Tattva-Trayam (part 1)

avataarika (Introduction): Tattva Trayam: Avataarika (swami Varavara Muni)

Tattva Trayam, also known as ‘Laghu-SriBhashya’, an introduction to the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta is a magnum opus of the great acharya of the satsampradaya : Srimad Lokacharya swami.

Salutation to the great preceptor, Lokacharya, son of Krishnapada, and Saviour of those stung by the deadly serpent of Samsara!

The grantha has extensive commentary by Srimad Varavar muni swami (Manwala mamunigal), which brings about the real import of the rahasya grantha.

Salutation to Manavala Mahamuni, the repository of Srishailesha’s grace, the ocean of devotion and other auspicious qualities and the very personification of love for Ramanuja, the prince among ascetics!

The grantha and its commentary, originally in Tamil was translated into sanskrit by Rangacharya swami (Ranga Deshika) and translated into english by S, SATYAMURTHI AYYANGAR swami.

1. मुमुक्षोश्चेतनस्य मोक्षोत्पत्तौ तत्त्वत्रयज्ञानम् अपेक्षितम्| तत्त्वत्रयं चिदचिदीश्वरम्|

(Tattva-guanan muktih) तत्वज्ञानान्मुक्ति:

that is, knowledge of the Tattvas (fundamental truths or principles) is essential for attaining salvation (moksha). This is a creed to which all Vedantins subscribe. The aspirant to Moksha should, therefore, acquire a knowledge of ‘Tattvatraya’, the three fundamental truths or principles or entities, as the word Tattva’ could be interpreted, at the time of attaining salvation. The three entities are

(1) Chit (Sentient beings);

(2) Achit (non-sentient matter) and

(3) Eswara (The Lord).

No doubt, it is rightly held that even sub-human species such as animals; birds and the immobile trees etc., totally devoid of the capacity to know these truths, can attain salvation if only they had the good fortune to come in contact with a Sri Vaishnava and be graced by Him. There is, however, no inconsistency in this, inasmuch as the possession of the knowledge in question is enjoined on the Sri Vaishnava and it is only the contact with a person so qualified, which will be fruitful.

But then, it might be asked in the light of the Upanishadic text ‘Tamevam vidwan amirta iha bhavati, nanyah pantha ayanaya vidyate‘ (तमेवं विद्वानमृत इह भवति । नान्यः पन्था अयनाय विद्यते ॥), whether knowledge of Godhead alone would not suffice and where exactly is the compulsion to know all the three principles? The point to be emphasised here is that the Lord is to be comprehended as different from the other two entities, namely, sentient souls and non-sentient matter, pervading them, supporting and controlling them as the supreme Ordainer and Master of them all. In fact, it is this very Upanishad, which says “Bhokta bhogyam preritaram cha matva jushtastatastena amritatvameti” (भोक्ता भोग्यं प्रेरितारं च मत्वा जुष्टस्ततस्तेनामुतत्वमेति ।), Here Bhokta refers to the sentient soul. bhogyam’ is non-sentient matter and Prerita denotes the Lord (Eswara). Well, these are the three entities, whose detailed knowledge one ought to possess for attaining salvation.

• पंचविंशोऽयं पुरुषः । • पञ्चविंश आत्मा भवति ।

• भूतानि च कवर्गेण चवर्गेर्णेन्द्रियाणि च। टवर्गेण तवर्गेण ज्ञानगन्दधायस्तथा । मनः पकारेणैवोक्तं फकारेण त्वहंकृतिः । बकारेण भकारेण महान् प्रकृतिरुच्यने । आत्मा तु स मकारण पञ्चविंशः प्रकीर्तितः ।

• पञ्चभूतात्मके देहे देही मोहतमोवृतः । अहं ममैतदित्युच्चैः कुरुते कुमतिर्मतिम् ॥

• आकाशवाय्वग्निजलपृथिवीभ्यः पृथक् स्थिते । अनात्मन्यात्मविज्ञानं कः करोति कलेवरे ।।

2. चिदित्यात्मोच्यते। आत्मस्वरुप गत्वगत्योतरोत्तरमित्युक्तप्रकारेण देहेन्द्रियमनःबुद्धिभ्यो विलक्षणमऽजड़मानंदरूपं नित्यमणु अव्यक्तमचिन्त्यं निरवयवं निर्विकारं ज्ञानाश्रय ईश्वरस्य नियाम्यं धार्य शेषम्|

“Chit” (sentient beings) refers to the individual souls. The essential nature of the individual soul is as indicated below: It is distinct from the body, the sense-organs, the mind, the breath and the intellect. It has an inherent sense of awareness and is blissful, and eternal. It is of the size of an atom, unmanifest to the senses, non-comprehensible in the sense that it cannot be thought of like matter, organ-less and immutable. It is the substratum of knowledge and is directed and supported by the Lord to whom it is subservient.

3. आत्मस्वरूपं कथं देहादिविलक्षणमिति चेत्, देहादीनाम मम देहादिकमिति आत्मनः पृथगलुपभ्यमानत्वात् इदमित्युपलभ्यमानत्वात्, आत्मनोऽहमित्युपलम्भात् अस्य कदाचिदुपलम्भात् आत्मनः सर्वदोपलम्भात् एतेपामनेकत्वादात्मन् एकत्वादात्म एतेभ्यो विलक्षण: स्वीकार्य: एवं युक्तीनाम वाघसम्भावनायामपि शास्त्रबलेनात्मा देहादिविलक्षण: सिध्यति|

The soul is held to be different from the body, mind, senses etc., because the soul is the subject-matter of the word ‘I’ (aham) while all the rest are referred to as its possessions and/or attributes, as ‘My body’, ‘My mind’, ‘My sense’, etc., bringing out the distinction between the possessor and the objects possessed, even as ‘My father’, ‘My son’, would indicate the father as different from the son. And then, the possessions are denoted by the word ‘This’ or ‘These‘ and the soul by the word ‘I’.

At this stage, it might be argued that because the soul is referred to as ‘I’, the expressions ‘I am stout‘, I am lean‘ could also refer to a stout/lean soul. This doubt is resolved by interpreting these expressions as ‘I have a stout/lean body‘, the quality of being stout or lean being that of the body and not of the soul, even as ‘I am a man’, ‘I am a Deva‘ would mean ‘I have a human/celestial body‘. Further, the soul’s conciousness of a stout or a lean body enveloping it subsists only during the wakeful period and not during sleep when the conciousness of the body altogether disappears. Again, birth marks the appearance of the body and death, its disappearance, whereas the soul is an everlasting single entity and therefore it is, that one could claim, ‘This is the result of the deeds performed by me in a previous birth’, The soul, is thus comprehended as different from the body etc. Even assuming that there are limitations and/or shortcomings in intellectual reasonings of the kind, the scriptures come to our aid in pinpointing the soul as an entity apart from the body etc.

The essential nature of the individual soul has been set out earlier (aphorism 2). Now, the several attributes mentioned therein are being elaborated upon, one by one.

By the soul’s native sense of awareness is meant that it is in a position to project or manifest itself, unaided by external knowledge; in other words, the soul is self-luminous (swayam-prakaash), even as (deepa) light reveals itself and does not need another to reveal it.

अत्रायं पुरुषः स्वयंज्योतिर्भवति (atrayam purushah swayam jyotir bhavati).

When it is said that the soul is of the form of bliss, it means that by itself, the soul is blissful or delectable. To understand this calls for no special effort or the aid of the scriptures. When a person who wakes up after a spell of sleep, says ‘I slept happily’, the happiness in question should obviously be assigned to the soul which, during sleep, has no contact whatsoever with anything external. To stretch it to mean that the person slept so as to produce happiness afterwards would amount to going beyond the meaning of the words in the statement I slept happily’. Such an interpretation would be as perverse as explaining, “I sang sweetly” to mean I sang so as to produce sweetness afterwards? Does it mean anything but that the singing itself was sweet and sweetness was a concurrent experience of the singer as distinguished from something produced or experienced after the singing was over?

Also c.f. “निर्वाणमय एवायम् आत्मा””(nirvanamaya evayam atma) “ज्ञानानन्दमयस्त्वात्मा” (gnanananda-mayas tvatma), “ज्ञानानान्दैकलक्षणम्”(gnananandaika-lakshana)”” etc.

4. नित्यत्वं सर्वकाल वर्तित्वम् सर्वकाल सत्वे जन्ममरणाद्युपपत्तिः कथमिति चेन्न, जन्म देहसम्बन्धो, मरणं देहवियोगः।

The soul exists at all times, and that is why it is said to be ‘eternal’. To the query why then there is birth as well as death, the answer is: birth only means association of the soul with the body and death means disintegration of the body or dissociation of the soul from the body. It is the body that comes and goes while the soul stays on forever.

‘Na jayate mriyate va vipaschit’
न जायते म्रियते वा विपश्चित् । (Gita II-20).

5. अणुत्वं, कथमिति चेत् ,हृदय प्रदेशादुत्क्रमणगमनागमनानां शास्त्रेणोक्तत्वादणुत्वं भवति.

How is the soul considered to be atomic in size? It has been stated in the scriptures that the soul is located in the region of the heart, then leaves it, goes to the upper worlds and then comes down. Hence the soul is understood to be of the size of an atom. The relevant scriptural texts, such as Utkrantigatyagateenaam (उत्कान्तिगत्यागतिनाम्) of Brahma-sutra, need be referred to in this context.

6. नन्वणु हृदयदेशे तिष्ठति चेत्सर्वत्र शरीरे सुखदुःखे कथमनुभवतीति चेन्न, मणिद्युमणिदीपादीनामेकदेशस्थानां प्रभा यथा सर्वत्र व्याप्नोति, तथा ज्ञानं सर्वत्र व्याप्नोत्यतो न तद्भोगविरोधः, एकस्यैककालेऽनेकशरीरपरिग्रहस्व ज्ञान व्याप्त्या

Well, if the soul is merely of the size of an atom and stays in the cardiac region, how does it experience, all at once, pain and pleasure, from head to foot, (i.e.) all over the body?

Such an experience of the atom-sized soul, seated in the heart, is due to the permeation, all over, of its inherent attributive knowledge, from where it is seated. This is like the dispersal, in different directions, of the rays of the gem, the Sun and the lamp, located in a particular place. c.f. Brahma sutra ‘gunadva alokavat’ (गुणद्वा अवलोकवत् (ब्रह्म-सूत्र)) and the commentary thereof in ‘Sribhashya. Apart from this experience of a pervasive knowledge inside the same body, even the simultaneous assumption of a number of bodies by one and the same individual, as Sage Saubhari did, is achieved only by this very process, namely pervasion of the soul’s attributive knowledge.

7. अव्यक्तत्वं नाम घटपटादिग्राहिचक्षुराद्यऽग्राह्यत्वम् ।

The soul is unmanifest, that is, it cannot be apprehended by the sense-organs of sight, etc., in just the same way as they apprehend pots, clothes, etc. The soul can be apprehended only by the mind. It is, however, not on a par with the mythical sky-borne lotus, [the horse’s horns, or the son of a barren woman, which too cannot be comprehended by the sense-organs, because these things just do not exist.

8. अचिन्त्यत्वं नामाचित्सजातीयतया चिन्तयितुम् अनर्हत्वम्

The soul cannot be thought of, as belonging to the same class or category as the non-sentient things. c.f. ‘avyaktoyam achintyoyam’-Gita II-25. अव्यक्तोऽयम अचिन्त्योऽयम (गीता २.२५)

9. निरवयवत्वं नामावयवसमुदायानात्मकत्वम्

The soul is not an assemblage of parts-like the material things. It has no parts or limbs but is made up solely of knowledge. (vignanamayah). ( विज्ञानमयः ).

10. निर्विकारत्वं नामाचिद्वद्विकारत्वेन विनैकरूप तयावस्थानम्

The soul is immutable, that is, non-changing. Unlike the non-sentient matter, which undergoes modifications in form and size, the soul remains in one and the same state and does not undergo changes. c.f. ‘avikaryah ayamuchyate’- (अविकार्योऽयमुच्यते।) Gita II-25. The soul is denoted by the word ‘akshara’- the non-changing.

11.एवंस्थितत्वाच्छस्त्राग्निजलवातातपप्रभृतिभिश्छेदनदहनक्लेदनशोषणादीनामयोग्यम् ।

The soul being as described above, it is beyond the mischief of sharp instruments, fire, water, air, etc. Instruments shall not cleave it, fire cannot burn it, wer cannot drench it, nor can air dry it or the Sun wither it out. c.f. Gita (II-23-24).

‘नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः । न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयति मारुतः ॥

अच्छेद्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एव च । नित्यस्सर्वगतस्स्थाणुः अचलोऽयं सनातनः ॥

https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/srimad?language=dv&field_chapter_value=2&field_nsutra_value=23&scram=1&scvv=1&etradi=1&choose=1

12. आर्हता आत्मा देह परिणाम इत्याहुः, तच्छ्रुतिविरुद्धम्. अनेक देहान्परिगृह्णतां योगिनां स्व रुपस्य शैथिल्यं च प्रसज्येत् ।

The Jains hold that the soul is of the size of the body, so as to account for the soul’s experience of pain and pleas in different parts of it. But this is at variance with the Vedic texts which declare the soul as ‘akshara’ (i.e.), non-changing- (amritaksharm harah; अमृताक्षरं हरः) and atomic in size- (Eshonuratma; एसोऽणुरात्मा) Valagra-sathabhagasya’ (बालग्रशतभागस्य शतधा कल्पितस्य च। भागो जीवस्य विज्ञेयः) etc.

Again, the soul, according to its dessert (fruits of its actions) acquires the body of an elephant or of an ant. If the soul should be co-extensive and co-expansive with the body it takes on, from time to time, it has to alternately bloat up to the enormous size of an elephant or shrink down to the size of the tiny ant, which sounds ludicrous indeed. Further, this view will not accord with the essential nature of the Sages and Yogis, who, by dint of their special attainments, assume different forms at different times. It would be nothing short of fantastic to imagine their expanding or being cut to size, to fit in with the different bodies they assume. This has been refuted, at great length in Sribhashya.

13. ज्ञानाश्रयत्वं नाम ज्ञानस्याधारत्वम्

The soul is the substratum of knowledge, that is, the repository or seat of knowledge. The Upanishads say that the soul is knowledge itself and is also the seat of knowledge. This is like unto the light and its source, the lamp, both of which are bright. That the soul is the residence of knowledge is supported by Vedic texts such as Vignataramare kena vijaneeyat’, ‘Janatyevayam purushah’ (विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयात्, जानात्येवायं पुरुषः) etc.

14. आत्मा ज्ञानानाधारो ज्ञानमात्रमिति चेत् , अहं ज्ञानमित्येव प्रतिसंदधीत नत्वहं जानामीति ।

If, however, the soul is ‘only knowledge’ and not its source, as Buddhists and certain others hold, the expression ‘I know’ has no meaning or relevance and it should be reshaped as ‘I am knowledge‘. But expressions such as ‘I have grasped this meaning‘, ‘I quite follow this‘, etc., are very much in vogue. This means, the individual soul is receptive to all that knowledge.

15. ज्ञातेत्युक्तौ कर्ता भोक्ता चेत्युक्तः. कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वे ज्ञानावस्थाविशेषौ।

And where it is said that the individual soul is the knower, it should be deemed to have been said, by implication, that the soul is also the Agent (Doer) for the acts of commission and omission flowing from such knowledge and the Experiencer of the fruits of those acts.

16. केचिद् गुणानामेव कर्तृत्वं नात्मन इति वदन्ति तदाऽस्य शास्त्रवश्यत्वं भोक्तृत्वं च न स्यात्

The Sankhyas say that the doership vests only in the Gunas (Sathva, Rajas and Tamas), the components of prakriti (non-sentiment matter) and not in the individual soul, who however, tastes the fruits of the deeds.

This cuts across the obligation of the individual soul to obey the dictates of the scriptures; the soul experiencing the fruits of the acts committed by the Gunas, for which the individual is not responsible, would be meaningless and irrational. The scriptures (Sastras) are those that ordain by instilling the requisite knowledge to do certain acts and to refrain from doing certain others. This knowledge can be imparted only to the knowledgeable individual and not to the inert matter, which is devoid of the faculty of perception and understanding. The dictates of the Sastras, which are in the form of ‘Do’s (Do this, that and the other) and ‘Dont’s (Don’t de this that and the other) can hardly be addressed to the prakriti (gunas) which are nonsentient. He who enjoys the fruits such as going to swarga o: ascending the heavens ought to be the doer, to merit those fruits. c.f. Swarga-kamo Yajeta’, Mumukshuh Brahma upaseeta’ etc. ( स्वर्गकामो यजेत, मुमुक्षुः ब्रह्मोपासीत ।) The Sankhya concept is opposed to the teachings of Gita (13.21). c.f.

“Karya-karana-kartrutve hetuh prakriti-ruchyate, Purushas sukhadukhanam bhoktritve heturuchayate”.
कार्यकारणकर्तृत्वे हेतुः प्रकृतिरुच्यते । पुरुषस्सुखदुःखानां भोक्तृत्वे हेतुरुच्यते ॥

https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/srimad?language=dv&field_chapter_value=13&field_nsutra_value=21&show_mool=1&scram=1&scmad=1&etradi=1

This theme has been elaborated in the Sribhashya while commenting on the Brahma Sutra 2.3 ‘Karta Sastrarthavattvat’. (कर्ताशास्त्रार्थवत्त्वात् )

17. सांसारिकप्रवृत्तिषु कर्तृत्वं न स्वरूपप्रयुक्तमपितु गुणसंसर्गकृतम् . कर्तृत्वं चेश्वराधीनम् ।

Having established that the doership belongs to the individual soul, will all, that he does, be in keeping with his essential nature? No, whatever he does in regard to the enjoyment of wordly pleasures, he does under the influence of, rather, in association with the Gunas. c.f. ‘Prakrteh Kriyamanhani gunhaih karmanj Karta ahamiti manyate’.

प्रकृतेः क्रियमाणानि गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वशः । अहङ्कारविमूढात्मा कर्ताऽहमिति मन्यते ।। Gita 3-27.

18. ज्ञानाश्रयश्चेदयं शास्त्रेषु ज्ञानत्वेन कथन्निर्द्दिश्यते, ज्ञानेन विनास्य प्रकाशात् ज्ञानस्य सारभूतगुणत्वेन निरूपकधर्मतया तथा निर्दिश्यते।

The question posed next is whether the agency (action) of the individual is dependent on the Lord or independent of Him. As knower (gnata), doer (karta) and enjoyer (bhokta) the individual soul possesses a consciousness, which expresses itself in such states as thinking (gnana) desiring (chikeersha) and striving (prayatna).

19. नियाम्यत्त्वं नामेश्वरबुद्ध्यधीनसकलव्यापात्वम्

But these states are controlled by the Lord without whose assent, the thin- king etc., cannot blossom into action. The individual doership is, therefore, dependent on the Lord.

At this stage, a doubt might arise as to why, in that case, the individual should at all be affected by the merits and demerits of such acts. The freedom to act is no doubt the Lord’s gift to the individual soul as to enable the latter to utilise it for his good. The Lord as the ‘Antaryaml’, the universal controller residing inside every soul, remains neutral or passively quiescent in regard to the initial effort of the individual in the exercise of this gift of freedom of action. Thereafter, the Lord not only watches approvingly the progress of the individual and makes him prosper in his earnest endeavours (i.e.) those which con- form to the scriptural injunctions, but also infuses in him, in an ever-increasing measure, the relish for doing good acts. On the other hand, when the individual moves in the retrograde direction, the Lord visits on him His displeasure and disapproval in the form of punishments (sorrows and sufferings), thereby giving him a chance to correct himself and tread the right path.

20. धार्य्यत्वं नाम तत्स्वरूपसंकल्पव्यतिरेक प्रयुक्तस्वसत्ताव्यतिरेकयोग्यत्वम्.

If the soul is the sub-stratum or seat of knowledge, why is it mentioned in the scriptures as knowledge? ‘Yo vignane’, ‘vignanam yagnam tanute’ यो विज्ञाने तिष्ठन्, ‘विज्ञानं यज्ञ तनुते’, etc. As explained earlier, the soul is able to project itself, unaided by external knowledge. Even as knowledge is self-revealing and makes other things known, the soul is self-luminous knowledge as well as the possessor of attributive knowledge, which makes other things known. Hence it is denoted as knowledge (धर्म ज्ञान); c.f. the lamp and the light it throws all round, both of which are luminous.

21. शेषत्वं नाम चन्दनकुसुमताम्बूलादिवत्तस्येष्टविनियोगार्हत्वम् . इदं गृहक्षेत्रपुत्रूकलत्रादिवत्पृथक् स्थित्यादीनां योग्यं न भवति किंतु शरीरवत्तदयोग्यं भवति।

The Lord, who pervades all things that exist, rules and guides them all, by being the support, the ground and substance of all existence. By the soul’s subservience (शेषत्वं) to the Lord is implied that he should endear himself to the Lord like flowers, sandal paste, betel leaves etc., to be used by Him and His devotees, as they please. Unlike the houses, lands, the son, the wife, estates, household servants etc., belonging to a person staying apart from him and capable of being known independently, the soul’s subservience to the Lord should be like that of one’s body, incapable of existing and being known independently.

22. आत्मस्वरूपं च बद्धमुक्त नित्य भेदन त्रिविधम्,बद्धा इत्युच्यन्ते संसारिणः, मुक्ता निवृत्तसंसाराः, नित्या इत्युच्यन्ते कदापि संसारमप्राप्ताः शेषशेषाशनादयः

The individual souls at the different levels of unfoldment fall under three categories, namely

(i) those still in bondage (baddhas), caught up in the terrific involvement of birth and death;

(ii) those liberated from bondage and residing in the High Heavens, the land whence there is no returning (Muktas); this category also embraces those released from the bondage of sansara but, who prefer to remain isolated in enjoyment of their own selves, (Kevalas); and

(iii) the ever-free celestials (Nitya soories) like Adi Sesha, Garuda and Vishvaksena, who never passed through the gruelling mill of samsara with its involvement in the cycle of births and deaths.

23. जलस्याग्निसंसृष्टस्थालीसंसर्गेण यथौष्ण्यशब्दादयो जायन्ते, तथात्मनोऽचित्संबन्धेनाऽविद्या कर्मवासनारुचयो जायन्ते, अचिन्निवृत्तावविद्यादयो निवर्तन्त इति वदन्ति ।

The soul, with its inherent qualities of bliss and intelligence, got entangled in the bondage of samsara, engulfed by ignorance (avidya), the fruits of actions, good and bad (karma), impressed tendency (vasana) and predilections (ruchi), owing to its contact with the non-sentient matter, the seat of the three or gunas (Sattva, Rajas and Tamas). This is similar to water, which is cool by itself, on acquiring heat and sound, when it gets into a vessel kept on fire. The superimposed ignorance etc., will, therefore, clear off when the soul is dissociated from the non-sentient matter and its components.

24. कश्चित्संसरति कश्चिन्मुच्यते कश्चिच्छिप्यः कश्चिदाचार्य इति च न स्यात्, विषमसृष्टिश्च नोपद्यते. आत्मभेदमभिदधत्या श्रुत्या च विरोधः।

Innumerable are the souls of each of the three categories, referred to above. But then some (the Advaitins) say that there is no distinction among souls and actually, there is only one soul. If this be correct, when one person enjoys pleasure, another should not feel pain. It is, however, seen that, when some enjoy pleasures, others are afflicted by pain and sufferings. The distinction between the souls has, therefore, to be admitted.

25. श्रुतिरौपाधिकं भेदमभिधत्त इति न शक्यते वक्तुम् . मोक्षदशायाम्भेदसत्त्वात्. तदानीं देवमनुष्यादिभेदानाञ्च निवृत्तावात्मनां स्वरूपस्यात्यन्तसमतया केनापि प्रकारेण भेदकथनायोग्यत्वेऽपि परिमाणगुरुत्वाकाराणां साम्येपि स्वर्णकलशरत्नव्रीहिप्रभृतीनां यथा भेदः सिध्यति, तथाऽऽत्मस्वरूपभेदः सिद्धः, तस्मादात्मभेदः स्वीकार्यः।

The argument that the varying experiences are incidental to the assumption of different bodies by the same soul, will not also hold water, seeing that Sage Saubhari who assumed fifty bodies all at once and married fifty princesses did not have such alternating experience simultaneously, despite his ubiquitous appearance in different bodies. If there is no distinction between souls and one and the same soul is manifest in different bodies, one should not be bogged down the throes of Samsara while another attains salvation; one cannot be a teacher imparting instructions and another, a disciple receiving instructions; so on, and so forth, pitted in diametrically opposite situations. Nor could there be such a vast range of unequal creations. a motley crowd as Devas, men, beasts etc., some moulded in felicity and others hurled in misery.

Further, the concept of a single soul, that is, oneness of the soul comes into conflict with the scriptures, which declare the multiplicity of souls. Svetasvatara upanishad (VI-13) says that the Lord Who is the Eternal among the eternals, the Intelligent among the intelligent, singly fulfills the desires of the many :-

‘Nityo nityanam, Chetanas Chetanānām, eko bahunam yo vidadhāti Kāmān.’ (नित्यो नित्यानां चेतनश्चेतनानामेको बहूनां यो विदधाति कामान् ).

It would not be correct to hold that the scriptures refer only to the differences due to the limiting adjuncts, inasmuch as the differences persist even on the yonder side of heaven, in the state of salvation. Cf. ‘Sada pasyanti Soorayah’ ( सदा पश्यन्ति सूरयः), the word underlined being in plural number, denoting the numerous beholders of the Lord in heaven. No doubt, so far as the liberated souls are concerned, differences such as those obtaining on this side of heaven, namely, humans, devas, etc., do not exist; nor are they differentiated by passions like anger, lust, etc. Despite this kind of parity in their essential nature their multiplicity is a pronounced fact, in the same way as that of several gold pots, gems, or grains of rice of the same quality, weight and size. The multiplicity of the individual souls is thus established, both by reasoning and the authority of the scriptures.

26. एतेषां लक्षणं शेषत्वसहितं ज्ञातृत्वम्,

It will be seen from the essential nature of the individual soul, set out in aphorism 4 ante, that there are some features which differentiate the individual soul from Matter and certain others, which differentiate the soul from the Lord.

There are also certain features common to (i) the individual soul and Matter and (ii) the individual soul and the Lord. A common characteristic of all the three entities is that they are all eternal. Being controlled and supported by the Lord and being dependent on Him are common to the individual soul and Matter. Bliss, intelligence, being unmanifest to the senses, non-comprehensibility, non- changeability are all properties common to the Lord and the individual soul. The unique attribute of the individual soul, that stamps it out exclusively from the other two entities is, however, its knowledge (gnatrutva) harnessed to depence (Seshatva) on the Lord. Knowledge is common to both the soul and the Lord, while dependence on the Lord is common to both the soul and Matter. It is only dependence-based or dependence-oriented knowledge that is the characteristic attribute of the soul.

27. एतेषां ज्ञानं स्वरूपमिव नित्यं द्रव्यजड़मानन्दरूपञ्च.

The knowledge possessed by the individual soul is, like its essential nature, an eternal substance, luminous and blissful.

28. तर्हि ज्ञानस्वरूपयोः परस्परं वैलक्षण्यं किमिति चेत् , स्वरूपं धर्म्मि संकोचविकासानर्हं स्वव्यतिरिक्ताऽप्रकाशकं स्वस्मै स्वयंप्रकाशकमणु, ज्ञानं धर्मः संकोचविकासयोग्यं स्वव्यतिरिक्तप्रकाशकं स्वस्मै स्वाऽप्रकाशमात्मने प्रकाशकं विभु च.

The difference between the soul’s essential nature and its attributive knowledge is, however, as follows:-

Essential Nature of the Soul.	Attributive Knowledge.
(1) It is the possessor of knowledge as an attribute.	It is an attribute of the soul.
(2) It is incapable of undergoing changes of contraction and expansion.	It is capable of contraction and expansion.
(3) It is self-numinous but does not reveal anything other than itself.	It reveals objects other than itself.
(4) It is atomic in size.	(a) It is expansive and infinite in size*.

29. तत्र केषांचित् ज्ञानं सदा विभु, केषाश्चिज्ज्ञानं सदाऽविभु, केषाश्चिज्ज्ञानं कदाचिद्वभु.

Although (*) above, depicts the natural tendency of knowledge, the actual position is that the knowledge of only some (the ever-free Nityasoorics) remains infinite at all times, the knowledge of the bound souls is not infinite at any time but very much contracted, while the knowledge of the ‘Released’ souls (Muktas) is infinite at certain times (i.e.), after Liberation from the bondage of Samsara and contracted at other times, that is, in the pre-liberation period.

30. ज्ञानं नित्यं चेन्मम ज्ञानमुत्पन्नं नष्टमिति व्यवहारः कथमिति चेत्, इन्द्रियद्वारा प्रसृत्त्य विषयान् गृह्णाति निवर्तत इत्यतस्तथा व्यवह्रियते. इदमेकमपि नानात्वेन भासते प्रसरणभेदेन.

If knowledge is eternal, as stated a little earlier, how is one to appreciate statements such as ‘knowledge has dawned on me’ and ‘ knowledge is extinct’? It needs to be clarified that, on attaining salvation, the knowledge of the individual becomes infinite and is thus capable of comprehending everything (Sarvam ha pasyah pasyati), (Sa chanantyaya kalpate) सर्वं ह पश्यः पश्यति, स चानन्त्याय कल्पते. But, while in a state of bondage, knowledge gets alternately contracted and expanded, according to the incidence of Karma’ and its productivity and the nature of comprehension through the sense-organs. The knowledge that is apprehended through the sense-organs, though in effect, one and the same, appears to have different facets, relative to the particular sense-organ employed-seeing, hearing, tasting, etc., and the knowledge of form, sound, taste, respectively, projected thereby.

31.द्रव्यत्वं कथमिति चेत् क्रियागुणानामाश्रयत्वादजड़त्वात् च द्रव्यम् भवति. अजड़त्व चेत् सुषुप्ति मूर्च्छादिषु कुतो न प्रकाशत इति चेत् , प्रसरणाभावान्न प्रकाशते.

The attributive knowledge of the soul is treated as a substance because it is (i) the sub-stratum of actions like contraction and expansion, (ii) the sub-stratum of qualities like conjunction and disjunction and (iii) self-luminous (ajada). C.f. ‘Kriyasrayo dravyam’ (क्रियाश्रयो द्रव्यम्) gunasrayo dravyam’ (गुणाश्रयो द्रव्यम्), ‘gnanam dravyam ajadatvat, yat ajadatvavat tat dravyam’. (ज्ञानं द्रव्यम्, अजडत्वात्, यत् अजडत्ववत् तत् द्रव्यम् ।)

Knowledge, though self-luminous (ajada), does not manifest itself during deep slumber, swoon, etc., because there is no scope for it to spread, there being nothing to be comprehended then.

32. आनंदरूपत्वं नाम ज्ञानस्य प्रकाश अवस्थायामनुकूलत्वम् . विपशस्त्रादिप्रकाशनावसरे प्रतिकूलत्वस्य हेतुर्देहात्मभ्रमादयः, ईश्वरात्मकत्वात्सवेषाम्पदार्थानामानुकूल्यमेव स्वभावः, प्रातिकूल्यमौपाधिकम्. अन्यदानुकूल्यं स्वाभाविकं चेत् , कस्यचित् कुत्रचित्कालदेशयोरनुकूलानि चन्दनकुसुमादीनि, देशान्तर कालान्तरे तस्यैव तद्देश एव तत्काल एवाऽन्यस्य प्रतिकूलानि न स्युः ॥

Let us examine why this knowledge is said to be blissful. It is blissful when it reveals the objects comprehended by it. A doubt might instantly arise whether it is so, in all cases, and whether, for example, comprehension of objects like poison, lethal weapons, etc., is not terrifying. This is resolved by pointing out that such a feeling is due to lack of correct perspective on the part of the individual, whose vision is blurred, being bound over by his ‘Karma’. He suffers from the illusory notion that the body is the soul and fails to perceive the Lord’s immanence in all things that exist-jagat sarvam sareeram te’, (जगत्सर्वं शरीरं ते) ‘tani sarvani tad-vapuh’ (तानि सर्वाणि तद्वपु:). Due to their association with the Lord, who is the soul of all substances, all of them should naturally be desirable and if, however, they are apprehended differently by different persons, the defect lies not in the things themselves but in the individuals, because of their limitations. But then, it might be asked whether a thing is not desirable by itself, irrespective of its association with the Lord (e.g.), Sandal paste, flowers, etc. The answer is: One man’s food is another man’s poison; the very things, which are relished by an individual, at certain times and in particular places, are eschewed by him at other times and at other places. So then, this is not the natural state of things. All substances forming the bodies of the Lord are inherently sweet and desirable and, viewed in this correct perspective, knowledge is blissful, when it reveals the objects comprehended by it. This is clearly brought out in the following sloka of Sri Vishnu Purana:

वस्त्वेकमेव दुःखाय सुखायेर्ष्यागमाय च । कोपाय च यतस्तस्मात् वस्तु वस्त्वात्मकं कुतः । तदेव प्रीतये भूत्वा पुनर्दुःखाय जायते । तदेव कोपाय यतः प्रसादाय च जायते ।। तस्माद्दुःखात्मकं नास्ति न च किंचित् सुखात्मकम्।।

Summing up, this section deals with: