If it is contended by the Advaitin that repletion of Tattvamasi’ is intended for those who are not able to comprehend Abheda by the first statement, then we also say that Bheda Sruti is meant for those who are not able to comprehend Bheda by Pratyaksha. Therefore, many Pramanas in a matter are intended only to affirm the matter concerned. Therefore, ‘Tattvamasi’ etc. Sruti statements do not convey abheda at all. All Sruti passages convey the supremacy of Vishnu only.
It is stated by Lord Krishna himself –
There are two sentient beings in this universe viz, Ksara and Akshara. All sentient beings other than Lakshmi are designated as Ksara while Lakshmi who does not undergo any change is Akshara. The highest Purusa is distinct from these two and is designated as Paramatma. He is the ruler of all, he is eternal, and he supports all entering into them.
I am designated as Purushottama both in the Vedas and other sacred literature since I am superior to both Ksara and Akshara. He who knows me in this way without any misunderstanding, knows all, and he worships me with complete devotion. This secret knowledge is given to you. Realising this, attain the direct knowledge of me i.e, the Supreme God, and attain liberation.
The entire sacred literature chiefly conveys Vishnu the Supreme God and nothing else. Dharma etc, other matters, are conveyed only secondarily. This is because, the entire sacred lintended to lead to the Purushartha i.e, liberation which can be obtained only by his grace.
The chief purport of all Vedas is to declare the supremacy of Lord Vishnu. The other matters such as Dharma etc, are conveyed only secondarily.
It is most appropriate to say that the purport of the entire scriptures is to convey the supremacy of Lord Vishnu only. Among the goals of life Moksha i.e, the salvation, is the supreme goal.
Bhallaveya Sruti states that among Bharma, Artha etc., goals of life, Dharma etc. are not permanent. It is only Moksha that is eternal. Therefore, a wise person should aspire to obtain Moksha.
The Mahabharata also says that the other goals such as Dharma, Artha etc. are not permanent and the misery is not completely eliminated by them. Therefore, these do not lead to the highest happiness. It is Moksha that gives highest happiness for those who rotate in the cycle of birth and death by releasing from it.
This Moksha cannot be obtained without the grace of God.
The Narayana Sruti says that one will become free from this miserable cycle of birth and death only by the grace of Narayana and not by any other means. Therefore, those who desire to be free from this Samsara should meditate upon Lord Narayana only.
The Kathaka Upanishad says that God cannot be attained by discourses, by intelligence, or by vast learning. God can be obtained only by one whom he chooses to bestow his grace upon. The God will reveal himself only to such a chosen person.
God himself declares in the Gita “I shall immediately lift from Samsara those whose mind is fixed on me.
The Skanda Purana says: Creation, sustenance, destruction, regulation, enlightment, veiling, bondage and liberation all these are due to the Supreme Lord Hari. He is absolutely independent.
The Supreme Lord Janardhana gives knowledge to the ignorant, liberation to the enlightened and bliss to the liberated.
The Supreme Brahman i.e, Vishnu binds all in the cycle of birth and death, liberates all from the same and enables the liberated to realize the bliss which is of very nature.
It is observed that the love of God is especially obtained by knowing the excellence of his qualities and not by thinking as identical with him. The superiors are displeased if one thinks that he is equal to them. The kings harm those who think themselves as kings; on the other hand, if one talks of the excellence of their qualities, they will grant all his desires.
The Sauparna Sruti says: Lord Vishnu will not have that much affection for anyone which he will have for one who knows the excellence of his qualities.
One will obtain liberation by the love of God. Therefore, all Vedas chiefly convey him only.
O Arjuna ! he who knows me as Supreme Purusa without any distortion, knows me well and he worships me with complete devotion.
In this way Lord Krishna himself has declared that he will be very much pleased with those who know the excellence of his qualities. Therefore, all Srutis and smritis chiefly convey the supremacy of Lord Vishnu.
There is no Pramana to indicate that the purport of Sruti is abhedha i.e, Jivabrahmaikya.
Bheda i.e, difference is comprehended either as adjective or as substantive. But these very positions of adjectives and substantive depend upon Bheda i.e, difference. Similarly Bheda is comprehended having a reference to Bharmi i.e, that which is differentiated and Pratyogi, that from which it is differentiated. But these two positions depend upon Bheda. Therefore, the very concept of Bheda i.e, difference cannot be sustained.
This objection against the very concept of Bheda is not tenable, because, Bheda i.e, difference is an internal attribute of the object concerned. It constitutes the very nature of the object concerned.
It cannot be argued that Bheda cannot be the very nature of the object concerned since its comprehension needs a reference to Bharmi and Pratyogi. Because, the concept of Aikya i.e, Abheda of Advaitins also needs a reference to Bharmi and Pratyogi, but still it is considered as of the very nature of Brahman. The absence of the comprehension of the difference even when the object concerned is comprehended, can be explained on par with the absence of the comprehension of Abheda even when Brahman is comprehended.
The fact is, Bheda is comprehended as soon as an object is comprehended. An object is always comprehended as distinct from all other objects. The statement – ‘The difference of the object’ has to be understood like the statement – ‘the nature of the object’ the nature of the object is the very object but still it is stated as ‘of the object’.
I case, Bheda i.e, difference is not an internal attribute of the object concerned, then when an object is observed the fact of its being distinct from all other objects will not be comprehended at all. If its distinction from all other is not comprehended, then, one may mistake even oneself to be the jar etc. Such doubts never arises.
Normally, one comprehends an object as distinct from all other objects and only in such cases where there is some similarity he entertains doubts. No one entertains any doubt in respect of himself whether he is Devadatta or jar etc., other objects. Normally one comprehends an object as distinct from all others in general, first, and then only as distinct from jar etc., particular objects. Therefore, there is no reciprocal dependency in the comprehension of the object and the difference.
The objection viz., in case the object and its difference from all other objects are comprehended simultaneously, then, there will be the contingency of Dharmi and all Pratyogins being grasped simultaneously, is not tenable. Because, the comprehension of these together as a group is possible as in the case of the comprehension of thousand lamps.
Advaitins also have to accept visesa within one entity. They have accepted the distinction of Brahman from all others by quoting the Sruti ‘Neti Neti’. It results in repetition if Visesha is not accepted. The distinction from the Jar and the distinction from the cloth cannot be one and the same. Therefore, the comprehemsion of the difference is quite logical.
The attitude of considering as Mithya even such things that are established by Pramana is the attitude of a daylight robber. Things that are established by Pratyaksha cannot be repudiated by inference. The inference that are opposed to Pratyaksha are invariably fallacious inferences.
The appearance of sukti as rajata is considered as false on the ground that its falsity is brought out by a stronger Pratyaksha but not by mere inference.
If what is established by Pratyaksha is rejected merely on the ground of inference, then one has to go to the extent of saying that Prithivitva is not present in Prithivi also as it is not found in Ap etc., in the other four.
Therefore, what is established by Pratyaksha cannot be considered as erroneous merely by inference.
In the light of this, the inference that oppose Bheda are fallacious as these are opposed to Sruti, Smriti, Pratyaksha and Anumana.
The contention that there is no Bheda i.e, real difference but it is accepted as Vyavaharika i.e, empirical, is not correct. Because, the concept of Vyavaharika i.e, Sadadadvilakshana that which is neither real nor unreal is not tenable.
He who claims that Asat is not comprehended, cannot deny it unless he has comprehended it, and he cannot deny it if he has comprehended it. Further, the distinction from Asat cannot be comprehended unless Asat is comprehended.
The Suktiraja comprehended in an illusion is not Sadasadvilakshana, because, on sublation one states that he saw the silver that did not exist. It cannot be urged that it is not non-existant since it is experienced. In an illusion non-existing is comprehended as existing and existing as non-existing. Such reverse comprehension is illusion.
The contention that Asat is not comprehended in illusion is not tenable. The anirvachaniya rajat that is comprehended in the illusion has to be comprehended as Sat during the illusion. This Satva of Anirvachaniya Rajat is Asat. The comprehension of this Satva of Rajata has to be accepted.
It cannot be urged that this Satva is also Anirvavhaniya i.e, Sadasadvilakshana. This will lead to infinite regress. Further the Anirvachaniya status of the very first step i.e, Suktirajata is not yet established. In the absence of its establishment the whole chain of Anirvachaniya will break down.
Further, if Rajata was Anirvachaniya, then, the sublating experience would have referred to it as Anirvachaniya Rajata.
The word Mithya conveys Asat. There is no proof to say that there is Sadasadvilakshana entity. Acceptance of such an entity is opposed to experience. Only Sat and Asat are experienced. Thus, there is no Anirvachaniya i.e, Sadasadvilakshana entity. According to Advaitin Asat is not comprehended. However, Bheda is comprehended. Therefore, Bheda i.e, difference is Sat. Hence it is not justified to argue for the absence of Bheda.
The difference between Jiva and Paramatma conveyed by Sruti cannot be denied. If it is contended that what Sruti conveys is not true, then the Abheda conveyed by the Sruti will also not be true.
How can those who say that Sruti conveys untruth claim to be the followers of Veda? Buddhists are declared as non-followers of Veda only because, they say that Vedas convey untruth.
In the light of the above the Supremacy of Lord Vishnu is the purport of the entire Veda.
Further, Jiva-Paramatma Abedha cannot be the purport of Veda as it is opposed to all Pramanas.
Firstly, it is opposed to one’s own experience. No one experiences that he knows all, he is the master of all, he is free from the sorrow and he is free from the drawbacks. One the contrary every one experiences in the opposite way. These experiences cannot be considered as untrue as these are not opposed by any Pramana.
There is no Sruti passage that teaches Abheda. On the other hand all Sruti passages teach Bheda. For instance, ‘Thou art not that’ is taught nine times with sutiable illustrations. Here Abheda is not taught.
Just as a bird, tied by a string, flying in different directions and not finding any resting place returns to the place where it is tied, similarly, all these beings have God as their source, sustained by the God, and find their abode in God even after liberation.
Just as, my dear, the bees prepare honey by collecting the juices from the different kinds of trees and put them together.
And just as these juices are not able to discriminate themselves as I am the juice of this tree, I am the juice of this tree’ similarly, my dear, all these Jivas are with the God but do not know that they are with the God.
Consequently, these are born as tiger, lion, wolf, boar, worm, fly, gnat or mosquito, whatever these are, due to this ignorance.
These rivers, my dear, the eastern flow towards the east, the western towards west. These flow from sea to sea. These join the sea. Just as these rivers do not know as ‘I am this one, I am this one’, similarly, my dear, the Jivas who come from the God, do not know that they have come from the God.
These are born as tiger, lion, wolf, boar, worm, fly, gnat or mosquito, whatever these are, due to this ignorance.
This three being entered by the God remains sucking water and rejoicing.
Uddalaka asks his son Svetaketu ‘My dear! Bring a fruit of that Nyagroda tree’. The son brings, ‘Revered Sir, here it is’. ‘Break it’. ‘Revered Sir it is broken’. ‘What do you see there?’ ‘Revered sir, these extremely fine seeds’. ‘Break one of these’. ‘Revered sir it is broken’. ‘What do you see there?’ ‘Revered Sir, nothing at all’.
Then, Uddalaka said to Svetaketu ‘My dear, that very subtle one i.e, the God whom you do not perceive, verily, because of his support this big Nyagroda tree exists.
Uddalaka told Svetaketu ‘Put this salt in the water in a vessel and come to me in the morning’. He did so. Then, Uddalaka asked him ‘Bring me the salt put in the water yesterday night’. Svetaketu searched for it in the water and did not get it as it was completely dissolved.
My dear, take a sip of water from this end, how is it? ‘Salt sir’. Take a sip of water from the middle, how is it? ‘Salt Sir’. Take a sip of water from the end, how is it? ‘Salt Sir’. ‘Throw it away and come to me.’ Svetaketu did so. It is there only, the God is present there but you do not observe him.
My dear, just as a person brought from the Gandhara region blind-folded and left in the forest where there are no human beings etc.
Then, when his speech merged into Manas, Manas into Prana, Prana into Tejas and Tejas into the Supreme God, he does not know etc.
My dear, they bring him dragging by hand and saying that ‘he has robbed and he has committed the theft, heat the axe for him’. If he has committed the theft, then he is a liar. Being a liar he is covered by untruth. Hence, when he hold the heated axe he is burnt and killed. But if he has not committed the theft, he is truthful. Being truthful he is covered by truth. Hence, when he hold the heated axe he is not burnt and he is released.
Similarly,a person who obtains a right preceptor acquires the right knowledge of the God.
Thus, the nine illustrations are given only to explain the difference between the God and Jivas.
There cannot be any identity between the bird and the String, the juice drops of the flowers of different trees, rivers and sea, the Jiva of a tree and the God present in it, the seed and the subtle element in it, the water and the salt in it, the Gandhara region and the person returned to it, the ignorant sick person and the God who regulates his senses, the thief and the stolen articles. The statements his senses, the thief and the stolen articles.
The statements ‘Being supported and dependent upon the Sat i.e, that God’ ‘Those who do not know it, will be born as the tiger, lion etc.’ ‘Having arisen from the Sat i.e, the God’ ‘Those who do not know it, will be born as tiger, lion etc., state that those who do not know the difference between the God and Jivas suffer.
A person who comes out of the house and enters again into the house will not become identical with it. In the passage ‘These rivers come out from the sea and enter back into the sea and the sea remains the sea’ the difference is stated. Other wise the statement would have been as ‘these become the sea’.
Therefore, the rivers come out of sea and enter into the sea (through the clouds). The sea remains the same sea. The rivers will not become sea. The distinct water particles of the rivers will not become identical with the water particles of the sea. Such a position will not stand to reason. In that case, a few people who enter into a congregation of people will have to be treated as becoming identical with them. This is against the experience and without the support of any reason.
In the passage “He enters into the God” the word ‘Sva’ refers to the God. This meaning for the word ‘Sva’ is found in the Sutra ‘Svatmana cha Uttarayoh’.
The Supreme God Vishnu is designated as ‘Sva’ because of his independence. He is designated as Atma, because, he is all pervasive. He is designated as Brahma, because, he possesses infinite attributes. He is glorious and he is imperishable. This is stated in Pramopanishat.
The word Apita refers to the entry only, because, the word ‘Svam’ is mentioned in the accusative. In case identity was intended to be conveyed, the word would have been used as ‘Svena’ with the instrumental case.
Just as a bird enters into ots nest, similarly, Jiva enters into the God during the deep sleep and liberated states. However, he is distinct from him.
My dear, similarly, this Jiva moves towards different objects (during the waking and dream states), not finding any other resting place rests in God only (during the deep sleep state).
In this passage also the word Manas refers to Jiva and the word Prana refers to God. In the passage ‘where the Jiva enters into God’ these two only have a reference.
Jiva is designated as Manas because, he is of sentient nature, he is designated as Pudgal, since he goes to hell, he is called as Anusayi and Sansari since he is affected by his deeds.
The God is called Prana since he directs all. He is called San as he is free from the drawbacks.
In the passage ‘All beings arise from the God designated as Sat; these are sustained by him and have his as their ultimate support.’ Bheda i.e, difference (between the God and Jiva) is stated.
Lord Vishnu is different from the Jivas, because, he is the creator, supporter and the abode after liberation.
Just as in the passage “I shall enter into these three deities with Jiva i.e, Aniruddha form and create names and things’, the word Jiva refers to the God, similarly, in the passage ‘being entered by Jiva i.e, the God Aniruddha, the Vrksajiva remains sucking water and rejoicing’ the word Jiva conveys God. Sruti stated that the word Jiva is a name of the God Aniruddha.
Lord Visnu is designated as Jiva, since he sustains the senses of Jivas entering into the bodies of sentient and non-sentient. By mixing the great elements by the process of trivritkarana he makes the Jiva rotate in the cycle of birth and death. To be distinct from the Jiva is his characteristic. The Jiva experiences joy ecen when he is in a three, because of the presence of the God in ti.
In the passage ‘Having entered into these three the Jiva, i.e, God Aniruddha’ it is not correct to take as ‘Samsari Jiva entered again into these three’, because it is already clear that these three are sentient beings in view of the earlier statements ‘the Tejas saw’, ‘the Ap saw’, ‘these three deities’. Therefore, in this passage the word Jiva refers to God only.
In the passage ‘being entered by Jiva i.e, the God Aniruddha, the Vrksa Jiva sucks water and rejoices’, the word Jiva refers to the God only. However, one who sucks water and rejoices in Vrksa Jiva. A non-sentient being cannot rejoice.
Body is the place for the sorrow and for the Joy. But the body is non-sentient and is made out of Prakrti. It is the sentient in the body who experiences these.
In the passage ‘left by the God this (body) dies, the God does not die’ also, the word Jiva refers to the God.
‘Bereft of Jiva i.e, God Aniruddha, one dies. The Jiva i.e, God Aniruddha does not die.’ In this passage also, the word Jiva refers to the God.
The Sansari Jiva is not primarily the sustainer of life. A person is declared dead when God leaves his body.
In the passage ‘My dear! That very subtle one i.e, the God whom you do not perceive, verily, because of his big Nyagrodha tree exists’. The word Anima refers to the God only. Because, later it is stated ‘The God is subtle, he is the essence of all, regulator of all, his will is infallible, he is the Lord of all, you are distinct from him.
With reference to seeds the expression ‘Anvyahiva’ is used in feminine gender and with the particle Uva i.e, as it were. Therefore, the word Anima (that is used in masculine) does not refer to the seeds. It cannot also be said that Svetaketu is not observing the seeds.
The expression aitadAtmya means belonging to the God or of the Lordship of God. In the phrase ‘sa Atma’ the word Atma refers to God only.
In the sutras ‘Dyubhvadi ayatanam Svasabdat’ ‘Na anumanam Atatacchabdat’, ‘Pranabhritn cha’ and in the passage ‘Tameva ekam jAnath AtmAnam’, since the word Atma which is a synonym of the word ‘Sva’ is used, the God is referred to and not Prakrti or Jiva. This is stated by Vedavyasa himself.
Therefore, the word ‘Atma’ primarily refers to the God only.
The supreme God Hari is designated as Atma because he is everywhere and he knows all. The others are called Atma only in the secondary sense. Their attributes are limited.
In the passage ‘Prana merges into the Tejas, and the Tejas into the Supreme God, he does not know’ the dependency of the Jiva on the God only is stated by pointing out that when the God takes in the Prana etc., the Jiva will not be able to know and function through them, and when the Goad allows these to function through them, and when the God allows these to function out then only the Jiva knows and functions through them.
When the God endows Jiva with the Prana etc., then, the Jiva knows and functions but when these senses are made functionless, then, he is not able to know anything.
In the passage “He robbed, he stole’ also since only an object that is different from the robber could be robbed, the difference is stated in this illustration also. One who thinks himself to be the God unmindful of the distinction is a robber only. He who gives up his own is not a robber.
The unwise who talk of the identity (between Jiva abd Brahman) without knowing the true teachings of Sastra, engaged only in debate, afflicted with the lust, anger, and arrogance are the robbers of the scriptures since they do not know the purport of the scriptures correctly.
Those who steal the Brahman by hiding his true nature, will never enjoy bliss, their minds are immature and inauspicious, they always look for the drawbacks and never seek God’s attributes, their very constitution is that of Tamas and therefore , their goal is Tamas only.
The God is distinct in respect of his very nature, by the evidence of the scriptures, and for the very purpose of comprehension. Therefore, there will be no scriptural harmony if one considers himself to be identical with the God. This is stated in Mokshadharma.
Like the bird and the string to which it is tied, like the juice of flowers of different trees, like the rivers and sea, like water and salt, like the thief and the stolen property, like the person and the country of Gandhara, the Jiva and God are distinct and have distinct characteristics. Though the God is distinct and is regulator of Jiva, the ignorant do not realize this because of his very subtle nature. One who knows the distinction from the God attains liberation but those who do not realize it, will remain in bondage. This is stated in Paramopanishad.
The ignorant who do not realize that Lord Visnu regulates senses, vital airs, Manas etc., of all Jivas, God is distinct from Jivas, and thinks that he himself is the master of his body, senses, vital airs and mind continues to be in bondage. But he who realizes the distinction between the God and himself will attain liberation. Those who do not realize this distinction will be in bondage.
Svetaketu had become conceited thinking that he himself had studied the entire Veda without realizing that it was God who had bestowed this knowledge on him. This conceit is removed here by teaching him that he is entirely depended upon the God.
“some say that before creation there was nothing, it was all void. This view of some debaters is also refuted here.
Some ignorant persons consider the sacrifices, gifts etc., only as the highest good without knowing the true purport of Sruti. Their wrong thought is also refuted here. It is already pointed out that some ignorant persons talk of identity between Jiva and Brahman and their view is rejected.
The process of creation by the God is explained from the passage “Sadeva somya idam agre asit’ etc., to convey that all are entirely dependent on God.
By knowing one all others are known on three grounds viz. (1) Pradhanyat i.e, on account of the God being most important. (2) Sadrsyat i.e, on account of others slight similarity with the God. (3) Karanatatvat i.e, on account of God being the cause.
Not on account of all others being unreal as contended by Advaitin. By knowing the real, one will not the unreal. One who knows Sukti (the adhisthana) will not know Rajata (the aropa). Because these two comprehensions are opposed to each other. (One who comprehends the superimposed will not know that on which it is superimposed and One who knows that on which something is superimposed will not know the superimposed.
One who does not know Rajat that is superimposed by realizing that it is not really Rajata knows Sukti (the adhisthana of superimposition) on the contrary if he still comprehends Rajat (without realizing that it is not Rajata) he does not know Sukti.
The comprehension of the absence of something needs the knowledge of that elsewhere. If such a position is not accepted the comprehension of the absence itself becomes impossible.
By the knowledge of the most prominent the unimportant are as good as known (that is to say, the purpose of knowing them is superfluous). For example when the most important person of the village is known, invited or destroyed, it is stated the whole village is known, invited or destroyed. Similarly, when the cause i.e, the father is known, the son is known, and one states that I know that this boy is the son of this person. (Similarly by the description of God’s creation ) it will be known that this world is God’s creation.
By the knowledge of one woman one knows other as women on account of similarity. Such similarity is intended to be conveyed here by the example “My dear, just as by knowing one lump of clay, all clay-made things are known’ etc.
Otherwise the word ‘one’ and ‘lump’ would be purposeless. ‘By the knowledge of clay’ would have been sufficient. The other clay objects do not consist of this one lump of clay. Therefore, it is only similarity that is intended to be conveyed here.
‘My dear, just as by knowing one gold nugget all that is made of gold is known’; ‘My dear, just as by knowing one nail-cutter all that is made of iron is known’ – in these examples also the words ‘Eka’ and ‘Mapi’ will be superfluous. All golden objects are not made of only one nugget of gold. All iron objects are not made of a nail-cutter.
The words other than Sanskrit words are produced by the sense of speech and therefore are not real. But in the exmple ‘the Sanskrit word Mrittika is eternal’ it is stated that ‘the words other than Sanskrit words are produced and therefore are not eternal but the Sanskrit word Mrittika is not produced (it is only manifested) and therefore it is eternal.’ This is the meaning of this Sruit.
Here the word ‘vAchArambhaNa’ is not used in the sense of Mithya. To read this word as ‘vAchArambhANamAtra’ is reading something that is not found in the Sruti text. In that case the words ‘iti’ and ‘nAmadhEya’ will become superfluous.
The Supreme God who is omniscient, ruler of the minds of all, superior to all, independent, created all the things truly at all times.
Whatever the god has created that is true. Nothing is sublated later. The Supreme God receives the sacrificial offerings and bestows the fruits on the sacrificers. O, the affluent Indra and Brhaspati! the world governed by you is real. All the gods know your task of protecting this world. I declare the great and true deeds of the Supreme God.
This world is going on endlessly as it is. It was never sublated in the past and will never be sublated in future.
Ignorant persons who do not know the great power of the Supreme God say that this world is not real. The God has created this world truly and therefore is designated as Satyakarma.
Some say that this world is unreal and sublated. It has no Lord. It is not developed through the stages of Prakrti, Mahat, Ahankara etc. It has no definite cause. The ignorant who had such a view indulge in cruel activities and lead the world towards destruction.
The world is sometimes compared to the dream, etc., only to bring out its non-eternal nature, changing nature and the nature of its dependency. It is not intended to convey its sublating nature i.e, falseness. The omniscient God Lord Visnu knows it all the time. Therefore it is not correct to say that it is sublated by the knowledge. However, it is always dependent upon the God. The world is called as Mayamaya as it is created by the Prajna i.e, Knowledge of the God. It is called as Anrta as it is occupied by the God. The world is eternal as a continuous flow. It is never sublated by the knowledge. The God is called ‘A’
And the world is ‘true’ or ‘Satya’ . Since the world is entirely dependent upon the God he is designated as ‘Asatya’. God is the regulator of the reality of the real like the sun regulating the reality of the rainbow. Satya is the secret name of the Supreme God. Pranas i.e, Chaturmukha Brahma etc., Gods are called Satya and he is the regulator of their Styatva.
O Lord! Your will is called as Mahamaya, Avidya, Nityati, Mohini, Prakrti, Vasana etc., by innumerable names.
It is called Prakrti as it does great things, it is called Vasana as it creates.
The God is called Aa, the knowledge pertaining to him is called AvidyA. That which is plentiful is MayA and his will is called mAya as it is plentiful. The God’s will is called by all these names. The God is the very embodiment of his will which is of the nature of his bliss.
The entire Veda conveys the difference of the God from all i.e, Jivas and Jada. This difference is nothing but the supremacy, independence, omniscience etc., attributes of the God. The distinction from others is the very nature of the God. The distinction is the very nature of an entity. The term ‘Sva’ in the word ‘Svarupa’ indicates its distinction from all others. The sruti ‘Neti Neti’ etc., conveys the distinction of God from all others. All other Srutis also convey the same.
The God
who is in me is Brahman i.e, Gunapurna.
The God who
is in me is in the Sun and the God who is in the Sun is in me.
The God who
is in Aditya is in me.
In all these the reference is to Antaryamin i.e, the God present within. The God who is in Purusa and is in Aditya is one.
“Aa” refers to Brahman and the word ‘Aham’ conveys Brahman. This is the secret name of Brahman. The God is called ‘Aham’ since nobody can leave him. He is called ‘Tvam’ as he is always in front. He is called ‘Sah’ as he is beyond senses.
All case suffix forms of the word Asmad, Yusmad, and Tat conveys the God. All numbers also convey the God though he is one. All these convey him since he is independent and supreme. These convey the Jivas and Jada only secondarily. The verbal suffixes also convey him. Lord Visnu is everywhere. He is distinct from all and he has many forms. Thus states Narayana Sruti.
Such knowledge of the God which conveys the fact that he is present in all beings which are mutually distinct and distinct from Him, he is imperishable, he has no internal distinctions and is Supreme is Satvika knowledge. This is stated by Lord himself in the Gita.
The difference is not unreal. All beings are happy by the grace of the Supreme God who is praised by the God Indra. This position (the Supreme God being the support and the others being dependent upon him) is the true position.
I offer prayers to the Supreme God of great glory during the sacrifices in order to obtain the happiness.
The God is real, the Jivas are real, their difference is real, their difference is real, their difference is real.
The evil minded shall not pray him, the evil minded shall not pray him, the evil minded shall not pray him.
The God is absolutely independent, omniscient, omnipotent, has infinite bliss and is supreme while the Jiva is entirely dependent upon the God, has very limited knowledge, very limited power; suffers, and is very inferior.
The difference is not Vyavaharika. He who knows the Supreme God at the heart and in his great abode, enjoys all desires being together with the omniscient God.
Reaching the Supreme God of infinite bliss, the liberated moves into these worlds assuming the forms that he desires and enjoying the things that he desires, sings these Saman hymns.
One Chaturmukhabrahma sings the Rigveda hymns, One Chaturmukhabrahma sings the Gayatra Saman, One Chaturmukha recites the Pauruseya literaure and One Chaturmkhabrahma meditates upon Lord Visnu.
The liberated reaches the Supreme God, attains his true nature and moves along with those who are liberated with him and also who are liberated earlier, eating sporting, moving on chariots with women.
In case only nirvisesa chinmatra remains after liberation, then, by what the liberated can see and what he can see, by what he can smell and what he can smell, by what he can know and what he will know, by what he can see him by whom he knows all this, and by what he can know himself the knower?
Just as pure water poured into pure water, one will attain similar nature.
Then, the liberated getting rid of undesired Punya and Papa, attains similarity with the God in respect of being free from sorrow.
The God is the abode for the liberated. The liberated will have the eyes and the ears, they will have affection for the other liberated, they will have gradation in respect of knowledge. Some among these will sport in the Milk ocean, some others in the forests. These will be as calm as lakes and will see the God.
All those who are liberated from the transmigration find their shelter under the God. They enjoy the bliss in a graded way the Chaturmukha being the highest among them.
In all these, the difference even after liberation is stated.
Having obtained this knowledge the liberated will attain similarity with me. These will not be born again at the time of creation, nor will these suffer at the time of destruction. The liberated will get all the desires excepting the power to create, sustain etc. This is clear from the context and the inability of the Jivas to create.
The Atman is indestructible, his attributes are also indestructible’. In this passage it is stated that the attributes of Atman are also indestructible.
‘In this respect only you have confused me by saying that there is no knowledge after liberation’. By this remark the ceasing of knowledge is objected to by Maitreyi.
Therefore, the statement ‘If Atman alone remains after liberation, whom can one see and by what’ etc., is only a prasangapadana i.e, pointing out an adverse consequence. In this passage it is not intended to state the absence of knowledge to the liberated, nor is it the intention to state that the knower will not know even himself.
The Parama Sruti clearly states that ‘Jiva knows himself as ‘I’. He undergoes the experiences of Joy and sorrow. He is eligible for the bondage and the liberation.
The Moksadhrma states that there cannot be a greater sorrow than being steeped in ignorance.
In the passage ‘there is no second’ it is stated that whatever the God does not see as second i.e., distinct, that does not exist as second i.e., distinct. Because, in the following sentence it is stated that whatever he sees as distinct that is only distinct. The reason is also stated that the God’s comprehension cannot be false.
In the passage ‘the Abhimani deities of Karma and the liberated Jiva attain the identity of thought with the imperishable Supreme God’ the Ekibhava i.e., identity is in respect of thought only, or it is identity of place with the forms of the Gods that are in Mikocean etc., places.
Let my desire be the same as that of the God, let my heart think in the same way in which the God thinks. Let those things delighted to the God be delighted to me (thus prays the liberated).
After liberation my thought will follow the thought of the God. Therefore, now also my thought is as per his thought.
The sages whose desires are fulfilled attain the place where the God is present.
The liberated attain the blissful God.
From these Sruti passages the identity of thought and place is indeicated.
If the identity of the very nature is to be taken, then to mention Karma and Jiva will not suit the context. Even according to them (Advaitins) Karma does not attain identity with Brahman in liberation.
If the withdrawal of Karma is intended, then it will be common with the other fifteen Kalas. Stating the withdrawal of the other fifteen Kalas and the deities, to state the identity of Karma and Jiva is meaningless. No special purpose is served by this.
The Rajata that is sublated is not considered as ‘became identical’ with Sukti.
The locative use as ‘in the imperishable God’ indicates the distinction. If the identity was intended the statement would have been as ‘become the Supreme.’
The mention of the identity between the Jiva and the God indicates only the similarity of thought. It also indicates the common place. It never indicates the very identity of their nature as the two are different in nature. The difference is in respect of independence, and dependence, and infinite nature and finite nature.
This is stated in Parama Sruti.
The passage ‘One who knows Brahman will become Brahman only’ means that he attains the greatness. This passage has to be understood like the statement that ‘A Sudra who worships a Brahmana with devotion will become a Brahmana’. A Sudra who worships a Brahmana will not become the Same Brahmana.
All Jivas are called Brahma, the liberated Jivas are called Parabrahma, Prakrti i.e, Lakshmi is called Paramabrahma and Lord Achuta is called Paramamahabrahma. Therefore, neither the liberated nor Prakrti i.e., Lakshmi has the glory of Lord Vishnu. He alone is independent, infinite and has the six attributes.
You are infinite with an immeasurable form. They cannot achieve your greatness.
The Supremacy that cannot be achieved by the Chaturmukhabrahma, Siva is yours. It is very natural to you.
Just as all other luminaries, though distinct from the great luminary the Sun, are not visible in his presence, the liberated Jivas, though distinct from the Supreme God are not observed in his presence. This kind of unobservedness is called Apyaya. This expression does not convey the identity.
This says Narayana Sruti. Therefore, the idea of Jivesvaraikya i.e., the identity of Jiva and Brahman is against all scriptures.
In the same identity of Jiva and Brahman is against all reason also. The doctrine that only one Jiva is affected with ajnana is not tenable. If all are projected by one Jivas ajnana, then he who knows that all these are projected by one Jiva’s ajnana cannot proceed to instruct his disciples. One who knows that he is undergoing a dream will not undertake any effort to distribute his dream property to the dream children. But in the dream itself he may do so as he is not aware that he is undergoing a dream.
Further, as there are many projecting themselves as teachers, it cannot be determined by whose Ajnana all these are projected. In case of dream. After one is awake he only remains. This is not the case in the case of Ajnana.
It cannot be said that ‘let each one think that all are projected by his ajnana’. There cannot be many variants of the same thing. Therefore, the correct position is, these are not projected.
Further, there is no proof to hold that each one should think that these are projected by his own Ajnana.
In case it is Ajnana connected with the disciple that is responsible for the projection of all, then, when such a disciple becomes a Guru, he will realize that he is projected by the Ajnana of his disciple and it is not in his hands to get out of it. Thus, his very understanding of the scriptures will be a disadvantage for him.
Further no one will be able to get liberation. As soon as one studies the scriptures he will realize that he is projected by the Ajnana of his disciple, that disciple will similarly realize when he studies the scriptures. This chain of the Ajnana of disciples projecting will continue endlessly and one has to helplessly wait for getting out of it.
In case this one Jiva whose Ajnana has projected all happens to have the conviction of difference, then, the idea of difference will never be withdrawn. Consequently no one will be able to attain the liberation of the Advaita type. Whatever way he projects that will be the position for all. If he projects the eternal hell, all will have to have the same.
There is no proof to hold that all are projected by the Ajnana of one Jiva.
‘If the five fold difference were created, then only, these would have perished. But these differences are known and maintained by the Supreme God. The Supreme God alone is unparallel.’ This is the meaning of the verse ‘Prapancho yadi vidyeta etc.’
The expression “Prapancha” means the five-fold differences. These differences are not non-existent, because, these are known and maintained by the God. MAyA means God’d understanding. It is this that comprehends and maintains the difference. Therefore, these differences are called mAyAmAtra. Since these five-fold differences are known and maintained by the God, these are not illusory. There cannot be illusion on the part of the God.
Then, how is the statement ‘Advaitah Sarvabhavanam’ to be understood? This is explained by ‘Adhvaitam Paramarthata’. From the point of view of supremacy God only is the Supreme. He alone is the Supreme of all. If this import is not derived, then, in the phrase ‘Advaita Sarvabhavanam’ the word Avaita alone would have been sufficient. ‘Sarvabhavanam’ would be superfluous.
When it is said that among all he is without a second, it means that there is no other that is equal to or superior to him. Only others will have equals and superiors.
In the following verse it is said that the difference would have been withdrawn if it were projected by something. This indicates the difference is not projected. It is taken as Nivartate i.e., withdraws, then, the use of the verbs as ‘Nivarteta’ Vidyeta’ indicating Prasanga i.e., a position, and the use of the word ‘Yadi’ would be improper.
Further, if the verb Vidyeta is not taken in the sense ‘were created’ then the use of the verb ‘Nivarteta’ would be unsuitable, since there is no Vyapti relation i.e., concomitance between existence and withdrawal.
Therefore this statement i.e., Prapancho YadiVidyeta conveys the fact that the world is beginning less and real.
One understands (the reality of the world and the Supremacy of God) only from the instructions of the right teacher. It is only the ignorant who say that there is no difference.
The Universe consists of five differences viz., the difference between the Jivas and the God, Jadas and the God, among the Jivas, Jadas and Jivas and among the Jadas. This difference is real and beginning less. If it has a beginning, then it would have ended; it never ends. This difference is not a projection of illusion. If it were projected by illusion it would have been sublated. It is never sublated. Therefore it is only the opinion of the ignorant that there is no difference, on the contrary the wise clearly know that this fivefold difference is known and maintained by the Supreme God Visnu. Therefore, the difference is real. The God is Supreme. This is stated in Parama sruti.
In Maitreyisakha stating that now the obstructions for the right knowledge will be mentioned, it is stated that one should not have the company with those who cry to remain in the group of the followers of Veda by advancing false arguments, deceptive and mesmerizing illustrations. These are daylight robbers and these lead to misery.
The common people deluded by the false arguments and deceptive illustrations advocated by those who reject everything pertaining to Atman will not be able to understand the true meaning of the Vedas.
Rejecting everything pertaining to Atman is Nairatmyavada.
In case it is stated that the world is projected by illusion, then two real worlds have to be envisaged. Unless there is a real Sukti, a real Rajata, and similarity between these two no illusory projection of Rajata is possible.
In the dream also the objects are caused by the Vasana in the mind and therefore are real. These are projected as outside objects.
In the case of body and self identity notion, the similarity in respect of the two being in the same place is present.
In the case of ‘the conch is yellow’, ‘the sky is blue’ etc., also the yellow color etc. are found elsewhere. The similarity between these yellow objects and conch etc. in respect of dravyatva etc., is found.
Therefore, no illusory projection is possible unless there are two similar other objects viz. Adhisthana and Pradhana.
The Superimposition of Anatman over Atman is never observed. None will have the illusion that he is other than himself. The Advaitins do hold that this world which is not Atman is superimposed on Atman.
If Atman is superimposed on Atman, the, Antman itself will be real, and if such real is without a second, then, Anatman alone will be real but not Atman.
Further, if the world is superimposed on atman, then it would not have been observed as different from that. For instance, Rajata that is superimposed on Sukti, is not observed as different from Sukti. Moreover, one and the same cannot simultaneously appear as many. No one will observe himself as many.
The differences cannot be caused by the unreal conditions. In an illusion the absence of knowledge of the true position and the knowledge of the wrong position are not untrue but it is the content of the wrong knowledge that is untrue.
In this way “Thinking of One jiva everywhere” theory has many fallacies. However, to avoid the lengthening of the text, the discussion is closed here.
