, the difference, which appears to a superficial reader, is only due to the change in style of language and the times in which these philosophers lived. This is the real truth.

Even though what was taught by Abhinava ranganatha parakala swamy was clarified by the teachings of Sri Ranga Maha Guru, and I was firmly convinced about them, I studied for several years and deeply contemplated upon the inner meanings of the these three philosophical systems known as mata traya so as to answer the various questions of the pundits who restricted themselves to pure logical analysis. The result of all this effort is this current work: SarvankasA, a commentary on Tatva MuktA kalApa (TMK).

CONTROVERSIES:

FIRST CONTROVERSY

After thinking very deeply regarding why there was so much controversy and disagreements between philosophical systems, this verse of Bhagavan Sri Krishna in bhagawadgita came to my mind: manusyAnam sahasrEsu kascit yatati siddhaye. yatatAm api siddhAnam kascit mAm vEtti tatvatah16 - which means: One among thousands tries for spiritual progress. Only one among the people who have attained spiritual progress, knows me. Other commentators commented on this verse assuming that it is made of two sentences. Bhagavad rAmanujAchArya comments on this verse assuming that it is made of three sentences: Human beings have eligibility to understand sAstras. Among a thousand of them, only one puts forth effort until the goal is achieved. Among thousand of those who put their efforts till they achieve their goal, only one among them knows me and tries to achieve me; among thousand of those people who know me, only one knows me actually (tatvatah). This means that even among jnanis there is a gradation in their levels. The spiritual realm is extremely complex. Hence, it is quite possible that the words of jnanis can be very different from each other and are still justifiable. It is also quite natural for anyone to question: Have the pioneering AchAryas descended down to earth only to quarrel among each other?. In my view, this is the first controversy, which can challenge even the serious aspirants.

16 Bhagavadgita - 7-3

SECOND CONTROVERSY:

We see very controversial statements by Sri Ramanujacharya such as Does it mean that Brahman and the universe are one and the same? Or is there difference between them? Or is there both difference and non-difference between them? What exactly is really the essence of vEdas? Since all these positions are mentioned in the vEdas, all these options are valid! This seems to be a strange sentence.

The actual text of Vedartha samgraha is given below:

evam sati abhedO vA bhedO va dvayAtmakatA vA vedAntavEdyah kOyam arthah samarthitO bhavati? sarvasyApi vEda vedyatvaAt sarvam samarthitam bhavati - Bhagawad Ramanujacharyas statement in Vedartha samgraha.

Further, in the same work, we find this statement: sarva sarIratayA sarvaprakAram brahmaiva avasthitam iti, abhEdah samarthithah:

Which means: Since, universe is the body of Brahman, Brahman himself exists in all modes. Hence, non-difference between Brahman and universe is confirmed in the vEdas. As we know by certain statements in Bhagavadgita17 and also by common experience, that the body and soul seem to be different from each other. How is identity confirmed, if there is difference between Brahman and his body, namely this universe?

In this context it is interesting to remember the conflicting view from the hagiological account of Tirukkacci nambi, one of the preceptors of Sri Ramanujacharya. According to Visistadvaita tradition, it seems Tirukkacci Nambi, used to directly talk to God in the form of Sri Devaraja

17 Bhagavadgita 2-20, 2-22, 2-30

Perumal of Kanchipuram. Upon request by Sri Ramanujacharya, he got clarification from the Lord himself that Bheda or difference is the correct philosophical position. This is paraphrased in the famous quote: darsanam bhEda Eva ca. After having obtained this answer, is it not ironic that Sri Ramanujacharya, wrote in his very first book, Vedartha samgraha, an exactly opposite view that identity is upheld (abhEdah samarthithah)?! Sri Ramanujacharya could have written bhEdah samarthitah or difference is upheld and this in fact, seems to be the popular position of many people who belong to the Visistadvaita tradition today. Then, why did Sri Ramanujacharya did not write bhEdah samarthitah there?

Further, in the first statement, it is stated as kOyam arthah samartitah - which means, what is the real essence here? Hence, it is not mere justification of the usage of words or phrases that indicate a) identity or b)difference or c) difference and identity, that is questioned here, but it is the justification of the meaning. Hence the essence of vEdas is that Brahman and the Universe are one and the same as stated in abhedah samarthitah. Then, if it is so, what exactly is this body soul relationship? This is the second controversy.

THIRD CONTROVERSY:

In SrimadbhAgavata, it is stated: iti nAnA prasankhyAnam tatvAnAm rishibhih kritam. Sarvam nyAyyam yuktimatvAt vidusAm kimasObhanam. It means The rshis explained the truths in different ways. Every view is justifiable, since there are good reasons for justifying them. How can there be something inappropriate, in the views held by these great Rshis who are really knowledgeable? According to this statement of SrimadbhAgavata, what is the real nature of the different Shastras, which seem to be divergent in their views? And also according to Sri Vedanta Desika: The different branches of knowledge named vidyasthAnas, mentioned earlier in this document and enumerated as fourteen in number, are testimonies in their respective sphere of applicability. How do we understand this concept that there are different views and all of them are valid and justifiable?

SOLUTION:

This unique topic belongs to a different class by itself and it has to be understood in this way. This subject of Atman is very complex. It is well stated in these statements of kEna upanisad: yasya amatam tasya matam. matam yasya na veda sah, which means: If one has a confirmed opinion about the nature of Atman (Brahman), then it means that he does not know; Atman is known to one who does not have a specific opinion about it. It further states:

avijnAtam vijAnatAm vijnAtam avijAnatAm which means: Atman is not known to the one who thinks that he knows and is known to one who thinks that he does not know. This very abstract concept of Atman thus described in kEnopasnishad gives way to all sorts of arguments pertaining to it such as bheda (difference between the universe and Brahman), abhEda (Nondifference between Brahman and the Universe), and bhedbheda (Difference and nondifference). Since, in addition to the relation of material causality between Brahman and Universe, there is also the relation of body and soul. Hence the arguments regarding this subject have kept on growing. For this very reason Bhagavad rAmAnuja, even though he asked this very question regarding the nature of relationship between Brahman and this Universe: is it difference, non-difference or difference and non-difference? What is the essence here?, he did not give a specific answer due to the depth and complexity of this issue.

In essence, only by actual experience of Atman, such controversies can be solved. Even as I was thinking about this and was about to come to a conclusion that actual experience is the only way out, I did hear from different belligerent Pundits, who had a narrow minded view, obsessed only with the language and words used in vEdas, harsh statements such as: Well then, Bhagavad Ramanujacharya never stated his position convincingly right?

For all such kind questions, a powerful answer is indicated in the statement of Yogasutras of Pathanjali :

sabda-artha-pratyayAnam itaretara adhyAsat sAnkarah. The meaning of this sutra is explained below: This sentence means, in short, there is always this unavoidable difference between words, their intended object, and the actual experience of the object. sabda means words. Artha means object. Pratyaya means experience. For example, if someone utters the word sugar, a person who hears this word does not really experience the taste of sugar. This means, that there are three aspects here, which are different from one another:

a) Sugar is just spoken or written word; b) The object, it refers to is the substance c) The taste of that object is the experience

This fundamental divide between words, object denoted and experience causes confusion in understanding statements. This confusion is more pronounced when one tries to understand

scriptural statements, which talk about entities such as Brahman, Soul, etc., which, are beyond the grasp of our senses. This means that mere understanding of the scriptures is not the same as having the experience of Brahman

The same concept is explained in a different way in Srimad bhagavata: which states sAbdasya hi brahmana esa panthA yannAmabhirdhyAyati dhIraparthaih. Paribramanstatra na vindate arthAn mAyAmaye vAsanayA sayAnah. This means, if a person engages in scriptural study using mere intellect to understand the language, the illusions created by his own preconceived opinions will create confusion. Such mistakes, to a large extent, are due to obsessive focus on mere words ignoring the meanings and actual realization. It is also true that a disciple is probably a curse to a sincere preacher, since often the pristine teachings of a great preacher are misunderstood and spread in a distorted form by his less capable disciples over time.

Hence, let us leave aside such views from people whose minds may be tainted by their past experiences. Having said all these, let us hope we can focus on this work sarvankasA, by removing ourselves far away from our own prior misconceptions and prejudices. Let us keep that omnipresent witness (Brahman) as our witness and begin this work sarvankasA by invoking the blessings of our great teachers, who are our true well wishers.

Since we are trying to contemplate on finding the truth, one might ask: Isnt it better to take up a task of writing on Brahmasutras, which has its sole purpose to explain the essence of vedanta? This question seems valid. However, those controversial portions, on which peoples opinions differ, form only a minor part of the Brahmasutras. It is also true that, people who are obsessed with mere words of the scriptures will be constantly engaged in increasing the controversies. It is also quite natural that regarding relationship between three main entities: soul, universe and God, several differing opinions among people will crop up naturally due to the fundamental nature of this subject . The statement : bhOktA bhOgyam prEritAram ca matvA sarvam proktam trividham bramham Etat18, which means By knowing the enjoyer, object of enjoyment and the Impeller (God), everything has been stated, and all these are verily Brahman, in three forms. When a serious enquiry, with appropriate testimonial evidence, into the real science (vijnAna) of these three entities is taken up, all the controversies will disappear.

18
Svetasvetara Upanisad (I-12)

For a serious seeker, it is possible to know that Svetasvetara Upanisad has a lot of information to solve a number of controversies. The several open questions that crop up from the ten major Upanisads known as dasOpanisads, are answered in this Upanisad and such answers can be obtained by a deep study. For that very reason, vEdAnta dEsikA states, in accordance with the teachings of this Upanisad, that meditation on Brahman, with an understanding of the actual nature of soul and Isvara, will help one attain salvation (or moksa)19. Here the understanding of the nature of soul implies the understanding of the nature of matter since, souls are subject to bondage in matter.

For this very reason, he wrote this work Tattva muktA kalApa. In the ruse of writing a detailed commentary on this work and knowing well that it is possible to examine in detail all the relevant scriptural literature pertaining to the fundamental three entities namely souls, matter and Isvara, I put forth a great amount of effort. I am sure, since the subject is so deep, there is certainly more scope for additional research on this topic. Finally, only the Lord can show us the ultimate truth.

CONCLUSION:
At the very beginning, I want to make it clear that this work undertaken by me, is not a book on what pundits know and refer to as VisistAdvaita and repeatedly utter different words pertaining to it. This book was written to bring to light: a) The very purpose for which, Bhagawad-rAmanuja came into this world b) What was really in his mind, when he wrote his works in order to clarify the message of various statements of srutis, which seem to contradict one another. c) The teachings of Srimat ParkAla yati (HH abhinava ranganAtha parakAla swamy) and Sri Ranga Maha Guru (Sri Sri Rangavishnu), which clarify the real science behind the Vedic truth of savisEsAdvaita doctrine.

19
sistA jIvesa tattva pramiti yuta parOpAsanA mukti hEtuh - Tattva-MuktA-kalApa , Jadadravya sara, 4

It should be noted, as clearly mentioned by Sri Ramanujacharya in Sribhasya , that there can never be an entity, which is totally devoid of all attributes. Hence, the term nirvisEsAdvaita is not acceptable to any person who follows the Vedas. Even Sri Shankaracharya did not really mean a totally attribute-less entity by the term nirguna brahma. The term savisEsAdvaita is exactly opposite to the term nir-visEsAdvaita. Hence Brahman who is endowed with attributes is the subject of all the vEdas. Some advaitins question this and state that if there is only one entity, then it has to be certainly attribute-less; for example if you call someone poor, there has to be at least one person richer than that person. Hence if there is only one entity, there can be no attributes. This is not correct. To this opposition, if one asks a question- how can an attribute-less entity be the cause of this universe?, what is the answer to this? This question cannot be answered by pure nirvisEsadvaitins. Hence Brahman is always endowed with attributes.

I have heard many people say, It is easy to understand dvaita doctrine, and somehow it is possible to understand advaita. However it is difficult to understand the real meaning of SavisEsadvaita (visistadvaita) doctrine. What is the essence of their system of thought? This book is intended to be an answer to such questions. Hence, I request the readers to study this book with patience.

The NirvisEsa-advaitins state that: Non-dualism (advaita) is actually a negation of dualism (dvaita). Hence, to establish advaita, the concept of dvaita is needed, since that is the one, which has to be denied. Since, the truth is absolute non-dualism, from that stance, there is nothing else that needs to be denied or to be agreed upon. Our common experience, however, shows that there is this duality, which manifests itself. Since this duality has to be denied so as to establish advaita, dvaita becomes a part of the concept of advaita. Hence any form of dvaita cannot deny advaita. Hence, it is stated in mAndukya kArika that, There are different kinds of dvaitins such as vaisesikAs and sAmkhyAs, and people of each group of dvaitins are clear regarding their understanding of their doctrines. They contradict each other; However, advaita is not denied by dvaitins!20.

20
Mandukya karika 3-17

However, the reverse also becomes true. I.e. Advaita also cannot negate dvaita! There is this general rule in logic (nyAya): existence and non-existence cannot mutually deny each other, since, by definition, each of them is expressed in terms of the other. dvaita and advaita are of the form of mutual non-existence. Hence, one cannot deny the other.

Similarly, advaitins are decided on the issue of illusionary nature of duality. In the statements such as indro mayAbhih pururUpa Iyate, which means, Indra takes different forms due to mAyA, the advaitins take this word mAyA as illusion. This being the case, what happens to the meaning of the word satya used in the statements such as tasyopanisat satyasya satyam21in Brihadaranyaka Upanisad and in Chandogya Upanisad22? Here the meaning of this sentence is: that secret is: it is truth of truth or in other words there is a clear indication of at least two levels of truths and two entities which constitute these. Hence it is impossible to reconcile the concept of nirvisEsa-advaita, which claims that reality is identical to Brahman without attributes and all else does not exist from the perspective of absolute truth, uniformly in all the sruti statements. However, if at all one can state that nirvisEsa-advaita can be upheld in all sruti statements, it is only in the sense of denial of all those sruti statements which indicate duality! Only in the system of savisEsa advaita, it is possible to reconcile all the sruti statements. Hence, Bhagawad Ramanujacharya said in vEdartha samgraha, evam sati bhEdO vA abhEdO vA dvyAtmkatA va kOyam arthah samarthitah? sarvasya vEda vEdyatvAt sarvam samarthitam23, which means: what is the meaning that is supported in the vEdas? Is it nondifference between Brahman and the universe or difference or both difference and nondifference? Which of these three options form the final verdict of vedanta? For this, the reply is we uphold all the three since they are upheld in the vEdas. This statement of Sri Ramanujacharya is very difficult to understand. In addition to this there is another difficult statement: sarva sarIratayA sarva prakaram brahmaiva avasthitam iti abhedah samarthitah, which means Since Brahman is the soul of everything, and exists as everything in all the various modes, non-difference is upheld. The body-soul relationship is mentioned here

21 Brihadaranyaka Upanisad 2-1-20

22 Chandogya Upanisad 8-3-5

23
Vedarthasamgraha (117) p. 90 (S.S. Raghavachars book)

between universe and Brahman. In addition to the relationship of body and soul, there is this causal relation between them: Brahman is the material cause (upAdAna kAranA) of this universe. The material cause relationship is acceptable to advaitins and visistAdvaitins. The real meaning of what was stated above is not easy to understand. Without fully understanding these views, even the famous Sri Vidyaranya, felt that the views of Ramanujacharya were essentially same as the views of Jainism (kshapanaka). Since the subject at hand is very subtle, the answer can be found only by deep contemplation or tapas. Lot more details are presented in this book: sarvankasA, and only some main ideas are given here in this short introductory essay. In essence only in SavisEsAdvaita, reconciliation of all sruti statements is possible. Hence that is the truth established in vedanta.

Bhagavad Ramanujacharyas views have to be understood roughly in this sense: Unity is upheld in the causal state before creation, where there is only one entity, namely Brahman, and no differentiation is possible in Brahman into names and forms even though Brahman is always savisesa or endowed with attributes. In the effect state, after creation, Brahman exists in the form of entities that experience (bhoktA), and those that are experienced (bhogyam) and the Lord who controls these two types of entities (isvara). There is difference between these three entities souls, matter and Isvara, in this phase of creation. This concept cannot be fully grasped with by intellect, since there is no equivalent to Brahman in this perceivable universe. Hence, Brahman is basically a singularity and is beyond the reach of our intellect. Only an analogy can be given as how a seed grows up to become a tree with flowers, fruits and leaves, so does Brahman being the seed of this entire creation, becomes souls, matter and Isvara. Seeds similar to the original seed are produced from this tree, creating a cycle.This is just an analogy and details of this analogy, such as, how can one seed hold the information to produce unlimited number of trees and seeds similar to itself? - are so difficult to comprehend, even though we observe this phenomenon often. That being the case, how can our limited intellect grasp the complexity regarding the all powerful universal cause with inexplicable powers?. Then the question remains: how can this one Brahman, being non-differentiable before creation, become matter, souls and Isvara, which are mutually separate and different from each other after creation?; and in this process, how can it be true that there is no transformation of the form (svarUpa) of Brahman? There has to be some kind of transformation of form (svarUpa) of an entity, which is one, before creation, into many after creation. Brahman is both the efficient and material cause of this universe. Hence why not just accept that there has to be some form of svarUpa vikAra?. The term vikAra is not necessarily negative. It is true that svarUpa vikara of Brahma is not accepted by Visistadvaita tradition based on certain statements24. However, this issue has to be investigated further. Instead of stating negatively in terms of svarUpa vikAra, we can state it as svarUpa vikAsa, or the blooming of the very form of Brahman!. One should not forget, that Sage Vedavyasa himself has used the term parinAma (transformation) in the sutra

24 See Tattva muktA kalApa nayaka sara verse 30

AtmakritEh parinAmat25 which states that Brahman transforms himself into this universe of souls, matter and Isvara. Again this subject here is beyond intellect and no explanation can be fully satisfactory. It was stated earlier that the fundamental divide between words, object denoted and experience causes confusion in understanding statements. One thing has to be kept in mind here. Brahman transforms himself into this universe of matter and souls. This process of transformation is not like a lump of clay which transforms into a pot; however, it is a different kind of transformation which does not cause any blemish to Brahman. When a lump of clay is made into a pot, the clay does not remain as clay any more; it is transformed into the pot completely. However, unlike the lump of clay, Brahman still remains there as cause and is complete in all respects, as explained in the krtsna-prasakti-adhikarana of Brahma-sutras. The rules such as anything that transforms is certainly perishable etc. does not apply to Brahman. Brahman is complete (pUrna) and blemishless before creation and after creation, here in this universe. Brahman knows how to handle any kind of change!. Blemish may exist in the mind of the observer and not in Brahman. It is appropriate to quote Sri Ramanujacharya's statements from Sribhasya - tad Etad Aha- satyam ca anrtam ca satyam abhavat26. vicitra rUpena vikriyamAnam api brahma satyam Eva abhavat nirasta nikhila dOsagandham aparicchinnajnAnAndam-EkarUpam-Eva abhavat ityarthah27. The meaning of this sentence is This is said in the Taittiriya Upanisad- 'It became real and not-real'. Although undergoing change into the wondrous multiplicity of actual sentient and non-sentient things, Brahman at the same time was Real - that which is free from all shadow of imperfection, consisting of nothing but pure knowledge and bliss28. It should be noted that Sri Ramanujacharya uses the term vikriyamAnam (is being transformed) to Brahman!. Hence, Brahman, though subject to change of some kind, has un-conditional existence and completeness (pUrnatva). However, Brahman is generally held as un-changing or nirvikAra, since, from the human perspective, we assign something as good or bad based on human selfish perspective. We see a tree sprouting from a seed; a fruit growing from the tree and we feel that it is some what positive or it is a sign of some kind of progress; however, when the fruit becomes over-ripe and decomposes into manure, it is taken negatively, since that fruit is no longer palatable. Though all these stages are natural, we assign good or bad labels to it based on selfish perspective. As long as one associates good (upAdeya) or bad (hEya) labels, that means that the person is not completely mature! Brahman is beyond all assignments of good or bad from the human perspective. Brahman is clearly beyond intellect.

25

- (Brahman sutra- 1-4-26)

26 Taittiriya Upanisat - 2-6 27 Sribhasyam parinAmat ( I-4-27) 28 Sacred books of the east edited by Max mueller Vedanta Sutras with Ramanuja's Commentary part IIIGeorge Thibaut page 406

THIS IS WHAT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD HERE:

IF ALL ATTRIBUTES OF BRAHMAN ARE DENIED, IT IS LIKE STATING THAT BRAHMAN IS NON-ENTITY!

Assume a pot exists here. That means that another object say a piece of cloth is not present at that location and only a pot exists. Similarly if there is a piece of cloth here, it also indicates the absence of pot in that location. Similarly, all objects are existent in their own forms and nonexistent in the forms of other objects respectively. This is presented as a rule as svarUpa pararUpAbhyAm sarvam sat asat Atmakam29, by the logicians (knowers of nyAya school). According to this logic, in Brahman, the characteristics of the universe, which can be classified under three gunas, are denied and the characteristics of Brahman are denied in the universe. Hence, Brahman, though is devoid of attributes that are related to our universe, possesses some unique attributes of its own. If this is not accepted, it will become impossible to differentiate between Brahman and a non-existent entity such as horns of a Rabbit! Hence, a totally attribute-less Brahman becomes a non-existing entity and is not the view of any Vedic philosopher and definitely not of Sri Shankaracharya, who toiled hard to uproot nihilism!

BRAHMAN IS DEFINITELY ENDOWED WITH ATTRIBUTES: ALL THE VEDANTIC SCHOOLS AGREE ON THIS!

Hence the author of the vEdAntasUtras expressed this fact that Brahman has attributes in the sutras: sarvadharmOpapattesca30, sarvApEtAca tad darshanat31, etc. Hence, the insistence

29

14

Shloka vArtika

30 Brahma sutras II -1-37

of some AchAryas, that Brahman is devoid of any attributes (nirvisEsavada), was only to appease and win over the powerful haitukas or Buddhistic philosophers who tried to understand and justify truth, using logic alone, prevalent during those times. Only for this purpose, Sri Shankaracharya, in his famous adhyAsa bhAsya, used logical analysis alone and did not quote a single line of vEdas !. This strategy was brilliant and effective in winning over philosophers who did not accept the Vedic testimony. Sri Sankaracharya states in adhyAsa bhasya, that the same truth thus arrived purely using rational thought is the essence of vedanta and will be further explained in his Brahmasutra bhasya, as indicated in the words yathA ca ayam arthO vedantAnAm tathA vayam asyAm sAriraka mImAmsAyAm pradarsayisyAmah32.

On the other hand, the srutis clearly states that Brahman is naturally endowed with knowledge, strength and activity, as indicated by the statement: parAsya saktir vividhaiva sruyate, svAbhAviki jnana bala vikriyA ca33. Hence Brahman is certainly endowed with attributes (savisEsa). The attributes are gunas (attributes such as mercy, power, knowledge, etc.), vigraha (form, such as with four arms etc.) and vibhutis (wealth which includes everything in this universe and the divine lokas such as vaikunta etc.).

The knowledge of Brahman is the one, which can save us. This is stated in the srutis : tam evam vidvAn amrta iha bhavat, which means: Knowing him in this way, one attains immortality right here. Lord Sri Krishna, also states in the Bhagawadgita, etAm vibhutim ca yogam ca mama yo vEtti tatvatah sOvikampEna yOgEna yujyate nAtra samsayah34, which means: One who understands the real nature of my attributes and glories, will be unshakably established in the path of devotion (bhakti). Hence this savisEsavAda doctrine, which is the

31 Bramha sutras - II-1-30 32 Adhyasa Bhasya (Shankaracharya's introduction to Brahma sutras in the portion pertaining to the conclusion) 33
Svetasvetara 6-4

34 Bhagawadgita 10 -7

opposite of nirvisEsavAda, is beneficial to everyone. The words visista and savisEsa are synonyms. Hence the term visistadvaita has the same meaning as savisEsadvaita. However, the term savisEsa is more appropriate and comprehensive compared to the term visista, which is used in a restricted sense in the phrase cit-acit-visista. The term savisEsa can include infinite auspicious attributes, while the term cit-acit-visista addresses attributes related to: cit and acit only. Only with this view, all the statements of srutis can be reconciled. This is also the intent of Lord Krishna in the verse kacchin mAm vEtti tatvata:35, which means, May be, one among millions may comprehend me truthfully. Even the very idea of separation of Vedanta into these three systems: advaita, visistAdvaita and dvaita, are just myopic views of some dry philosophers and not the understanding of mature philosophers. BrhadAranyaka states: atha nAmadhEyam satyasya satyam prANA vai satyam tesAm esa satyam, which means: The secret name of that ParamAtman is truth of truth, he is truth among the individual souls, who are also true. In fact Sri Shankaracharya in his bhasya on brahmasutras states: taccha brahmAvasane pratisEdhE samanjasam bhavati. abhAvasAne tu pratishEde, kim satyasya satyam uchyeta36 This sentence means: when the negation of all attributes finally end up in Brahman as the existing entity, then it makes sense. If one understands that the negation of all attributes ends up in void or nihilism, how can one understand the statements of sruti such as: satyasya satyam, which means, he is truth among truth?. In this manner, Sri Shankaracharya denotes Brahman as the truth of truth and hence supports the validity of different levels of truth.

There is this statement of Sri Ramanujacharya in janmadhyadhikarana of Sribhasya: satyapadam nirupAdhika sattAyOgi bramhAha. Tena vikaraspadam achetanam tatsamsristaschetanasca vyAvrtah37, which means, the word satya indicates unconditional existence, which refers to Brahman; hence, the insentient matter and the souls that are bound in matter are excluded from that category (of unconditional truth)! Here, Sri Ramanujacharya does indicate that souls and matter are not true relative to Brahman, which is the unconditional truth. Hence they are at a different level of reality compared to Brahman. Even according to

35 Bhagawadgita - 7-3 36
Shankaracharyas Brahmasutra-bhasya (3-2-22) (sutra: prakrtaitavatam hi pratishedati tato bravIti ca bhuya: ) last sentence of the bhasya, where the explanation of the verse tatO bravIti ca bhuyah occurs.

37 Sribhasya 1-1-2 (siddhanta portion where satyam jnanam anantam verse is explained)

Visistadvaita, the experiences we experience here in the stage of bondage are not true when we reach Vaikunta. Say for example, we come across foul smelling places here on earth. Once we reach Vaikunta, can we find such places? According to the sAstras, the answer is definitely no. Hence the foul smelling places here can be termed as untrue in that sense that it is not permanent. The experience of truth can be only be stated in relation to the experiencer. If we reach Vaikunta, we will not have such unpleasant experiences any more, even though we probably can realize the Lord endowed with all the attributes of matter and souls in that state of moksa. Hence, one cannot question that Though we may not experience it in Vaikunta, the people who remain here will still experience such foul smelling places.

It is ironic that, both these AchAryas, Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri SankarAchArya, have the same view regarding reality; however, this is in stark contrast to what most people have understood regarding their views ! The sruti statements: Chandogya Upanisad (8-3-5) and BrhadAranyaka upanisad (5-4-2), which explains the term satya, also concur with this meaning. Here in BrhadAranyaka (5-4-2), satyam is broken in to three syllables: sat, ti and yam. ti indicates anrta, or non-truth, which is covered on both sides by sat and yam, both of which are true. In other words there are different levels of truth; and the absolute truth is Brahman. The common understanding of Sri Shankaracharyas advaita is that Brahman is real and the universe is an illusion38. This is a misunderstanding due to the superimposition of buddhist thought on the views of Sri Shankaracharya, by later pundits. It may be confusing to the readers, since terms such as maya, are in many places used to mean illusion in the writings of Sri Shankaracharya; however, those terms were used only to appease the Buddhists of those times, so as to establish the dharma based on vEdas.

It is true that the true nature of this concept of savisEsAdvaita, cannot be realized only by textual analysis, but only through the process of adhyatma vijnana or the yogic knowledge of Atman. This concept of savisEsAdvaita is a central concept and also defines the barrier between traditions of Buddhism and vedanta. It should be noted that the term sUnya does not necessarily mean that it is nihilism; However, many post Buddha, mAdhyamika scholars have used the word sUnya to mean absolutely nothing or void or nihilism. Similarly, what is termed by nir-visEsa Brahman by nir-visEsAdvaitins, does not mean that it is totally attribute-less. Hence the conclusion, which is acceptable to all Vedantic schools is that Brahman is savisEsa or endowed with attributes and is the sole cause of the universe.

38 brahma satyam jagan-mithyA

I have conducted this study for more than 50 years to understand the true nature of the knowledge of vedanta as established by ancient sages such as bAdarAyanA, bOdhAyanA, Upavarsa and so on. I am summarizing my understanding in this book sarvankasA, so that I can share the fruits of my efforts with everyone. It should be noted that it is not my intent to contradict or condemn or refute the views of anyone; this book is the fruit of years of work only done with the sole purpose of finding the truth. The findings summarized here may appear new to many readers. Some of these concepts may not be agreeable to the audience. I welcome them to read the book in detail and understand the nuances and reasoning behind the conclusions. Serious seekers can contact me for further information and clarification of doubts. Eventually, I plan to explain some issues in greater detail. This is my first attempt and I have presented only major points so that I can keep this book short. Hence, some details have been left out. I hope everything becomes clear eventually, if that auspicious Lord, who is the soul and the true friend of all, chooses to assist us.

By Sri K. S. varadAchArya Translation and explanation - in all humility, by Krishna Kashyap with the assistance of the aforementioned students of K.S VaradAchArya.