15

®æí¨Üã, ÓÜÊÜì»ÜãñÝíñÜÃÝñܾ®æí¨Üã ¨æàÊÜ®æí¨Üã »ÜWÜÊÜíñÜ®Ü A®æàPÜ WÜá|WÜÙÜ®Üá°

ÖæàÚ Pæã®æWæ ¯WÜáì|®æí¨Üá ÖæàÙÜÆá ÖæàWæ ÓÝ«ÜÂ? Jí¨æà ÊÝPܨÜÈÉ ¨æàÊÜÃÜÈÉ
A®æàPÜ WÜá|WÜÙÜ®Üá° ¯ÃÜã²ÓÜáÊÜâ¨ÜÃÜ hæãñæWæ WÜá|WÜÙæà CÆÉÊæí¨Üá ±ÜÃÜÓܳÃÜ
ËÃæãà«ÜÊÝX ÖæàÙÜáÊÜâ¨Üá ÖæàWæ? B¨Üá¨ÜÄí¨Ü »ÜWÜÊÜíñÜ®ÜÈÉ A®ÜíñÜ ESSENTIALS
PÜÇÝÂ|WÜá|WÜÙÜá CÊæ. ±ÜÅPÜê£Wæ ÓÜíŸí—st ÓÜñܤ$Ì, ÃÜg, ñÜÊæãàWÜá|WÜÙÜá CÆÉÊæíŸ OF
ÄࣿáÈÉ D ±Ü¨ÜWÜÙÜ ËÃæãà«ÜÊÜ®Üá° ±ÜÄÖÜÄÓܸæàPÜá. ¯ËìÍæàÐÜÊæ®Üá°ÊÜ ÊÜÓÜá¤ÊÜâ DASAPRAKARANA
A®Üá»ÜÊÜÊæà¨ÜÂÊÜä AÆÉ, ¿ÞÊÜ ÍܟªWÜÙÜã AíñÜÖÜ ÊÜÓÜá¤ÊÜ®Üá° ¯ÃÜã²ÓÜÇÝÃÜÊÜâ.
¿ÞÊÜâ¨æà ±ÜÅÊÜÞ|ÊÝWÜÈà ÊÜÓÜá¤ÊÜ®Üá° A¨ÜÃÜ «ÜÊÜáì¨Ü hæãñæWæ £ÚÓÜáñܤÊæ. ¿ÞÊÜ
«ÜÊÜáìÊÜä CÆɨæ ÊÜÓÜá¤ÊÜ®Üá° ±ÜÅÊÜÞ|WÜÙÜá ÖæàWæ ¸æãà—ÓÜÈ? Gí¨Üá ÊÜááíñÝX D Prasthanatrayi viz., Upanisads, Brahmasutras and Bhagavadgita
WÜÅí¥Ü¨Ü BÃÜí»Ü¨ÜÈÉ Êæà¨ÜWÜÙÜá ¿ÞÊÜ WÜá|ÊÜá×ÊæáWÜÙÜã CÆÉ¨Ü ASívÜ are the main source of Vedanta Philosophy. Sri Madhvacharya has
ÊÜÓÜá¤ÊÜ®Üá° ±ÜÅ£±Ý©ÓÜÇÝÃÜÊæíŸá¨Ü®Üá° ñÜPÜ쟨ܜÊÝX ÓÜÊÜá¦ìÓÜÇÝX¨æ. naturally written the Bhasyas on these three. In addition he has
A¨ÜÃÜíñæ, Êæà¨ÜÊÜ⠟ÅÖܾÊÜÓÜá¤ÊÜ®Üá° ¸æãà—Óܨæà ËË«Ü written one more work on Gita Viz. Gitatatparya and three more
works on brahmasutras Viz., Anubhasya, Anuvyakhyana and
¿ágn¿ÞWÝ©WÜÙÜ®Üá° ÊÜÞvܸæàPæí¨Üá PæàÊÜÆ PÝ¿áìÊÜ®æ°à ¸æãà—ÓÜáñܤ¨æÁáíŸ
Nyayavivarana. In addition to the Bhasyas on Upanisads, he has
ËáàÊÜÞíÓÜPÜÃÜ ÊÝ¨Ü¨Ü SívÜ®æ¿á®Üã° WÜá|±Üä|ì®Ý¨Ü »ÜWÜÊÜíñܮܮæ°à Êæà¨ÜÊÜâ
also written a Bhasya on the forty hymns of Rigveda. Thus, Sri
±ÜÅ£±Ý©ÓÜáñܤ¨æÁá®Üá°ÊÜ ŸWæY ËÊÜáÍÝì±Üä|ìÊÝ¨Ü »ÜãËáPæ¿á®Üã° D WÜÅí¥Ü¨Ü
Madhvacharya has given an exhaustive exposition of Prasthanatrayi.
BÃÜí»Ü¨ÜÈÉ ®ÝÊÜâ PÝ|áñæ¤àÊæ. ÊÜááí¨æ D ÊÜáíñÜÅWÜÙÜ ÓÜáí¨ÜÃÜ
A¥Üì¯ÃÜã±ÜOæ¿á®Üã° BaÝ¿áìÃÜá ÊÜÞw¨ÝªÃæ. GÆÉ Êæà¨ÜÊÜáíñÜÅWÜÙÜã The doctrines presented in the Prasthanatrayi are further
±ÜÃÜÊÜÞñܾ®Ü ÊÜá×Êæá¿á®æ°à ±ÝvÜáñܤÊæ. Wæhæj¿á ÃÜká| ÃÜká|®Ý¨Ü ÖÜQR¿á PÜÆÃÜÊÜ, elaborated in two types of works Viz., Vadagranthas and
B®æ¿á \àÚvÜáÊÜ WÜgì®æ, CÊæÆÉÊÜâWÜÙÜÈÉ ±ÜÃÜÊÜÞñܾ®Ü WÜá|WÝ®ÜÊÜ®æ°à hÝn¯WÜÙÜá Prakaranagranthas. The vadagranthas raise long debates on the
PÝ|áÊÜÃÜá. ÖÜÈÉ¿á "bb' G®Üá°ÊÜ «Ü̯¿áÈÉ¿áã »ÜWÜÊÜíñÜ®Ü A¨Üá½ñÜñæ¿á philosophical issues to examine the views of the other Schools of
«Ü̯Àá¨æ. GÇÝÉ ÊÜÞñÜáWÜÙÜã, «Ü̯WÜÙÜã »ÜWÜÊÜíñÜ®Ü Óæã¤àñÜÅÊæà BXÊæ Gí¨Üá D vedanta and the other systems of Philosophy. Anuvyakhyana itself
is such a vadagrantha.The commentators Sri Jayatirtha, and Sri
WÜÅí¥Ü¨ÜÈÉ BaÝ¿áìÃÜá ±ÜÅ£±Ý©Ô¨ÝªÃæ.
Vyasatirtha have further enriched the vadagrantha literature of Dvaita
Vedanta. The Prakaranagranthas are small treatises on specific
ÎÅà ÎÅà ËÍæÌàÍÜ£à¥ÜìÎÅà±Ý¨ÜÃÜá issues of philosophy.
ÎÅà ±æàhÝÊÜÃÜ A«æãàPÜÒgÊÜásÜ
Sri Madhvacharya has written ten such Prakarana works which
EvÜá² are collectively known as Dasaprakaranas. These are neatly
planned. Two of them viz., Pramana laksana and Kathalaksana deal
with the epistemology and the Art of the Philosophical debate.
Three treatises known as Khandanatraya examine the Advaita
concepts of Mithyatva and Upadhi. Four treatises viz.,
 16
Tatvasamkhyana, Tatvaviveka, Tatvodyota and Tatvanirnaya give an superimposed on a flower garland is not a real entity. It is Aropita
exposition of the central doctrine visnusarvottamatva and the other i.e., superimposed, and hence it is not a Tatva i.e., a real entity.
doctrines like the reality of the world, the five cordinal differences All those that satisfy this definition i.e., 'Tatvam Anaropitam` are
i.e., Panchabheda, the nature of the Jiva, the nature of the liberation Tatvas.
etc. In the course of the presentation of these doctrines, the import The Tatvas are first classified into two Svatantra i.e., independent
of the important Sruti passages is discussed. The interpretations and Paratantra i.e., dependent. The Supreme god alone is Svatantra
offered by the other Schools of Vedanta are reviewed Karmanirnaya i.e., independent category. All other categories are Paratantra. The
the tenth Prakarana is a unique work. In this work by interpreting Svatantra is defined as that which is independent in respect of its
the Mahanamni hymns and by pointing out that Indra etc, all the very essential nature, the functions, and the comprehension. The
names convey the Supreme God Visnu only, the philosophical Supreme God is only independent in all these respects. All others
import of even the Karmakanda portion of the Vedas is brought are entirely dependent upon the Supreme God in all these respects.
out. In this way these ten Prakarana works assist the comprehension Therefore, all others are Paratantra i.e., Paramatmatantra.
of the doctrines of Vedanta enshrined in the Prasthana trayi and
The Paratantra is further classified as Bhava and Abhava i.e.,
elaborated in the Bhasyas. A brief account of the contents of the
the Positive and the Negative. 'That which presents itself as 'Is'
ten Prakaranas is given below.
in its first cognition is Positive' and 'that which present itself as
1. TATVASAMKHYANA 2. TATVAVIVEKA. 'Is not` in its first cognation is 'Negative`. The Bhava i.e., the
In Tatvasamkhyana as the very name suggests the categories Positive is classified into Chetana and Achetana i.e., sentient and
of the reality as conceived in Dvaita Vedanta are enumerated. This non-sentient. The sentient is further classified as that which is never
small text opens with the definition of a Tatva i.e., a real entity: afflicted by the sorrow and those that are afflicted by the sorrow.
'That which is not superimposed is a real entity`. It is further Goddess Lakshmi only is never afflicted by the sorrow. She is
explained as that which is the object of valid knowledge. For nityamukta i.e., ever free from the bondage. All other sentient beings
instance, when `A garland of flowers is comprehended as `A are afflicted by the sorrow sometime or the other. Further
garland of flowers' then its object viz., the garland of flowers is classification of these is given in the Text.
a real entity. But when some one mistakes it as a snake from a
distance or in a dark place, his comprehension is not valid 3. _\"á¡T"T"ø{X"{O"T"ø\"w{f"“b"N"_"f"pe"v{\"RY"u
knowledge. Consequently its object viz., Snake which is T"ZpS"T"ub"z _\"O"Se"X"o $ T"ZpT"ub"X"_\"O"Se"X"o $ (O"z._"z.J>r.)
4. T"øp@o¡ T"øR\"z_" _"QpO\"uS" {e"{\"R"pu&W"p\" ò^Y"O"u $ (O"._"z.)
1. _\"O"Se"z T"ZO"Se"z E" {Ÿ{\"R"z O"O\"{X"^Y"O"u $
5. {S"OY"p# \"uQp# $ \"uQp# òOY"sT"“b"N"X"o $
_\"O"Se"pu W"B"\"pS"o {\"^N"s# (O"._"z.) T"ú"pð"Qo \"N"pêS"pX"o ì\Y"p@w¡O"p@¡pð"_Y" E" O"P"pO\"pO"o (O"._"z.J>r.)
2. O"O\"X"S"pZpu{T"O"X"o $ T"ø{X"{O"{\"^"Y" ò{O" Y"p\"O"o $ (O"._"z.J>r.) 6. T"sZpN"püp# @¡p“# T"ø@w¡{O"Zu\" E" {S"OY"p{S"OY"X"o $ (O"._"z.)
 17
The non-sentient are classified into Nitya i.e., eternal and Anitya ground it is Sansargapradhvansabhava. Therefore, there is no need
i.e., perishable, Nityanitya i.e., partly eternal and partly modified. to accept a separate type of Abhava called sansargabhava. In
Veda, Varna and Avyakrta Akasa are eternal. Purana, Kala and respect of the concept of Atyantabhava an important difference
Prakrti are partly eternal and partly changing. between the Nyaya concept and the Dvaita Concept is, the
The negative i.e., Abhava is classified into three viz., Pragabhava Pratiyogin of this Abhava is elsewhere present according to Nyaya
i.e., previous negation, Pradhvanasabhava i.e., later negation and view while according to the Dvaita it is only envisaged and denied.
Sadabhava i.e., total negation. In respect of Abhava two important It is not a reference to that which is actually present elsewhere
points have to be noted. (1) Anyonyabhava is not accepted as and its denial. Therefore, the Pratiyogin of this Abhava is
a category of Abhava. This is because, anyonyabhava i.e., Bheda, apramanika i.e., not really existing elsewhere. This Abhava is an
the distinction is considered as Dharmisvarupa i.e., an internal abhava i.e., absence present at all three times i.e., past, present
attribute of every entity. To be distinct from all other entities is and future. That is why it is called Sadabhava.
the very nature of each entity, Therefore, this fact of being distinct Tatvaviveka also enumerates the categories more or less in the
from all other entities is part and parcel of the very nature of each same way. This work contains the verses of a larger work of the
entity. Therefore, it is not negative and hence is not to be considered same name composed by the God himself. Thirteen verses are
as a category of Abhava. (2) The Sadabhava concept of Dvaita quoted in this small work in support of the statements made in
is distinct from the Sansargabhava or Atyantabhava concept of Tatvasamkhyana. Therefore, it is not a repetition but an extract
Nyaya Vaisesikas. The Sansargabhava of Nyayavaisesika can be of a source work to support Tatvasamkhyana. Naturally the two
easily included under Pragabhava, the absence before the Sansarga texts verbetum agree barring a few passages. The few verses that
i.e., the contact, and under Pradhvansabhava after the contact is are differently worded of additional contain some significant points.
withdrawn, that is to say before the Jar is brought on the ground, There are as follows.
it is Sansarga pragabhava and after the Jar is withdrawn from the 1) The achetana i.e., non-sentient is classified into two viz., Nitya
7. _"w{Í># [_P"{O"# _"z\"w{O"Æ" {S"Y"X"pu&c"pS"V"puR"S"u $ and Anitya i.e., eternal and non-eternal. The third group i.e.,
Nityanitya is not mentioned. This does not involve any conflict
V"SR"pu X"pub"# _"sA"z Ql#A"X"p\"w{O"GY"puê{O"Zu\" $ between the statement of Tatvasamkhyana and Tatvaviveka.
{\"^N"sS"p_Y" _"X"_O"_Y" _"X"p_"\Y"p_"Y"puB"O"# $$ (O"._"z.) The items listed under Nityanitya have an eternal aspect and
ìp\"w{O"GY"pu{O"^"r V"påO"X"#T"ø@¡pð"pv (O"._"z.J>r.) a modified aspect. From the first aspect point of view these
are included under Nitya, the second aspect naturally goes
8. W"p\"pW"p\"_\"á¡T"O\"pO"o S"pSY"puSY"pW"p\"O"p T"wP"@o¡ (O".{\".)
9. {S"OY"p{S"OY"O\"W"uQuS" Quð"# @¡p“# ds{O"_O"P"p $ 10. B"sN"{@ø¡Y"pG"p{O"T"t\"pê# R"X"pê# _"\"uê&{T" \"_O"sS"# $
W"tO"u[SçY"T"øpN"B"sN"_"tbX"á¡T"z E" {S"OY"@¡X"o $ á¡T"X"u\" {ŸR"z O"‚" Y"p\"Ÿ_O"s E" A"[NL>O"X"o $
ï^"pz {\"@¡pZpu&{S"OY"# _Y"pO"o (O".{\".) A"[NL>O"u W"uQ ïu×Y"z E" Y"p\"Ÿ_O"s S" W"uQ\"O"o $ (O".{\".)
 18
under Anitya. In order to bring out these two aspects more of Philosophy such as Nyayavaisesikas. The Nyayavaisesikas go
clearly these are first listed under Nitya i.e., eternal, then, by the pattern as Dravya, Guna etc. This is because, the objective
it is stated that the modified forms of these are anitya. Some of those systems is to provide the knowledge of the material world,
more items in addition to the items listed under Nitya and while that of Dvaita Vedanta is to lead to the knowledge of the
Nityanitya in Tatvasamkhyana are mentioned. The nature of Supreme God. Therefore, the Supreme God is first stated as
the modification in respect of these items differs from item Svatantra bringing out his Supremacy and all other categories are
to item. This is explained in the commentaries. brought under Paratantra indicating their dependence on the
2) In Tatvasankhyana Guna, Kriya, Jati etc, attributes are not Supreme God. The other categories are to be known only to realise
mentioned. Here these are mentioned. These are classified the supremacy and the glory of the God. The concluding verses
into two groups viz., i) Yavad-dravyabhavi. i.e., The of these two texts make this position abandantly clear. The last
attributes that last as long as the substance lasts. ii) Ayavad- verse of Tatvasamkhyana enumarates the creation, sustainance,
dravyabhavi i.e., the attributes that perish even before. destruction etc, eight states of the world that are caused by the
The relation between the substance and the attributes,in God and glorifies Him by giving his Sristyadi astakartrtva definition.
the former case is abheda while it is bedabheda in the case The concluding verse of Tatvaviveka emphatically states that it is
of the latter. the knowledge that the entire world consisting of Chetana and
Achetana entirely depends upon the God that enables one to attain
In Tatvasamkhyana the attributes are not separately mentioned the liberation.
keeping in view the fact that the attributes are not totally different
from the substance. Here, these are mentioned to bring out the KHANDANATRAYA
nature and the relation of the two types of the attributes. Khandanatraya is a bunch of three treatises that critically review
Strictly speaking these two texts form one unit. Therefore, these the Advaita Concepts of Upadhi, Mithyatva and reject the
additional statements do not indicate any difference of views on mayavada to be the purport of the Sastra.
the respective issues.
12. Y" ïO"O"o T"ZO"Se"z O"s _"\"êX"u\" `Zu# _"Qp $
The Classification of the categories in these two texts is quite
different from the pattern followed in the texts of the other systems \"ð"{X"OY"u\" G"pS"p{O" _"z_"pZpSX"sEY"O"u {` _"# $$
13. {\"X"O"X"S"pZXW"N"rY"X"SY"P"pT"ø{O"T"pQ@¡O\"pO"o $ (X"p.A"z.)
11. A"[NL>O"z á¡T"X"u\"pe" {\"@¡pZpu&{T" {\"@¡pqZN"# $ 14. S" {` V"øÏ"pOX"v×Y"_Y" Y"pP"pPY"| O"OT"b"u $
@¡pY"ê@¡pZN"Y"puÆ"v\" O"P"v\" B"sN"O"ŸO"pu# $
ì) _\"á¡T"p{O"Zu@u¡ ìŸvO"`pS"u# $
{@ø¡Y"p{@ø¡Y"p\"O"pu_O"ŸO"o O"P"p G"p{O"{\"ð"u^"Y"pu# $
{\"{ð"Í>ð"s«Y"puÆ"v\" O"P"v\"pzð"pz{ð"S"puZ{T" $$ (O".{\".) ìp) ìS"{O"Zu@u¡ _\"T"ø@¡pð"O\"pQpOX"S"# {_"«_"pR"S"O"p $ (X"p._"z.)
 19
3) MAYAVADA KHANDANA also be self-revealing. This means that no Sastra is required
As the very title of this text suggests, this work points out that to teach it as it is already known.
Mayavada i.e., Jivabrahmaikyavada is not the purport of the Sruti. 3) It cannot be stated that 'the Ajnana i.e., Niscience has veiled
If this is taken as the purport of the Sruti the study of the Sruti Brahman. This prevents Brahmatmaikyajnana. Therefore, there
itself becomes a purposeless pursuit. It goes without saying that is the need of the Sastra to teach it.` Ajnana cannot veil the
the Advaita Sastra is a purposeless pursuit as its objective and very Brahman as it is self revealing. It cannot veil any
the subject cannot be convincingly and logically explained. These characteristic or feature of Brahman such as Atmaikya since
two points are presented in a syllogistic form as 'Vimatamanar- Brahman is nirvisesa i.e., he has no feature or characteristic.
ambhaniyam`- anyathapratipadakatvat`. In this Syllogism Vimata 4) According to Advaitajnana that reveals something which is
i.e., The issue under the debate is to be taken as 'Vedadi Sastra` already not known is Pramana. Since the Brahman is self-
once, and as 'Advaita Sastra` once again. Anarambhaniya means revealing and hence already known the Sastra that proposes
not worth pursuing. The reason given in the syllogism viz., to teach it is Apramana.
'anyathapratipadakatvat` means that "it results in presenting some-
thing that is not true." 5) Further, Since Ajnana cannot veil Brahman, there is no subject
matter for the sastra to be taught. According to Advaita the
The points made in this syllogism are two: i) Veda etc, sacred liberation is of the nature of removal of Ajnana. As there is
literature shall not be worth persuing if its purport is taken as no Ajnana, there is no need of any removal of it. Thus, there
Brahmatmaikya, since this results in their presenting something that is no Prayojana i.e., the purpose to be served by the Sastra.
is not true. ii) Advaitasastra is not worth persuing as it states As there is no Ajnana there is no Adhikarin i.e., eligible person
something that is not true. to study the sastra. This means there is no Anubandhachatustaya
These points are elaborated throughout this text. This may briefly viz., the subject, the objective, the eligible person and the
be put as under: relevance of all these. Hence the Advaita Sastra is not worth
1) If the so called Brahmatmaikya is true and different from persuing.
Brahman, then, the very concept of Advaita will be defeated. 6) In case Brahmatmaikya is Mithya i.e., not true, then, the Sastra
Because, now there are two real entities viz., i) Brahman that teaches it shall not be pramana.
ii)Brahmatmaikya. In this way the Untenability of Advaita i.e., Brahmatmaikya to
2) If the so called brahmatmaikya is true but not different from be the Subject matter of Vedadi Sastra is established. The
Brahman, then, Brahman being self revealing, the Aikya must purposelessness of Advaita -sastra is also established.
Then, it is declared that Visnusarvottamatva is the purport of
15.{_"«O\"pO"o _\"á¡T"_Y" {\"ð"u^"pW"p\"p‚" S" ìc"pS"z @¡_Y"{E"Qp\"Z@¡X"o $
(X"p.A"z.) 16. {X"PY"pO\"u E" ïu×Y"_Y" ìO"O\"p\"uQ@¡O\"X"pB"X"_Y" _Y"pO"o (X"p.A"z.)
 20
the Vedadi Sastra. This is demonstrated by quoting the verses 'Dvau anolysis, he is projected as distinct by means of Upadhi i.e., adjunct
Imau Purusau` etc, from Bhagavadgita and 'Indriyebhyah para hi and hence he can be the locus of Ajnana.
arthah` etc from Kathopanisat.
To answer this the following question may be raised whether
The two aspects of the theme of this text are very well brought the so called adjunct is a real adjunct or this is also projected
out in the Mangala verse of this text. The first line mentions the by Ajnana.
untenability of Advaita and the second line states the
a) If it is real, then, there will be two reals: Brahman and Upadhi.
Visnusarvottamatva doctrine.
This will defeat the very concept of Advaita.
4) UPADHIKHANDANA
In mayavadakhandana it is already pointed out that the concept b) If the Upadhi is projected by Ajnana, then there will be infinit
of Ajnana envisaged in Advaita is not tenable. In Upadhikhandana regress i.e., Anavastha. This is as follows: To project the Jiva
it will be pointed out that Ajnana cannot play the role of Upadhi as distinct, Upadhi i.e., Ajnana is required, to protect that
i.e., as an adjunct to project Brahman as Jiva. In Advaita, Ajnana Ajnana, one more Ajnana is required and so on. Further, there
is a key concept. The projection of the Jiva and the Jagat is will be reciprocal dependence i.e., Anyonyasraya also. The
attributed to it. It is the cause of the bondage and its removal projection of Upadhi depends upon the projection of Ajnana
is liberation. Therefore, it is necessary to examine its nature and and the projection of Ajnana depends upon the projection
the role to refute Advaita. Therefore, an examination of its role of Upadhi. It will also lead to the circular dependence i.e.,
is made in this text., The points made here are briefly stated below: Chakraka as follows: The location of Ajnana on the Jiva
1) There cannot be any Ajnana to veil Brahman who is depends upon the distinction of the Jiva, the distinction of the
omnisciant. He can neither be the locus of Ajnana nor the object Jiva depends upon the projection of Upadhi and the projection
of Ajnana. of Upadhi depends upon Ajnana.
2) It cannot also be stated that the Jiva is the locus of Ajnana. The above points are made against those advaitins who consider
Though the Jiva is not distinct from the Brahman in the ultimate the Ajnana as Mithya i.e., Projected.

17. ï\"X"u\" T"øY"puG"S"X"{T" {S"Z_O"X"o $ 19. ìc"O"p{A"“_"z\"uf"sC"êJ>O"u S" @s¡O"Æ"S" $

_\"á¡T"O\"pO"o X"pub"_Y" T"t\"êX"u\" {_"«O\"pO"o $ íT"p{R"W"uQpO"o C"J>O" ò{O" E"uO"o _" _\"W"p\"O"# $
{\"^"Y"T"øY"puG"S"pW"p\"pQu\" ì{R"@¡pZr E" $ ìc"pS"O"pu \"p (í.A"z.)
O"QW"p\"pQu\" _"XV"SR"pu&{T" (X"p.A"z.) 20. ŸvO"_Y" _"OY"O"p _\"O" ï\" E"uO"o (í.A"z.)
18. {\"^N"pu# _"\"puêf"X"O\"X"u\" _"\"êð"p_e"pP"ê- 21. ìS"\"[_P"{O"Zc"pS"`uO"pv \"p&SY"puSY"{_"«O"p $
O\"uS" W"B"\"O"p dsOY"p E" ì{W"{`O"X"o $ E"@ø¡@¡pT"{f"# (í.A"z)
 21
3) The concept of the Upadhi of such advaitins who consider After pointing out the untenability of the concept of Upadhi and
both the Upadhi i.e., the adjunct, and the bheda i.e., the distinction the differentiation by it, a clear difference between the Brahman
are real, is criticised as under: and the Jivas is brought out by mentioning the contrasting
a) The contention that a real distinction between Brahman and characteristics of the two. The Jiva's characteristics are: Ignorance,
Jivas is caused by a set of real Upadhi such as Anthhkarana limited capacity, suffering and the limited agency. These definitely
etc., is not tenable. Upadhis do not cause any distinction but indicate that he is different from the God whose has unlimited
only indicate the distinctions that are already there. In the knowledge, power etc.
instance of Akasa also the Upadhis such as Ghata, Matha Advaitin's plea that 'the very inability to explain the nature and
etc., only indicate the particular places. the role of Ajnana is a merit' is ridiculed.
b) If it is insisted that the Upadhi does not merely indicate the 5) PRAPANCHAMITHYATVANUMANA KHANDANA:
distinction but actually causes it, then, does it cause the
In this text the stock syllogism that is put up in Advaita standard
distinction by contacting the whole of the object to be
texts for establishing the concept of Mithyatva i.e., illusory nature
differentiated or a part of it? If the whole, then it is unable
of the world, is reviewed. The Syllogism reads as 'Vimatam Mithya
to differentiate, if by contacting a part, then to carve out that
Drisyatvat` This claim is illustrated by Suktirajata mentioning it 'yatha
part another Upadhi will be required. This leads to the Infinit
sampratipannam`. One who mistakes a shell to be the silver, the
regress i.e., Anavastha.
silver seen by him is not actually present. It is not sat i.e., true,
c) In the case of the difference between the Brahman and the because, it is not actually present. It is not a 'Asat` i.e., it is not
Jiva, and among the Jivas, if it is not real, then, all will have totally untrue, because, it is seen. This status of something which
to share the pains and the pleasures of all. It is the experience is neither 'real` nor 'unreal` is designated Mithya in Advaita. On the
of all that they do not share the pleasures and the pains of analogy of 'Suktirajata` i.e., shell silver, they consider the above
all. From this it can be easily infered that all are really different Syllogism is proposed by them. This syllogism is critically reviewed
from each other. in this text.
22. W"uQÆ"puT"p{R"O"# @s¡O"# $ To point out that a syllogism is defective certain fallacies with
{\"üX"pS"_Y" W"uQ_Y" c"pT"@¡pu S"v\" @¡pZ@¡# $ reference to the Paksa, Sadhya and Hetu are pointed out in a

íT"p{R"# ªÍ>T"t\"puê {` (í.A"z.)

23. íT"p{R"_"XV"SR"# ï@¡Quð"u&P" _"\"êB"# $ 25. _"p\"êc"p{QB"sN"p# {\"^N"pu# ds{O"^"s T"ø{O"T"p{QO"p# $ (í.A"z.)
ï@¡Quð"u&S"\"_P"p _Y"pO"o _"\"êB"Æ"uO"o S" W"uQ@¡# $$ (í.A"z.) 26. {\"X"O"z {X"PY"p ªðY"O\"pO"o òOY"s˜u¡ G"B"O"#
24. ìc"O"p E"pÚT"ð"{˜¡O\"z Ql#{A"O\"z _\"ÚT"@¡O"êwO"p $ ìW"p\"pO"o ìpdY"p{_"«# T"b"# $
_"\"êc"O\"pQrð"B"sN"{\"à«p {` ìS"sW"t{O"B"p# $$ ì{S"\"êE"S"rY"p{_"«u# ìT"ø{_"«{\"ð"u^"N"# $ (T"ø.{X".A"z.)
 22
philosophical debate. Hetu is arguement, Sadhya is the point to be Further there is no instance with reference to which anirvachaniyatva
proved, Paksa is that with reference to which the point at issue can be demonstrated, because, the concept of Anirvachanitva itself
is to be proved, Paksa is that with reference to which the point is yet to be established. Because of this, even Suktirajata is Vipaksa.
at issue is to be proved. For instance, when the presence of the The Hetu i.e., Drisyatva is present in it. Therefore, there is the fallacy
fire on the hill is to be proved by observing the smoke the presence of Viruddha also. Since the Hetu Drisyatva is found in Atman also,
of the smoke on the hill is Hetu i.e.., Arguement, the presence of there is the fallacy of Anaikantika. The fallacies of Kalatyayapadista,
the fire on the hill is sadhya i.e., the point to be proved. Parvata prakaranasama etc., are also pointed out.
i.e., the hill is Paksa i.e., that with reference to which the point In this way all the fallacies are pointed out for this syllogism.
at issue is to be proved. With a view to enable the students to know the terminology connected
with a syllogism the technical terms Paksa, Sapaksa, Vipaksa etc
In the syllogism proposed by the Advaitin, to prove the Mithyatva
are also explained in this small text. This syllogism is fully examined
of the world, the world is Paksa. It is with reference to the world
in Vadavali and Nyayamrta later. The Khandanatraya is the
that Mithyatva is proposed to be proved. However according to
foundation of these great works of Dvaita-Advaita dialectics.
Advaitin himself the world is not true. Therefore, the asraya i.e.,
that with reference to which Mithyatva is proposed to be proved 6) TATVODYOTA:
i.e., the world itself is not available to prove it. This is technically Tatvodyota though stated to be a Prakarana has all the potentiality
called the fallacy of Asrayasiddhi. of a vadagrantha. Its main theme is to point out the difference
between the Brahman and the Jivas even at the liberated state and
According to the Advaita, the term Mithya means Anirvachaniya
the both the Jiva and the Jagat are completely under the control
i.e., that which cannot be described either as 'sat` or as 'Asat`.
of the Supreme God and are regulated by him. In the course of
However, the possibility of such an entity is yet to be proved.
developing this theme Sri Madvacharya discusses the nature of the
Therefore, the Sadhya i.e., the point to be proved is also known
very concept of Bheda i.e., the difference, and the concept of
to the parties concerned. This is a fallacy known as Mithyatva posited in Advaita. He also discusses the import of Sruti.
Aprasiddhavisesana. 'Na asat asit na sat' etc, which is interpreted by the Advaitins as
The nature of the Hetu 'Drisyatva' also cannot be properly lending the support to the concept of sad-asad vilaksanatva. The
explained by the Advaitin. It is not real according to the Advaita.
Its Anirvachaniyatva is yet to be established. Therefore, there is
28. T"øOY"b"{\"à«O\"pO"o {\"Ä"z _"OY"{X"OY"p{Q\"p×Y"-
the fallacy of Hetu asiddhi also. {\"à«O\"p‚" @¡p“pOY"Y"pT"{QÍ># $ (T"ø.{X".A"z.)
27. ªðY"O\"pW"p\"pQ{_"«pu `uO"s# $ ì{S"\"êE"S"rY"p{_"«uZu\" 29. _"pRY"R"X"ê{\"{ð"Í># T"b"# $ _"pRY"_"X"pS"R"X"ê{\"{ð"Í># _"T"b"# $
_"T"b"pW"p\"pO"o {\"à«# $ _"pRY"{\"à«R"X"ê{\"{ð"Í># {\"T"b"# $ (T"ø.{X".A"z)
ìpOX"S"pu&{T" ªðY"O\"pQS"v@¡p[SO"@¡# $ (T"ø.{X".A"z.) 30. {\"X"O"# {W"ß"# X"s˜¡O\"pO"o (O".üpu.)
 23
Syllogism proposed by the Advaitins to accept the concept of or it is real does not arise, because, such a concept as anirvachaniya
Mithyatva that was briefly reviewed in Prapanchamithyatvanumana- is not tenable.
khandana is reviewed here again in greater detail. In that small text
The sruti 'Na asad asit no sad asit` etc., does not support the
Drisyatva hetu was examined. Here two more hetus viz., Jadatva
concept of sad-asad-vilaksana. The expression 'sat` in this sruti refers
and Parichchinnatva are examined. The concept of Ajnana is refuted.
to Murta and 'asat` refers to Amuta. Prithvi etc., are Murta and
The svaprakasatva concept of Advaita is also examined. The role
Vayu and Akasa are Amurta. The Supreme God is different and
of Pratyaksa pramana in comprehending the reality is explained and
Supervisor to these. He is described in this Sruti. There is no
its priority over other pramanas is pointed out. The correct import
reference to the Advaita concept of Anirvachaniya here. Brahman
of the 'Sruti` passages 'tat tvam asi` 'vacharambhanam` etc., is
is sometimes described as anirvachaniya because he cannot be fully
explained.
discribed. Similarly the words Rita-Anrita, Sat-Asat etc, refer to the
The most important item discussed in this text is the sameness God and the world respectively with appropriate etemological
of the Bhuddhistic position and the Advaita position. It is clearly meaning. The reality of world is mentioned in the sruti passages:
pointed out that there is no difference between the Sunyavada and 'Visvam satyam Maghavana` Satyah so asya mahima` 'Yathatathyato
Mayavada. arthan vyadadhat` etc. The Bhagavadgita condemns those who state
In the very mangala verse the difference between the God and the world to be unreal in the verse 'Asatyam apratistham te` etc.
the Jivas, and the fact of God regulating the Jivas and Jada is stated. The effort to establish Sada-asad-vilaksanatva by Arthapatti is
The text opens with the syllogism 'Vimatah bhinnah muktatvat` stating a failure. The Arthapatti is stated as follows: If Suktirajata were
that the liberated is distinct from Brahman. The question whether real, it would not have been sublated later, if it were not real it
this difference is anirvachaniya i.e., indescribable as real or unreal would not have been experienced. Therefore, it is neither real nor
31. S" E" ì{S"\"êE"S"rY"u {@¡{ú"SX"pS"X"o $ ìS"sX"pS"_Y" E"- unreal. This contention is not acceptable, because, Asat is experienced.
It is experienced not as an object of experience but as something
ìT"ø{_"«{\"ð"u^"N"# T"b"# (O".üpu.)
32. ‘S"p_"Qp_"rß"pu _"Qp_"rQo’ òOY"e" T"pqZð"u^Y"uN" 34. ì¬lO"O\"pQ{S"\"pêEY"z V"øÏ" {E"‚"uOY"X"u\" E" $
ì{S"\"êE"S"rY"O\"pŒr@¡pZu ‘ìpS"rQ\"pO"z _\"R"Y"p ì{E"SOY"z O"O" ï\"vO"QO"×Y"pêc"uY"X"u\" E" $
O"Qu@¡X"o’ ò{O" T"qZ{ð"Í>O\"pQo V"øÏ"N" ï\" 35. ì) {\"Ä"z _"OY"z X"C"\"pS"p Y"s\"puqZQpT"Æ" S" T"ø{X"S"[SO" \"øO"z \"pX"o
ì{S"\"êE"S"rY"O\"z _Y"pO"o $ ìp) _"OY"# _"pu&_Y" X"{`X"p
33. X"tO"| _"{_"{O" _"XT"øpu˜¡X"X"tO"êX"_"QlEY"O"u $ ò) Y"P"pO"PY"O"pu&P"pêS"o \Y"QR"pO"o ð"pÄ"O"rWY"# _"X"pWY"# $ (O".üpu.)
X"tO"pêX"tO"uêO"ZQo V"øÏ" S" _"f"ß"p_"QlEY"O"u $$ 36. S" E" ìP"pêT"OY"p ì{S"\"êE"S"rY"{_"{«# $
ò{O" T"v{Œds{O"# (O".üpu.) ì_"O"# T"øO"r{O"z {\"S"p ì_"Qov“b"NY"pS"sT"T"f"u# $ (O".üpu.)
 24
refered to in experience. This much reference does not make it would not have been experienced. Therefore, it is neither real nor
something different from the unreal. Therefore, no third category unreal. This contention is not acceptable, because, Asat is experienced.
as neither real nor unreal needs to be accepted. It is experienced not as an object of experience but as something
The contention that the world will be sublated soon after one different from the unreal. Therefore, no third category as neither
acquires Atmaikyajnana is also not tenable, whether this difference real nor unreal needs to be accepted.
is anirvachaniya i.e., indescribable as real or unreal or it is real does The contention that the world will be sublated soon after one
not arise, because, such a concept as anirvachaniya is not tenable. acquires Atmaikyajnana is also not tenable, because, the very nature
The sruti 'Na asad asit na sad asit` etc., does not support the of the sublation i.e., badhyatva cannot be explained. The Hetu
concept of sad-asad-vilaksana. The expression 'sat` in this sruti refers Drisyatva also is fallacious as it is found in Atman also who is not
to Murta and 'asat` refers to Amuta. Prithvi etc., are Murta and consider as Mithya. Atman has to be considered as Drisya since
Vayu and Akasa are Amurta. The Supreme God is different and his knowledge has to be acquired to get rid of Ajnana. Similarly,
Supervisor to these. He is described in this Sruti. There is no the Hetu Jadatva is also fallacious. Jadatva is nothing but pramatritva
reference to the Advaita concept of Anirvachaniya here. Brahman abhava i.e., not having the knowership. According to the Advaita,
is sometimes described as anirvachaniya because he cannot be fully Brahman has no Pramatritva. Therefore, Jadatva will be found in
discribed. Similarly the words Rita-Anrita, Sat-Asata etc, refer to Brahman also who is not supposed to be Mithya. Thus the two Hetus
the God and the world respectively with appropriate etemological viz. Drisyatva and Jadatva that are given to establish Mithyatva suffer
meaning. The reality of world is mentioned in the sruti passages: from the fallacy of Anaikantika with reference to the Brahman. The
'Visvam satyam Maghavana` Satyah so asya mahima` 'Yathatathyato
same is the case with reference to the Hetu Parichehinnatva.
arthan vyadadhat` etc. The Bhagavadgita condemns those who state
the world to unreal in the verse 'Asatyam apratistham te` etc. 40. T"øOY"b"V"p{R"O"z E" G"B"[SX"PY"pO\"X"o $ _"{Q{O" T"øO"rY"X"pS"O\"pO"o $
The effort to establish Sada-asad-vilaksanatva by Arthapatti is S" E" T"øOY"b"{_"«X"SY"uS" @u¡S"p{T" V"pRY"z ªÍ>X"o $(O".üpu.)
a failure. The Arthapathi is stated as follows: If Suktirajata were
real, it would not have been sublated later, if it were not real it
41. S" E" ð"tSY"\"p{QS"# _"@¡pð"pQo \"v“b"NY"z X"pY"p\"p{QS"#
\Y"p\"`pqZ@¡_"f\"_Y" O"uS"p{T" ìŒr{@ø¡Y"X"pN"O\"pO"o $
37. ªðY"O\"püS"sX"pS"u^\"{T" ïO"u Qpu^"p# $ ì) _"OY"z O"s {Ÿ{\"R"z T"øpu˜z¡ _"pz\"wO"z T"pZX"p{P"ê@¡X"o $
ìpOX"S"pu&{T" ªðY"O\"pQS"v@¡p[SO"@¡O"p E" $ _"pz\"wO"z \Y"\"`pY"| _Y"p{ß"\"wf"pv T"pZX"p{P"ê@¡X"o $$
38. S" E" ìpOX"S"# ª@o¡@¡X"êO\"z {\"S"p ìp) {S"{\"êð"u^"z _\"Y"z W"pO"z {S"“uêT"X"G"ZpX"ZX"o $
O"Gc"pS"O\"z O"Qc"pS"{S"\"w{f"Æ" W"\"{O" $ (O".üpu.) ð"tSY"z O"f\"X"{\"c"uY"z X"S"pu\"pE"pX"B"puE"ZX"o $$ (O".üpu.)
39. G"L>O\"z E" ìT"øX"pO"wO\"X"u\" $ S" E" T"øX"pO"wO\"X"pOX"S"#- 42. T"Zp_Y" ð"{˜¡{\"ê{\"R"v\" dtY"O"u
O"vZŒr{@ø¡Y"O"u $ ìO"# O"Q{T" ìS"v@¡p[SO"@¡X"o $ _\"pW"p{\"@¡” c"pS"V"“{@ø¡Y"p E" (O".üpu.)
 25
Further, the reality of the world could be ascertained by the Buddhists and it is a projection of Avidya according to the
perception. The Perception is superior to the inference. Therefore, Advaita.
the Mithyatva which is proposed to be established by the inference From this it is clear that the concepts of Sunya and Brahman
has to be rejected. are the same and the concepts of Samvrti and Avidya are also the
Finally, it is pointed out that there is no difference between the same.
Sunyavada of the Buddhists and the mayavada of Advaitins. The After pointing out the similarity, between Buddhists tenets and
sameness of the two is pointed out in three important respects by the Advaita tenets, the Sruti passages that are quoted to support
quoting the relevant passages from the Texts of Buddhism and Advaita are discussed and it is shown that these do not support
Advaita. Advaita. In conclusion it is summed up that Jivas are different from
Brahman even at the liberated state and they are regulated by the
1. The Sunya of Buddhism is described as a) Nirvisesa i.e., without
God even at that stage.
any characteristic b) Manovachamagochara not cognisable
either by the mind or the words .(c) Svaprakasa i.e. not the 7) VISNUTATTVAVINIRNAYA
object of any knowledge. The Brahman of Advaita also is Visnutattvavinirnaya is a neatly planned text. The very benedictory
described in the same way. verse gives its plan.
2. There are two levels of reality viz., Samvrita satta and The first adjective in the benedictory verse sadagamaikavijneya
Paramarthika satta, according to the Buddhists. According to is elaborated in the first chapter, the second adjective samatitaksraksara
Advaita also there are two levels Viz., Vyavaharika and in the second chapter, and the adjective nirdosasesasadguna is
paramarthika. elaborated in the third chapter.
3. The whole world is a projection of Samvrti according to The Scope Of the Sacred Literature.
The four Vedas, Mahabharata Pancharatra, Mula Ramayana and
43. T"øOY"b"pS"sX"pS"pB"X"{\"à«O\"pO"o ìW"uQ{\"^"Y"\"O"o
T"øO"rY"X"pS"p{S" \"p×Y"p{S" _"pªðY"püP"pêSY"u\" Y"puG"S"rY"p{S" 45. T"øOY"b"uN"pS"s{X"OY"p \"p Y"‚" \"_O"s S" V"s«÷O"u $
{\"à«\"O"o T"øO"rY"SO"u ìpB"X"p Y"e" \"v {X"P"# $ ïO"{ŸQ[SO" {` \"uQuS" O"_X"pQo \"uQ_Y" \"uQO"p $$
O"e" ªÍ>pS"s_"pZuN" O"u^"pX"P"puê&S\"\"ubY"O"u $$ (O".üpu.) S"u[SçY"p{N" S"pS"sX"pS"z \"uQp {` ïS"z \"uQY"[SO" O"_X"pQp`l\"uêQp ò{O" $
44. _"QpB"X"v@¡{\"c"uY"z _"X"O"rO"b"Zpb"ZX"o $ 46. {S"OY"p# \"uQp# _"X"_O"pÆ" ð"pÄ"O"p# {\"^N"sV"s{«B"p# $
S"pZpY"N"z _"Qp \"SQu {S"Qpuê^"pð"u^"_"ÿlN"X"o $$ _"B"uê _"B"uê ìX"sS"v\"uO"u íÿrY"êSO"u O"P"v\" E" $$
{\"ð"u^"N"p{S" Y"pS"r` @¡{P"O"p{S" _"Ql{˜¡{W"# $ O"O@ø¡X"uN"v\" O"v\"êN"vê# O"v# _\"ZvZu\" S"pSY"P"p $
_"pR"{Y"^Y"p{X" O"pSY"u\" @ø¡X"pO"o _"ƒ"S"_"z{\"Qu $$ ({\".O".{S".) ìO"# ds{O"O\"X"uO"p_"pz dsO"p ï\" Y"O"pu&{A"“v# $$ ({\".O".{S".)
 26
such of the Puranas that are not in conflict with the teachings of In Indian Philosophy, Veda apauruseyatva is a very important
the Vedas etc., mentioned earlier are sadagama. All other works issue. This issue of Veda apauruseyatva is discussed in Jaiminisutras
that follow these also constitute Sadagama. But works that are of purvamimamsa in detail and elaborated by sayana in his Veda-
opposed to the teachings of these such as Pasupata etc., are not bhasyabhumika. This discussion is confined to only three points viz.
Sadagamas. However, even in these works, whatever is in tune with
(1) Whether a composer of the Vedas, if there was any, could
the teachings of the Vedas etc., that is acceptable. This explanation
be ascertained in a reasonable way and in the absence of such
of the scope of Sadagama brings out two important points.
ascertainment is it not reasonable to conclude that there was no
(i) The scope of the sacred literature is not to be confined to such composer?
the Vedas only but Itihasa Purana are also to be included in it.
(2) If the Vedas were not composed at a given point of time,
(ii) Every work that goes under the name of Agama is not
then, how to account for the references to the names of certain
necessarily a sacred work. Its content has to be examined. If it
personalities flourished at certain times in tradition and mythology?
is not opposed to the teachings of the Vedas etc., sacred works,
then only, it is a part of sacred literature, Another point that emerges (3) What is the role of the sages who are declared to be the
from this definition of the sacred literature is the Vedas should be seers of Vedic hymns? Are they mere seers or are they composers?
understood in the light of the Itihasapurana but not in isolation. Veda
These questions and the answers given to the same do not take
and Itihasa Purana form a continuous tradition and therefore, these
us deeper into this problem and do not reveal the deeper insight
texts have to be interpreted and comprehended in the light of the
into the concept of Veda apauruseyatva. Therefore, to understand
tradition but not in isolation.
the deeper implications of the concept of veda apauruseyatva the
The Doctrines of Veda Apouruseyatva enquiry has to be made differently. The scope of the enquiry of
Vedas constitute the highest sacred literature. This is because,
these are apauruseya and Svatah pramana. Therefore, 48. (ì) @¡pY"pê[S\"O"u ï\" ìP"uê _"\"êð"VQpS"pz \Y"sOT"{f"Qð"êS"pO"o
Vishnutattvavinirnaya takes up these two issues for the discussion @u¡\"“z {_"«pP"uê O"QW"p\"pO"o S" {_"«_\"á¡T"u {\"^N"pv
in the next section.
\"uQ_Y" T"ø{O"T"pQ@¡O\"z _"XW"\"{O" $
47. (ì) _"\"uê^"pz c"pS"pS"pz Y"P"pP"êO\"“b"N"z T"øpX"pNY"z _\"O" (ìp) \"w«\\"`pZQð"êS"z {\"S"p ìŒlÚY"p{Q{S"Quêð"uS" ð"VQ-
ï\" c"pS"B"øp`@u¡N"v\" B"wåO"u $ _"X"sQpY"_Y" @¡pY"pêS\"Y"Z{`O"u ï\" O"[_X"S"o ìP"ê_"X"sQpY"u
(ìp) c"pS"z _"p{b"T"øOY"b"\"uüX"o $ O"OT"øpX"pNY"X"{T" {\"^"Y"{\"^"{Y"W"p\"z O"p\"Q\"B"EF>{O" V"p“# $
_"p{b"T"øOY"b"\"uüX"u\" $ ï\"z @¡pY"pêS\"Y"z {\"S"p{T" \Y"sOT"{f"Qð"êS"pO"o Y"puBY"uO"Zp-
(ò) c"pS"B"øp`@¡# _"pb"r T"øX"pN"O"Y"v\" B"w†pO"rOY"sO_"B"ê ï\" $ [S\"O"u \Y"sOT"{f"qZ{O" _"pX"pSY"X"u\" ìŒr@¡pY"êX"o $
{\"_"z\"pQ“b"N"pO"o T"ZO"# ìT"\"pQpO"o ìT"øpX"pNY"z E" B"w†p{O" $ ({\".O".{S".)
 27
both Purvamimamsa and Vedanta is not confined to the external The words i.e., Vedic hymns that embody the revelations of
world and its categories. The enquiry into the nature and the role spiritual and moral concepts are naturally not composed by anyone.
of moral concepts such as Dharma and Adharma, and the spiritual In Indian tradition varnas are considered as eternal. The words
concepts like self, God etc., is the chief task of these two disciplines. that consists of one or more varnas and the sentences that contain
The epistemological means like Pratyaksa, Anumana that are one or more words of the revealed literature are also eternal. The
sufficient only to comprehend the external world and its categories order in which these occur is also not man-made. These are ever
do not help to comprehend the moral concepts like Dharma and present in God's mind and are revealed to the seers. These are
Adharma and the spiritual concepts like self and God. Instructions handed over by a long tradition of the teacher and the taught.
contained in a work composed by a human being cannot also help
us in the matter. Such a human being also has to derive his knowledge In view of this, the objections raised taking the human composition
i.e., pauruseyavakya as a model do not apply to the revealed
from some authentic source. He himself cannot claim to be the
literature. The sages referred to as seers of the Vedas are not
source of the knowledge of moral and spiritual concepts. These have
composers but seers i.e., the recipients of the revelations. Revealed
to be revealed to the morally and spiritually sensitive minds. Such
sentences do not need a composer. References made to personalities
revelation may be embodied in words and also in other ways. The
and events in revealed literature have no temporal restrictions.
Vedas constitute such revelations of moral and spiritual concepts as
Therefore, the objections based on these considerations do not hold
embodied in words i.e., Vedic hymns. This is the basis of the concept
good in respect of revealed literature which is apauruseya and
of apauruseyatva.
svatahpramana.

49. (ì) \"p×Y"T"øY"puB"_Y" T"ZpP"êO\"pO"o T"ZT"øY"puG"S"pŒX"u\" \"p×Y"z The Doctrine of Pramanya svatastva

T"øpX"pNY"X"Å"sO"u $ T"ZT"øY"puG"S"pŒz E" Y"O@¡pY"êT"ZX"o $ O"O"# The doctrine of pramanyasvatastva mentioned in the context of
the Vedas has a much wider scope. Not only the knowledge derived
@u¡\"“{_"«u ìP"uê @¡P"z \"p×Y"_Y" T"øpX"pNY"X"o? from the Vedas is svatahpramana but all knowledge derived by
(ìp) S" E" @s¡e"{E"O"o {_"«c"pT"S"pO"o ìSY"O"o \"p×Y"T"øY"puG"S"z flawless means of knowledge is svatahpramana. The knowledge
ªÍ>X"o $ \"p×Y"z {` T"øX"pN"X"o $ O"‚" T"øX"p_"pR"S"X"o $ T"øX"p derived by nirdusteindriya, nirdustahetu, nirdusta pauruseyashabda is

E" Y"P"pP"êc"pS"X"o $ ìO"# O"_Y" T"Zc"pT"S"X"u\" T"øY"puG"S"X"o $ also svatahpramana. The svatahpramanya of knowledge has to be
understood in two ways:
S" {` ìSY"O"o T"øY"puG"S"z ªÍ>X"o $ O"‚" T"øY"puG"S"z {_"«-
{\"^"Y"X"{T" ì[_O" $ 50. W"uQ_O"p\"O"o R"{X"êT"ø{O"Y"pu{B"T"øO"r{O"_"pT"ub" ò{O" G"r\"uÄ"ZT"øO"rOY"p
(ò) c"pO\"v\" {` òÍ>_"pR"S"O"pz T"ø\"O"êO"u {S"\"O"êO"u E" {\"T"Y"êY"uN" $ ì\"ðY"z W"p\Y"X"o $ O"e" Y"ü{T" G"r\"# _"p{b"T"øOY"b"{_"«# O"P"p{T" S"
ìO"# {_"« ï\" _"\"ê\"p×Y"pS"pz T"øpX"pNY"z {_"«X"o $ òêÄ"Z{_"{«# $ O"P"p E" R"{X"êT"ø{O"Y"pu{B"T"øO"rOY"W"p\"pO"o @¡P"z O"QR"rS"p
({\".O".{S".) T"øOY"b"p{QS"p G"r\"uÄ"ZW"uQ{_"{«# $ ({\".O".{S".J>r.)
 28
(i) The knowledge to be true or valid does not require any more The Doctrine of Siddhe Vyutpatti
additional means than its bonafide means, However these bonafide
However, there is one more issue to be tackled in this connection.
means must be flawless.
This issue is the issue of Vyutpatti i.e., sabdabodha or vakyarthabodha.
(ii) To know the truth or the validity of knowledge no other Therefore, this issue is next taken up for discussion.
additional means is required. Saksin that comprehends knowledge
also comprehends its validity. Thus both in Utpatti the origination According to Mimamsakas the sentences communicate only
of knowledge and Jnapti comprehension of knowledge, no additional activity and those that are connected with the activity. Visnu is a
factors than the respective bonafide means of knowledge are Siddhavastu. Therefore sadagamas that are of the nature of
necessary. This is the implication of the concept of svatahpramanya. sentences cannot communicate Visnu or Narayana. This view is
known as karye vyutpattivada. This is not tenable. Our day-to-day
So far as apramanya is concerned it arises because of certain
experience reveals that even siddhavastus that are not connected
defects such as indriyadosa, hetudosa etc. The saksin initially does
with any activity are communicated by the sentence. Therefore, there
not comprehend apramanya. It needs the assistance of pariksa. The
apramanya is detected by the sublation, contradiction i.e., badha, is no difficulty in sadagamas conveying Visnu.
vyabhichara etc. These indicate apramanya. It is in this sense that Another point to be noted here is that it is not karyatajnana that
apramanya is said to be paratah. However, apramanya is also is pravartaka but it is istasadhanatajnana that is pravartaka. Therefore,
comprehended by saksin only by these indications. Apauruseya Vedas it is not correct to complain that siddhavakyas are not pravartaka
being absolutely free from these defects are pramana. Pratyaksa and therefore are not pramana.
etc., are pramana when these are free from the defects. In any
case no additional condition or factor is required to validate After settling these two issues, viz., Sadagama is pramana and
knowledge. Therefore, all bonafide knowledge is svatahpramana. sadagama is siddhabodhaka the main question whether
Visnusarvottamatva and Jivesvarabheda are conveyed by sadagama
These two doctrines viz. veda apauruseyatva and pramanya-
svatastva are discussed in Visnutattvavinirnaya to support sadagamaika- or abheda is conveyed, is taken up.
vijneyatva. If sadagama is pramana,, then only sadagamaikavijneyatva
is meaningful. Therefore, its pramanya is explained on the grounds 53. S" W"uQ# R"{X"êT"ø{O"Y"puBY"sW"Y"R"X"ê# $ {@¡SO"s R"{X"êN"# R"X"ê#
of apauruseyatva and svatahpramanya. T"ø{O"Y"pu{B"S"p {S"á¡TY"# $ _" E" W"uQ# R"{X"êN"# _\"á¡T"X"u\" $ O"uS"
51. T"øOY"b"pS"sX"pS"{_"«O\"u E" W"uQ_Y" O"{ŸZpuR"pQu\" ìT"øpX"pNY"z R"{X"êT"øO"r{O"Zu\" W"uQT"øO"r{O"qZ{O" T"øO"r{O"ŸY"pW"p\"pO"o S"
ìW"uQpB"X"_Y" $ ({\".O".{S".) ìSY"puSY"pdY"O"p $
52. {\"ð"u^Y"{\"ð"u^"N"O"Y"p W"uQ{_"{«# $ {\"ð"u^"N"{\"ð"u^Y"W"p\"Æ" 54. Y"{Q S" _\"á¡T"z W"uQ# O"Qp T"QpP"uê ªÍ>u T"øpY"# _"\"êO"pu \"v“b"NY"z O"_Y"
W"uQpT"ub"# $ R"{X"êT"ø{O"Y"puBY"T"ub"Y"p W"uQ{_"{«# $ W"uQpT"ub"z E" R"{X"ê- S" c"pY"uO" $ _"pX"pSY"O"# _"\"ê\"v“b"NY"u c"pO" ï\" C"J>O\"p{Qc"pS"X"o $
T"ø{O"Y"pu{B"O\"{X"OY"SY"puSY"pdY"O"Y"p W"uQ_Y" ìY"s{˜¡# $ ({\".O"{S".) ({\".O".{S".)
 29
The Doctrine of Bheda Further, if bheda is established by Pratyaksa and Anumana, then,
abheda sruti that is opposed to this cannot be pramana.
In respect of bheda i.e., difference the following points are
discussed in visnutattvavinirnaya. Though ordinarily Sruti is superior to Pratyaksa and Anumana,
when these are upajivya to sruti, these are superior. A Pramana
(1) Whether bhedasrutis are merely anuvadaka or
that provides the subject is upajivya. In the present context for
pramana?
jivesvara abhedasruti the subject matter, viz., jiva and Isvara are
(2) Whether the concept of bheda is tenable or not? provided by Pratyaksa and Anumana as contended by Advaitin
himself. Therefore these are Upajivya to Abhedasruti. Hence,
(3) What is the ontological nature of bheda? Is it Darmisvarupa
Abhedasruti that is opposed to the bheda established by these cannot
or Darmibhinna?
be Pramana.
(4) Are the concepts of mithyabheda and aupadhikabheda
Bheda that is established by Pratyaksa and Anumana, when also
tenable?
stated in bhedasrutis establishes its validity more firmly. Therefore,
(5) Is the very concept of mithya tenable? the mention of bheda in bhedasrutis need not be dubbed as mere
anuvada.
Advaitins argue that since bheda is known by pratyaksa and
anumana, bhedasrutis merely state what is already known. Therefore, The next question is whether the very concept of bheda is tenable.
these are merely anuvadaka but not pramana in respect of bheda. Advaitins argue that bheda i.e., difference could be comprehended
This argument is not acceptable to Dvaita. To know Jivesvarabheda either as adjective or as substantive but these very positions depend
one has to know both jiva and Isvara. Though the jiva is known upon the comprehension of difference. Similarly, the difference is
by Pratyaksa, Isvara is not known either by Pratyaksa or by comprehended having a reference to Dharmin i.e., that which is
Anumana. The Anumana proposed by Nyaya to establish Isvara is differentiated form something and Pratiyogin that from which it is
differentiated. But these two positions depend upon the comprehension
also not known before one comes across the Bhedasrutis. Therefore,
of the difference. Thus, comprehension of difference results in
Bhedasrutis are not anuvadakas but Pramana.
anyonyasraya i.e., reciprocal dependency. Hence the concept of
55. (ì) _"pu&Å"sO"u _"\"pêS"o @¡pX"pS"o _"` V"øÏ"N"p {\"T"{Æ"O"p $ difference itself is not tenable.

(ìp) T"Zz GY"pu{O"àT"_"XT"ü _\"uS" á¡T"uN"p{W"{S"^T"üO"u $ This objection raised by Advaitins against the concept of
difference does not hold good. The ontological nature of the
(ò) _" O"e" T"Y"uê{O" G"b"S"o @ø¡”L>S"o ZX"X"pN"# $ difference is that it is an internal attribute of the object concerned.
(òê) Y"P"puQ@z¡ ð"s«u ð"s«X"p{_"˜z¡ O"pªB"u\" W"\"{O" $ It is padarthasvarupa that is to say it is dharmisvarupa. When one

(í) {S"Zý"S"# T"ZX"z _"pXY"X"sT"v{O" $ observes an object, he observes it as distinct from all others in a

(î¡) g G"B"Qo\Y"pT"pZ\"G"êX"o g $ ({\".O".{S".) 56. S" E" W"uQu @¡{Æ"QpB"X"# $ _"[SO" E" W"uQu _"\"pêB"X"p# $ ({\".O".{S".)
 30
general way. Then, he observes it as distinct from this or that object Visnutattvavinirnaya. Anuvyakhyana discusses these aspects in
which is referred to in the context. Therefore, there is no question greater detail. Bhedojjivana of Sri Vyasaraja especially discuses this
of anyonyasraya i.e., reciprocal dependency. concept. There is no Dvaita work wherein this concept of Bheda
In case the difference is not considered as an internal attribute is not discussed in some context or the other.
of the object, then, when an object is observed its distinction from Interpretation of Atat Tvamasi
all other objects would not be observed. However, our experience
The most important item discussed in Visnutattvavinirnaya is the
is, when we see an object we also realise that it is distinct from
interpretation of key sruti passages. This is to show that the entire
all other objects also. Therefore, the difference is an internal attribute
sruti supports Visnusarvottamatva and Jivesvarabheda but not
of the object concerned i.e., padarthasvarupa.
Jivabrahmaikya.
The satyatva of bheda is not only cognised by pratyaksha and
This statement is illustrated. by showing the correct reading and
anumana but it is affirmed by Sruti more than once. 'Satyam bhida
interpretation of the passage 'Atat tvam asi`. The nine illustrations
satyam bhida satyam bhida` is the emphatic statement of Sruti. This
given in the context speak of jivesvarabheda not jivabrahmaikya..
bheda is five-fold.
The context of the teaching of 'Atat tvam asi` is that svetaketu
The differences- had developed the pride that he knew everything. He was to be
i) Between Jiva and Isvara told that he did not know the highest entity i.e., the Supreme God
ii) Between Jada and Isvara as distinct and superior to him. He also did not know that he was
iii) Between Jiva and Jiva under the control of this Supreme God. In this context no useful
purpose would be served if he was told that he is identical with
iv) Between Jada and Jiva
the God. This would increase his pride. Therefore, he was told 'Atat
v) Between Jada and Jada
tvam asi` you are not the God. You are completely under his control.
constitute the five-fold differences. Therefore, it is jivesvarabheda that is intended to be
The difference between Jiva and Isvara continues even after conveyed here.
liberation. This is made clear in the sruti passages.
58. _"\"pêS"o \"uQpS"R"rOY" X"`pX"S"p# ìS"tE"pS"X"pS"r _O"VR" ïY"pY" ò{O"
From the above exposition of the concept of bheda it is clear
that all aspects of the concept of bheda are clearly discussed in
ìpOX"S"# ìSY"z ìS"tE"pS"O\"p{QB"sN"T"øQz T"ZX"{\"c"pY" _O"VR"_Y"
T"ZpR"rS"O\"c"pT"S"uS" _O"VR"O"pz {S"Z_Y" O"{ß"Î>p {` ìe"puT"{QðY"O"u $
57. S" {` ð"@s¡{S"_"te"Y"pu# S"pS"p\"wb"Z_"pS"pz S"Qr_"X"sçY"pu# G"r\"\"wb"Y"pu# ï@¡{\"c"pS"uS" _"\"ê{\"c"pS"z E" T"øpR"pSY"pO"o {@¡{ú"O"o _"pªðY"pO"o $ S" O"s
ì{N"X"pR"pS"Y"pu# “\"N"puQ@¡Y"pu# B"pSR"pZT"sà^"Y"pu# O"QSY"_Y" {X"PY"pO\"pO"o $ S" {` _"OY"c"pS"uS" {X"PY"pc"pS"z W"\"{O" $
ìc"T"øpN"p{Q{S"Y"pX"@¡Y"pu# _O"uS"pT"`pY"êY"pu# ïu×Y"X"o $ ({\".O".{S".) ({\".O".{S".J>r.)
 31
Ekavijnanena sarvavijnana stated in this context does not indicate (3) The sruti prapancho yadi vidyeta etc., does not support
upadanopadeyabhava here but is based on pradhanya and sadrsya. jaganmithyatva but explains the five-fold differences.
Therefore, this does not convey jaganmithyatva. (4) The sruti na pretya sanjnasti does not mean `after liberation
The illustrations of mrtpinda, lohamani and nakhanikrntana indicate only nirvisesachinmatra remains' but it means the liberated will
ekavijnanena sarvavijnana on the ground of sadrsya but not on the not have vrttijnana and the unliberated will not have the
ground of tadatmya or Abheda. The vacharambhana illustrations also knowledge of the liberated.
indicate pradhanajnanena apradhanajnana. Therefore, these also do
(5) The sruti 'na tu tad dvitiyam asti` does not mean that there
not speak of jivesvaraikya and jaganmithyatva.
is no second entity but it only means that the different forms
Interpretation of 'Aham Bramhasmi` etc., Sruti of the God are not different from each other.
The sruti passages 'aham brahmasmi` 'yosau so aham` 'so aham
(6) The 'Sruti` yatra tu asya sarvamatmaivabhut tat kena kam
asmi` etc. speak about antaryamitva but not about Aikya i.e., abheda.
pasyet` does not state that 'the liberated will not see, will not
In fact 'aham` 'tvam` 'sah` etc., are the names of the Supreme God
hear' etc., and attains nirvisesachinmatra state. It is not a
and speak of him.
statement of the position in the liberated state. But it is prasanga
Therefore, these srutis also do not support jivesvaraikya. apadana. That is to say, it points out certain adverse consequences
The Srutis that are supposed to support Abheda also do not if the liberated state is described as nirvisesachinmatra state.
support it. From the above discussion of the correct meaning of Srutis it
(1) Pare avyaye sarve ekibhavanti is clear that no Sruti supports Jivesvara abheda or Jaganmithyatva.

Here ekibhava does not mean abheda but it means matyaikya The Doctrine of Jagat Satyatva
and sthanaikya. Visnutattvavinirnaya re-enforces the concept of Jagat satyatva
(2) He who knows Brahman will attain the greatness. This passage by quoting a number of sruti passages.
does not mean that he will attain identity with Brahman.

59. ì`zS"pX"p `qZ{S"êOY"X"`uY"O\"pO"o T"ø@¡”{O"êO"# $ 60. G"r\"_Y" T"ZX"v×Y"z O"s V"s{«_"pá¡TY"X"u\" O"s $
O\"z E"p_"pv T"ø{O"Y"pu{B"O\"pO"o T"Zpub"O\"pO"o _" òOY"{T" $ ï@¡_P"pS"{S"\"p_"pu \"p \Y"{˜¡_P"pS"X"T"ubY" _"# $$
_"\"pêSO"Y"pê{X"{N" `Zpv ì_X"EF>VQ{\"W"˜¡Y"# $ 61. T"ø@w¡Í># T"ú"{\"R"# W"uQ# T"øT"ú"# $ X"pY"p W"B"\"OT"øc"p _"v\"
Y"s^X"EF>VQB"O"pÆ"v\" _"\"pê# O"_X"EF>VQB"p ì{T" $ X"pS"e"pN"@¡e"rê Y"_Y" O"SX"pY"pX"pe"X"o $ T"ZX"uÄ"ZuN" c"pO"O\"pO"o
_"\"êð"VQB"O"pÆ"v\" \"E"S"pSY"{A"“pSY"{T" $ Z{b"O"O\"p‚" S" ŸvO"z W"øp[SO"@¡[ÚT"O"z T"ZX"pP"pêT"ub"Y"p ìŸvO"#
_\"O"Se"O\"pO"o T"ø\"O"êSO"u \Y"p\"wf"uTY"{A"“pO"o _"Qp $$ ({\".O".{S".) _"\"ê_X"pQlf"X"# _"# ï@¡# ï\" $
 32
The Doctrine of Visnusarvottamatva (3) At the commencement of the creation, he alone existed and
all others were created by him.
The central theme of Visnutattvavinirnaya is to proclaim the
supremacy of lord Visnu. All other issues are only preparatory to (4) All names convey him only.
the presentation of this final doctrine. This central doctrine is (5) He is independent, One and Supreme.
emphasised more than once in this text. Several srutis and itihasa-
(6) He creates, sustains, destroys, regulates, gives knowledge,
Purana passages are quoted to bring home this doctrine.
conceals, binds and liberates. All these flow from The Supreme Lord
These passages bring out the following special characteristics of Hari.
Lord Visnu.
(7) He gives knowledge, liberation and bliss. He binds and he
(1) He is superior to both Ksara and Aksara. Aksara refers liberates.
to Goddess Laksmi and Ksara refers to all other beings. God Visnu
(8) He is absolutely free from the drawbacks and inadequacies.
is superior to these. He is Purusottama the Supreme.
He is independent and all others are entirely dependent on him.
(2) He is conveyed by the entire sacred scriptures. His glory
(9) All his attributes and actions are not distinct from him.
is the chief purport of the scriptures.
(10) He cannot be obtained by mere discourses, by mere learning
62. Y"{Q {\"{\"êð"u^"E"vO"SY"X"pe"X"\"{ð"^Y"O"u S" {@¡X"{T" \"_O"s ò{O" X"O"z or intellect. Whomsoever the God chooses; he can obtain him. God
reveals his nature to him. He who knows Lord Visnu as possessed
_Y"pO"o O"Qp Qð"êS"C"øpN"p{QW"puB"pu&_Y" S" _Y"pO"o $ W"{\"O"\Y"z E"
Qð"êS"p{QW"puB"uS" $ ìO"# {S"{\"êð"u^"E"vO"SY"X"pe"p\"_P"pS"“b"N"# 54. (ì) Ÿp{\"X"pv T"sà^"pv “pu@u¡ b"ZÆ"pb"Z ï\" E" $
X"pub"# ìS"sT"T"ß"# òOY"pT"pQS"pOX"@¡# ìpb"uT"# ï\" ì_Y" b"Z# _"\"pê{N" W"tO"p{S" @t¡J>_P"pu&b"Z íEY"O"u $$
\"p×Y"_Y"pP"ê# $ ({\".O".{S".J>r.) íf"X"# T"sà^"_O\"SY"# T"ZX"pOX"uOY"sQpâO"# $
63. (ì) @¡{\"X"ê{S"^"r T"qZW"t# _\"Y"XW"t: $ Y"pu “pu@¡e"Y"X"p{\"ðY" {V"W"OY"ê\Y"Y" òêÄ"Z# $$
Y"pP"pO"PY"O"pu&P"pêS"o \Y"QR"pO"o ð"pÄ"O"rWY"# _"X"pWY"# $ Y"_X"pO"o b"ZX"O"rO"pu&`X"b"ZpQ{T" E"puf"X"# $
(ìp) Y"{‚"@u¡O" _"OY"{X"O"o O"ß" X"puC"X"o $ ìO"pu&[_X" “pu@u¡ \"uQu E" T"ø{P"O"# T"sà^"puf"X"# $$ (B"rO"p)
(ò) {\"Ä"z _"OY"z X"C"\"pS"p Y"s\"pu{QQpT"Æ" S" T"ø{X"S"[SO" \"øO"z (ìp) _"\"puêO@¡^"uê Qu\"Qu\"_Y" {\"^N"pu#
\"pX"o $ X"`pO"pOT"Y"| S"v\" E"pSY"e" _"OY"X"o $
(òê) ìS"püS"SO"z G"B"QuO"Qrª@o¡ T"ø\"O"êO"u S"pe" {\"E"pY"êX"[_O" $ ì\"pSO"Zz O"OT"ZO\"z O"QSY"O"o
({\".O".{S".) _"\"pêB"X"pS"pz T"sà^"pP"ê# O"O"pu&O"# $$ ò{O" T"v{Œds{O"# $
 33
of infinite attributes gets rid of the bondage and enjoys the bliss occuring in these hymns are really the names of the Great God
in God's presence. Visnu. In fact every word, every mantra, and every sukta conveys
These are only a few passages that bring out the glory or Lord Him only. All sacrifices are meant for Him only. The Chaturmukha
Visnu. The main features of the Dvaita concept of Visnu the Supreme Brahma, Rudra etc., gods perform the sacrifices for Him only. This
God are: (i) He is svatantra (ii) He is gunapurna (iii) He is nirdosa. is made clear in the very mangala verse of this work.
(iv) He is sarvakarta and (v) He is sarvottama. Visnu is called Mahat i.e., the Great: because, he has infinite
These features are amply brought out in visnutattvavinirnaya. number of qualities. This is contested in Advaita which considers
him as Nirguna. Therefore, his gunapurnatva is established by quoting
8) KARMANIRNAYA
the relevant sruti passages. Then the question 'How can the God
The purpose of this text is to explain the philosophical meaning be conveyed by the Veda, because, vedas communicate something
of Rgveda. For this purpose Mahanamni hymns are selected. These that is to be acted upon` is raised. It is claimed that all sentences
hymns are called Mahanamni, because, the names of Indra etc., communicate Karya only.

(ò) X"sAY"z E" _"\"ê\"uQpS"pz O"pOT"Y"| drT"O"u# T"ZX"o $ This question is answered by pointing out that even Siddhavastu

íO@¡^"uê O"s O"QSY"e" O"pOT"Y"| _Y"pQ\"pSO"ZX"o $ 65. Y" òGY"O"u {\"R"rð"pS"ð"@ø¡T"t\"vê# _"Qp X"A"v# $
ò{O" X"`p\"pZp`u $ ZX"pT"øN"{Y"S"u O"_X"v _"\"êY"c"W"sG"u S"X"# $$ (@¡.{S".)
(òê) V"øÏ"p {ð"\"# _"sZpüpÆ" ð"ZrZZb"N"pO"o b"Zp# $
66. X"`ß"pX" Y"p_"s h¡b"s {\"üO"u O"p X"`pS"pXSY"# $
“bX"rZb"ZQu`O\"pQb"Zp O"OT"Zpu `qZ# $$ T"Z_Y" V"øÏ"pN"pu Y"ß"pX" òSçp{Q@z¡ O"SX"`pP"êO\"pO"o X"`O"o $(@¡.{S".)
_\"pO"SeY"ð"{˜¡{\"c"pS"_"sA"püvZ{A"“v# B"sN"v# $
{S"__"rX"O\"uS" O"u _"\"uê O"Ÿð"p# _"\"êQv\" E" $$ 67. O"e"v@u¡ ìp`l# ìB"sN"z V"øÏ"u{O" $ S" O"Qo Y"s˜¡X"o $
(í) ï@¡pu S"pZpY"N" ìp_"rO"o S" V"øÏ"p S"uð"pS"pu S"pÐ"r^"puX"pv ds{O"Y"s{˜¡{\"ZpuR"pO"o $ (@¡.{S".)
S"uX"u üp\"p T"w{P"\"r $ 68. S" E" {_"«u&P"uê \"p×Y"_Y" T"øpX"pNY"pW"p\"pO"o
(î¡) S"pX"p{S" _"\"pê{N" Y"X"p{\"ð"[SO" òêÄ"Zpü{_"{«# $ {_"«p{O"qZ˜¡@¡pY"pêW"p\"pO"o $
O"z \"v {\"^N"sz T"ZX"X"sQp`Z[SO" $$ {“ŒpüP"ê_O"s òÍ>_"pR"S"O\"X"u\" $ S" {`
ì_Y"v\" _"\"êS"pX"p{S" \Y"{O"qZ˜¡_Y" _"\"êO"# $ @¡O"ê\Y"O\"z S"pX" òÍ>_"pR"S"O\"pQSY"O"o {@¡{ú"O"o
Y"# _\"O"Se"# _"Qv\"v@¡# _" {\"^N"s# T"ZX"pu X"O"# $ ìO"# {_"«u&P"uê T"øpX"pNY"{_"«uÆ"
({\".O".{S".) {_"«z X"`pB"sN"\"f\"z {\"^N"pu# $ (@¡.{S".)
 34
is conveyed by the sentences and therefore, there is no difficulty contexts is supposed to be a modern method. However, Sri
to convey Visnu by the veda. Madhvacharya had employed this method seven hundred years
before in his Rgbhasya and Karmanirnaya. Ancient laxicons like
After the Above Preliminary observations, the Mahanamni hymns
sabdatatva are also quoted.
are interpreted word by word. The import of the very first hymn
is explained as under: 'O, Lord of the Sacrifice! give us the Another interesting question raised while interpreting these hymns
knowledge to praise you, teach us the import of the traditionally is the relative position of Vachanika artha and tatparya artha. So
handed down hymns. You are the lord of the speech and you are far as the Vedas are concerned, there is no Tatparyartha. It is always
the lord of the knowledge. vachanikartha. Even the Arthavadas have Vachanika artha. In
Pouruseya statements, the Vachanikartha helps to infer the tatparyartha.
While giving the above import the passages from other hymns
Its validity depends upon the reliability of the speaker.
are profusely quoted in support of the meaning given. For instance,
to support the meaning given to the word Maghavan, as many as Another interesting point that is stated: All Vedic words are
seven occurances of the word Magha and Maghavan in Rgveda Yaugika words. When a word is stated as Rudha, it only indicates
are given. The method of fixing the meaning of a word in Rgveda Yoga-visranti i.e., stopping of the discovery of further yoga.
by examining its occurances in other places of Rgveda in different There are many levels of Mukhyarthas. The Supreme God is
Paramamukhyartha of every word.
69. Y"e" \"pE"{S"@¡pP"pêQSY"# O"pOT"Y"pêP"ê# T"øO"rY"O"u “pv{@¡@¡\"p×Y"u^"s S" O"e" All sacrifices and rituals should be performed with the devotion
_"pb"pQo \"E"S"z T"øV"puR"@¡X"o $ \"E"S"{“Œ@¡pS"sX"p {` _"p $ to the God and the detachment from worldly results. All sacrifices
{\"ZpuR"pQX"sAY"\"w{f"\"pê ìpÊ"O\"{S"Æ"Y"u $ ìpÊ"O\"p{S"Æ"Y"u be offered at the feet of the God.

T"øX"pN"X"u\" S" W"\"{O" $ \"uQ\"p×Y"_Y" O"s \"pE"{S"@¡pP"| {\"S"p 9) PRAMANALAKSANA

This is a work of Epistemology. In this work the nature and the
S"v\"pSY"pu Y"sGY"O"u $ \"pE"{S"@¡pS"pz O"s V"`mS"pX"{T" ì{\"ZpuR"u number of Pramanas are discussed. The work begins with a definition
_\"r@¡pY"êO"p $ (@¡.{S".) of Pramana as 'Yathartham Pramanam`. This covers both the
70. ì) á¡{M>Y"puB"pv {\"S"p @¡{Æ"O"o S"v\"pP"puê \"uQB"pu W"\"uO"o $ knowledge and the means of knowledge. The knowledge is

O"e"p{T" Y"pv{B"@¡pu X"sAY"# _"\"êe"p[_O" _" \"v{Q@u¡ $ 72. Y"P"pP"| T"øX"pN"X"o $ O"Qo {Ÿ{\"R"z @u¡\"“X"S"sT"øX"pN"z E" $
ìS"\"_P"p {S"\"wfY"P"| Y"pv{B"@u¡ á¡M>@¡ÚT"S"p $ Y"P"pP"êc"pS"z @u¡\"“X"o $ O"O_"pR"S"X"S"sT"øX"pN"X"o $ (T"ø.“.)
ìp) X"sAY"pP"pêS"pz E" _"\"uê^"pz O"pZO"XY"z E" {\"üO"u 73. {S"Qpuê^"u[SçY"pP"ê_"{ß"@¡^"ê# T"øOY"b"X"o $ {S"Qpuê^"puT"T"{f"ZS"sX"pS"X"o $
O"e"p{T" T"ZX"pu X"sAY"pu \"pEY"pu&ð"u^"Z\"v# `qZ# $$(@¡.{S".) {S"Qpuê^"# ð"VQ# ìpB"X"# $ ìP"pêT"fY"sT"X"u ìS"sX"p{\"ð"u^"# $
71. W"B"\"¬{˜¡c"pS"T"t\"ê@z¡ E" @¡X"ê @¡O"ê\Y"X"o $ (@¡.{S".) ìW"p\"pu&S"sX"p T"øOY"b"z \"p $ (T"ø.“.)
 35
Kevalapramana while the means of the knowledge are Anupramana. arguments. These details are fully explained in the commentaries.
The word Pramana admits both the meanings viz., the knowledge The details of Nigrahasthana, Jati etc., are also explained.
and its means. The knowledge is called Kevala-pramana while means All the fallacies and the other defects listed above are shown
of the knowledge are called Anupramana. The kevala-pramana is in the syllogism proposed by Advaita to posit Mithyatva.
further classified as Isvarajnana, Laksmijnana etc.
The definitions of Pramana given by Prabhakaras and Bhattas
Anupramana is classified as Pratyaksa, Anumana and Agama. are rejected. Smriti is declared to be Pramana.
Arthapatti and Upamana are brought under Anumana only. Sambhava
and Parisesa are also brought under Anumana. Upakrama etc., are At the close of the text it is stated that the Pramana laksana
and the other details given here are drawn from Brahmatarka.
a form of arguments. Samakhya, vakya, prakarana etc. are also the
same. 10) KATHALAKSANAM
The contact between the senses and the objects that is free from The Philosophical debate is called Katha. Certain guidelines and
the defects is Pratyaksa. The arguments free from the defects are rules are laid down for philosophical debate in Indian tradition. These
Anumana. The verbal communication free from the defects is are given in this text.
Sabdapramana. Vyapti i.e., invariable association is the ground of The Philosophical debate is classified in three categories viz., vada,
the argument. Conflict and incugruity are the defects of the Jalpa and Vitanda.

74. íT"@ø¡X"puT"_"z`pZO"Qv@¡á¡TY"pWY"p_"pT"t\"êO"pU¡“pP"ê\"pQpÆ" i) When the teacher and the pupil or any two friendly scholars
conduct a debate in order to discover the truth or to show the truth
íT"T"{f"{\"ð"u^"p# $ _"X"pAY"p\"p×Y"T"ø@¡ZN"_P"pS"p{S" E" more clearly and precisely, it is called vada.
{“Œ{\"ð"u^"p# $ (T"ø.“.) ii) When two scholars enter into a debate to obtain the fame as
75. _"\"uê ïO"u ªðY"O\"pS"sX"pS"u çÍ>\Y"p# $ (T"ø.“.) a scholar or envying each other's scholarship, then, it is called Jalpa.

76. ìpS"SQO"rP"êX"s{S"S"p V"øÏ"O"@¡pu꘡X"pB"êO"# $ iii)When one of the scholar has an intention to conceil or to reject

X"pS"“b"N"{X"OY"s˜z¡ _"•uT"pQo V"øÏ"{_"«Y"u $$ (T"ø.“.) 79. ZpB"Ÿu^"{\"`rS"p_O"s _"\"ê{\"üp{\"ð"pZQp#

77. \"pQpu G"ÚT"pu {\"O"NL>u{O" {e"{\"R"p {\"Ql^"pz @¡P"p $ (@¡.“.) T"øp{Å"@¡p ò{O" {\"c"uY"p# {\"^"X"p#
78. ì) O"f\"{S"N"êY"X"s{©ðY" @u¡\"“z B"sà{ð"^Y"Y"pu# $ ï@¡ ï\" \"p
@¡P"p&SY"u^"pX"{T" _"O"pz \"pQpu \"p _"{X"O"u# ð"sW"p $ ìð"u^"_"zð"Y"EF>uf"p {S"#_"zð"Y" íQpZR"r# $
ìp) AY"pOY"püP"| _T"R"êY"p \"p _"O"pz G"ÚT" òO"rY"êO"u $ ï@¡pu \"p V"`\"pu \"p _Y"s# {\"^N"sW"{˜¡T"Zp# _"Qp $ (@¡.“.)
 36
the truth and enters into an argument with such intentions, then it
is called vitanda.

For a philosophical debate apart from the two contenders, one

or more Prasnikas i.e., referees are necessary. These must be
impartial, should be able to remove the doubts, free from the malice,
and god-minded.
An important requirement of a philosophical debate in Vedanta
is, one has to quote from the scripture to establish his point. The
other party also should establish his contention by interpreting the
scripture to support his contention. The arguments should be used
only to determine the meaning of the scripture one way or the other.
In the case of Vada, the inability to determine the truth itself,
is defeat. In Jalpa one who is silenced in the debate has to be blamed
or fined. The same is the case in Vitanda also.
These details of the philosophical debate are also derived from
Brahmatarka.
From the above summary it is clear that all important doctrines
of Dvaita Vedanta are briefly touched in Dasaprakaranas. Important
Sruti passages are also interpreted. A study of these will naturally
provide a good foundation for the advanced study of Dvaita Vedanta.

Prof. K.T. Pandurangi

Upakulapathi, Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha

80. ì) O"f\"{S"N"êY"\"v“puXY"z _"pb"pO"o \"pQu T"ZpG"Y"# $

ìp) {\"ZpuR"p_"Œ{O"SY"tS"O"t^N"rXW"p\"p{Q@v¡{G"êO"# W"\"uO"o G"ÚT"u $
ò) {\"O"NL>pY"pz SY"pY"pu G"ÚT"\"QrqZO"# $