Advaida Siddhi

.
ÌX1AAR<A\$_B
Advaitasiddhisarasamgraha
compiled by
V. Swaminathan
under the guidance of

Dr. R. Krishnamurthi Sastrigal, M.A., Ph..D.,
Principal, Sanskrit College, Mylapore, Chennai 600004.
"Sankara Nilayam",
2, Sankaranarayana Street,
Tambaram Sanatorium East, Chennai, 600047.
Published on the eve of

2509th Jayanthi celebrations of
ADI SANKARA BHAGAVATPADA
on 28th April, 2001
1
2
Table of Contents
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 10
Stotras of Madhusudana Saraswati....................................................................................... 12
6S<'(3
W3 ............................................................................................................................. 13
Paricheda I ....................................................................................................................... 13

>6
>6__16 H
16 H>>R ·;A;>'
·;A;>'R<
R<Rm
Rm1>
1>
5
5Á60
Á60::Q
.................................................................................................... 15
1. Proof for discussion the sentence with diversity of opinions. ........................................ 15

66D 1
1R>'
R>'(( W3">'
">'R<
......................................................................................................................... 15
2. Discussion of the delimiting adjunct of subject. ............................................................. 15
6
6__6 b :2;
6b :2;R1
R1>>
5Á6
5Á600: Q
6

6__2 :
2:\ \
.............................................................................................................. 16
3. Proof Of Non-Reality Of World...................................................................................... 16
(Non-Reality Is Different From Being And Unbeing).......................................................... 16

1
1T;
T;

:2;
:2;R1
R1>>=D
=D00: Q
...................................................................................................................... 16
4. Second Definition of Non-reality....................................................................................... 17

11Y 1 T;
T;: 2;
2;RR1>=
1>=DD0
0:Q
......................................................................................................................... 17
5. Third Definition Of Non-Reality....................................................................................... 17
'
'11U 2
2] ]
::2;
2;RR1>=
1>=DD0
0: Q
.......................................................................................................................... 17
6. Fourth Definition Of Non-Reality................................................................................... 17
6
6+':
+':
:2;
:2;R1
R1>>=D
=D00: Q
........................................................................................................................ 18
7. Fifth Definition Of Non-Reality ...................................................................................... 18

:
:2;
2;R1
R1>> :2;
:2;R1
R1>>: Q
............................................................................................................................. 18
8. Non-Reality Of The Non-Reality ...................................................................................... 18
?;
?;1>
1>B
BWW1
1V V6 6H
66H
.............................................................................................................................. 18
9.Compatibility of Cognisability as cause .............................................................................. 19

)). 1>
1>B
BWW1
1V V6 6H
66H
............................................................................................................................ 19
10.Compatibility of Insentience as cause............................................................................... 19
6
6S< t'( ¿1>B
¿1>BWW1V 6 6H
66H
....................................................................................................................... 19
11.Compatibility of Limitedness as cause ............................................................................ 19

Ì\
Ì\?1 >B
?1> BWW1
1V V6 6H
66H
............................................................................................................................ 20
12. Compatibility Of Being An Effect as cause.................................................................. 20
A
ARW 6 R4"1
6R 4"1>>
5 < RA
........................................................................................................................ 20
13. Refutation Of Adventious Condition............................................................................. 20
ÌR9
ÌR9RAA
RAARR:;
:;
9m
9m
........................................................................................................................... 21
14. Refutation Of Similarity With Pseudo Inferences..................................................... 21
3

66_ 1;D 8 R4
1;D R4RW R<
R<
.............................................................................................................................. 21
15. Refutation Of "Contradiction By Perception"............................................................. 21

66_ 1;D 6_ R8 º;9
1;D6 º;9m
.......................................................................................................................... 22
16. Refutation Of "Superior Validity Of Perception" ..................................................... 22

66_ 1 ;DA; Ì5
1;DA;Ì 5U : R5
:R 8 R4
R4;;1>
1>: Q Q
................................................................................................................ 23
17. Sublatability Of Perception By Inference .................................................................... 23

66_ 1;DA; ÌR$
1;DA;Ì R$:
88 R4>
R4>1>
1>:
:QQ
.................................................................................................................. 23
18. Sublatability Of Perception By Sruti............................................................................ 23
Ì6'( W 3 5; R;
35; R;> X @ :;
@:; 99m
.............................................................................................................. 24
19. Disproof Of The Inequality Of Apaccheda Nyaya .................................................... 24

>>S 5B?
5B?XX1 ; Ì 5U
1; : 1
: 1
A
AR:;
R:;
99m
........................................................................................................... 24
20. Refutation Of The Equality Of The Inference "Fire Is Cold".................................... 24

66_ 1;DA; =mR
1;DA; =mR}}8
8RR4;1
4;1>>W8
8RR4":
4":Q
........................................................................................................... 25
21. Refutation Of " Perception Cannot Be Sublated By Inference" ................................ 25

9
9R>
R>8
8R
R44R
RWW6 6 H
66
.......................................................................................................................... 25
22. Compatibility Of Future Sublation .............................................................................. 25

A
A1;1
1;1>>
Ì 5
5UU:R
R59m
59m
...................................................................................................................... 25
23. Refutation Of Inference Of Absolute Reality Of The Empirical World ...................... 26

::2;
2;RR1>
1>WW
?
?WW@ Ì 5U :
@ R5 :Q
:R
................................................................................................................... 26
24. Special Syllogisms On Non-Reality................................................................................ 27
Ì
Ì22
Ì
ÌR
R$ :
:88R
R44Í
ÍR<
................................................................................................................... 27
25. Justification Of Sublation By Srutis .............................................................................. 28

ÌA
ÌA1
1A
AR4"1
R4"1>>: Q
............................................................................................................................ 28
26. Non-Real is Capable of Proof........................................................................................... 29
ÌA
ÌA1
1
AR
AR44"1>
"1>
Ì9
Ì9R>
R>WW8
8R4"
R4"::Q
............................................................................................................ 29
27. Sublation of "Non-real cannot prove" ........................................................................... 29

$?
$?;
;A
A\\8 54
54

99m
.......................................................................................................................... 30
28. Refutation Of The Cogniser-Cognised Relation.............................................................. 30

Ì
Ì5
5U "
"VV=1"
=1"]]
5Á6
5Á600: Q
..................................................................................................................... 30
29. Proof Of Favourable Logic............................................................................................... 30

6
6__1 ":
":]]>;>A
>;>A22R
........................................................................................................................... 30
30. Pratikarma-vyavastha ....................................................................................................... 31
6
6__1 "
"VV=1"]
=1" ]
5
5<<R"<0
R"<0: Q
..................................................................................................................... 31
31. Refutation Of Counter-Reasoning.................................................................................. 32
4

::2;
2;RR1>
1>FU 1 ; U6
1;U 6H
66H
......................................................................................................................... 32
32. Compatibility Of The "Non-Reality" Srutis.................................................................... 32
Ì
ÌXX1 FU1
1FU 1W W8 R] 4 R W
4RW R<
R<
........................................................................................................................... 33
33. Refutation Of Sublation Of The "Non-Dual" Srutis ..................................................... 33

Ï":
Ï":WW>
>W W1; R3
1;R 3F
FUU1 ;2 ]>'
1;2] >'RR<
............................................................................................................... 33
34. Discussion Of The Meaning Of The Sruti " One And Only Non-Dual" Etc ............. 34

E
ER5 5>
5>1;
1;]]1 >
1> Ì 5;2
5;2RÌ
RÌ55U 6 6H
66H
.......................................................................................................... 34
35. Incompatibility Of An Alternative To Knowledge For Sublatability............................ 35

A
AYY
Í
Í666H
............................................................................................................................ 35
36 Compatibility Of "Sight-Creation".................................................................................. 35
Ï"
Ï"
)T
)T>>

>
> R3
........................................................................................................................... 36
37.Discussion on One Individual Self ................................................................................... 36

ÌE
ÌER5 >
>R3
R3WW E R5
E
=D
=D00
55À
Àtt·H
........................................................................................................ 36
38.Discussion on Ignorance - Definition Of Ignorance ........................................................ 36

ÌE
ÌER5 >
>R3
R3WW1G
1G
6
6_ 1;D6 _:
1;D6_ R 0RW 6
:R0 6H
66H
.......................................................................................................... 37
39.Compatibility of Perception As Evidence Of Ignorance................................................. 37

ÌE
ÌER5 >
>R3
R3WWÌ5 U : R5 Í6
Í666H
................................................................................................................ 37
40.Compatibility of Inference On Ignorance........................................................................ 38
ÌE
ÌER5 >
>R3
R3WWFU 1 ; U6
1;U 6H
66H
....................................................................................................................... 38
41.Compatibility of Srutis On Ignorance.............................................................................. 38
Ì
ÌEER 5
5>>R
R3W
3WÌ2
Ì2R] 6 H; U6
6H;U 6H
66H
................................................................................................................... 39
42.Compatibility of Presumption On Ignorance .................................................................. 39
ÌE
ÌER5 >
>R3
R3WW1
116
16__1 T1;
1T 1;UU6 6H
66H
.................................................................................................................... 39
43.Compatibilty of Knowledge Of Ignorance ...................................................................... 39
Ì
ÌEER 5
5>>R
R3W
3WÌ
Ì>>}R;
}R;R'
R'5
5:R
:RGGRF;
RF;1>
1>
Í66
Í66H
............................................................................................. 39
44.Compatibility - Consciousness Is The Locus Of nescience ............................................ 40
Ì
ÌEER 5
5>>R
R3W
3WÌ>}R
Ì>}R;;R
RAA>
>]]E R F1>Í
ERF 1>Í666H
.................................................................................................... 40
45.Compatibility- Omniscient Brahman Is The Locus Of nescience.................................. 40
Ì
ÌEER 5>
5>R3WÌ>}R;
Ì>}R;R
R>>R'A6
R'A61 A
A\\: 1)T
1)T>>RF
RF;;1>
1>
Í6
Í666H
................................................................................... 40
46.Compatibility of Jiva As Locus Of nescience according to Vachaspati ........................ 40
Ì
ÌEER 5
5>>R
R3W
3WÌE
ÌERR5

>
>@;
@;
55Á60
Á60:Q
......................................................................................................... 41
47.Proof of Object Of Ignorance........................................................................................... 41

ÌB
ÌB:
:2
2]] Ì5 R1 : 1>
Ì 1>
Í66
Í66H
................................................................................................................ 41
48. Compatibility of "I" is non-self. ....................................................................................... 41
5

"1
"1]]Y 1> Ì4;RA
1>Ì4; RAR
RÍ66
Í66H
.................................................................................................................. 42
49. Compatibility of Supeimposition ofAgency ..................................................................... 42

3W
3WB R1 :X ·
BR1: ;R4; RA
·;R4; RAÍ66
Í66H
.................................................................................................................... 42
50. Compatibility of Superimposition Of identity between Body and Self ....................... 42
Ì
Ì5
5>>R] ' ;1>= D0
';1>=D 0
Í66
Í66H
................................................................................................................ 43
51.Compatibility of the Definition Of indeterminability .................................................... 43

ÌÌ5 >
>R] ' ;1> W6
';1>W 6__1 ; D
1;D Ì
Ì5
5UU: R5 6
6__: R0
R05 Á60
Á60:Q
............................................................................................... 43
52.Proof of Indeterminability by Perception And Inference.............................................. 43

ÌÌ5 >
>R] ' ;1> WÌ2
';1>W Ì2R] 6 H6 _: R0
6H6_ R0
5Á6
5Á600: Q
.................................................................................................... 44
53. Proof of Indeterminability by Presumption.................................................................... 44

5
5@@W 4 6 _1 ;
46_ ;RW
RW$1 >R 5
$1> 5UU6 6H; RÌ
66H;RÌ 5 >
>]]' 5T; 1>
'5T; 1>AA: 2
2]]5 : Q
5:
......................................................................................... 44
54.Justification of indeterminability by the Incompatibility Of Counter-Positive Of
Negation .................................................................................................................................... 44

F
FUU1 ;2 R] 6
1;2 HÍ66 H
6HÍ66
........................................................................................................................ 44
55. Compatibility of Presumption of Srutis .......................................................................... 45
ÌA
ÌA1#;
1#;R 1
199m
.............................................................................................................................. 45
56. Refutaton Of Asatkhyati.................................................................................................... 45

ÌÌ5;2
5;2R#
R#;;R 1
199m
............................................................................................................................ 46
57 Refutation Of Anyatha-khyati .......................................................................................... 46

ÌÌR
R>>}"<)
}"<)11
ÍÍ16H
16H
Í66
Í66H
............................................................................................................ 46
58. Compatibility Of Birth Of Silver Due To nescience...................................................... 46
9
9__: A;> Y
:A;>Y 1;Í 66H
1;Í6
....................................................................................................................... 47
59. Compatibility Of Two Mental States(vrittis) In Illusory Knowledge............................ 47
AH
AHRG
RGXX >4; Í66
>4; Í66H
......................................................................................................................... 47
60. Compatibility Of Three Existences (Being) ..................................................................... 47
1T;6S<'(3........................................................................................................................
W3 49
Paricheda 2 ....................................................................................................................... 49
Ì#
Ì#0. R2
R2]]=D0 :Q
=D0:
............................................................................................................................... 49
1.Definition Of Impartite Knowledge.................................................................................... 50
A
A1;
1;RR3
3>>R ·;
·;Ì #0
#0.. R2
R2]]1 > RW 6
1> 6H
66H
........................................................................................................... 50
2.Compatibility of Impartite Knowledge Of Sentence of Satya Etc ................................... 50

111
1>>: A;
A;RR3
3>>R ·;R
·;R22] Í66H
Í66H
.................................................................................................................. 51
3.Compatibility of the Meaning Of sentence "Thou Art That" etc. .................................... 51

88_ ¯ 0 RW5 $
¯0RW $]]U 0 1>Í 66H
01>Í6
...................................................................................................................... 51
6
4.Compatibility of Attributelessness Of Brahman ............................................................... 51

5
5$$]U 0
0WWA6
A6__: R 01 R
:R0
............................................................................................................................... 52
5. Proof Of Attributelessness................................................................................................. 52

88_ ¯ 0 RW5 <R"
¯0RW <R"R<1
R<1>>Í
Í666H
................................................................................................................... 53
6.Compartibility of Brahman's Formlessness ..................................................................... 53

88_ ¯ 0 RWE
¯0RW E R5 1>
1>R
R3Í66
3Í66H
.................................................................................................................... 53
7.Compatibility of Knowledge Etc Of Brahman .................................................................. 54

88_ ¯ 0 RW
¯0RW 9¿ 5 :H
9¿ :HRW 6 R 3R5 1>
6R3 1>WW Í66H
Í66H
......................................................................................................... 54
8.Compatibility of Brahman as Both Material And Efficient Cause................................... 54

88_ ¯ 0 RW>?>"
¯0RW >?>"1
1YY] 1 >Í66 H
1>Í66
.................................................................................................................... 55
9.Compatibility of Braman As World Creator..................................................................... 55

88_ ¯ 0R W
¯0RW 9¿
9 ¿5 :H
:HRW 6 R 3R5
6R3 R51>
1>WW6
6__: R 0Í66
:R0 Í66H
................................................................................................. 55
10.Compatibility of the proof of Brahman as Both Efficient And Material Cause............ 56
8
8__¯ 0A6 _"
¯0A6_ R?1 >=
"R?1> =DD0Í6
0Í666H
........................................................................................................... 56
11.Compatibility of the definition that Brahman Is Self Luminous .................................... 57
A6
A6__" R? 1>Í6
"R? 1>Í666H
.......................................................................................................................... 57
12.Compatibility of the Self Luminosity Of Brahman......................................................... 57
?
?83
83Ì
Ì>
>R';
R';1>
1>
Í66
Í66H
................................................................................................................... 57
13.Compatibility that Brahman Is Not Describable By Words directly. .......................... 57
A
ARR: R5
R5;;1
1RW9W 3#0. 5 : Q
3#0.
........................................................................................................................ 58
14. Refutation Of Difference In General................................................................................ 58

>
>?
?W @ 1 RW9W 3
@1 #0 . 5:
3#0. 5:Q
......................................................................................................................... 58
15. Refutation Of Difference In Particular ............................................................................ 58

>>?
?WW@ #0
@ #0.. 5
5::Q
............................................................................................................................... 58
16. Refutation Of The Particularity ....................................................................................... 58
9
9WW3 6 b"
36b "WW6_
6 _1 ;D 9m
1;D9
.......................................................................................................................... 59
17. Refutation Of Perception In Five Differences ............................................................... 59
)
)T>
T>88_ ¯ 9 W3
¯9W R 5U :
3R5 R5
:R 599m
........................................................................................................................ 59
18. Refutation Of Difference Between Jiva And Brahman ................................................. 60
)
)T>6
T>6<A6<9
<A6<9WW3 R5 U:
3R5U R59m
:R
..................................................................................................................... 60
19. Refutation Of difference Between Jivas ........................................................................... 60
)
)T>
T>99W 3W 5
5U U"
"VV=1"
=1"]]9m
9m
........................................................................................................................ 60
20 Refutation Of Logic On Difference Between Jivas .......................................................... 60
9
9WW3 6+'" 5U : R5
36+'" 5 R5
9
9 m
........................................................................................................................ 61
7
21. Refutation Of Five Differences (Logical) ....................................................................... 61
9
9WW3FU1W <
3FU 5 U>
<5U R 31>
>R3 1>Í66
Í66H
..................................................................................................................... 61
22 Compatibility - Srutis On Differences Are Restatements................................................ 61
9
9WW3 FU1W >
3FU ;R ]BRS<"9W
>;R] BRS<"9 W3 6<1> Í6
36<1> Í666H
......................................................................................................... 62
23. Compatibility - Srutis On Differences Are Based On Empiricality ............................ 62

??8
833R5 1 <R
<R3W
3W ÌR 1:
ÌR1 :99W 3AR4"1 >
3AR4"1> ÌA
ÌA\\9 >
9>
..................................................................................................... 62
24. Other Srutis Cannot Establish Difference .................................................................... 62
9
9WW3 FU1W
3FU @ t.Q >4
@t >41 R1
R166;
;]]=m9 m
=m9
.............................................................................................................. 62
25. Refutation Of The Import of Six Principles In Srutis On Difference......................... 63
Ï
ÏWW· ;A>Á6Í66 H
·;A>Á6Í66
.......................................................................................................................... 63
26. Essential Nature Of Unity ................................................................................................ 63
)
)T>
T>8_ ¯ R9 W3
¯R9W 3WW6
6__: R 0:
:R0 :Q
.......................................................................................................................... 63
27. Authority On Non-Difference Between Jiva And Brahman ......................................... 63
Ï
ÏWW· ;F U1
·;FU 1W WÀ 6) T>;
À6) T>;>>< RW 4 R9 R>
4R9
.................................................................................................................. 64
28. Non-Contradiction Of The Evidence Which Is Depended Upon With The Srutis On
Unity .......................................................................................................................................... 64

111
1>>: A
A>>R ·;
·;RR2
2]] 5Á60
5Á60: Q Q
................................................................................................................. 64
29 Proof of the Meaning Of the sentence - 'Thou Art That.................................................. 65
ÌB
ÌB\\ 8
8__¯ R A:
¯RA :ÒÒ1;
1;RR3
3ÌÌ5W " FU1
"F ;2 ]"2
1;2] "255: Q
.................................................................................................... 65
30. Meaning Of Srutis 'I Am Brahman' Etc ......................................................................... 66
)
)T>
T>88_ ¯ Ì9 W3R 5
¯Ì9W 5UU: R5 : Q
....................................................................................................................... 66
31. Inference On Non-Difference Between Jiva And Brahman ........................................... 66

Ì\
Ì\?1 >W 5
?1> Ï W·
5ÏW ; RW6
·;RW 6H
66H
........................................................................................................................ 67
32.Compatibility of Non-Difference as Composite.............................................................. 67

88: 86
86__ 1 8 : 8
1 5;
5;R;
R;WW5
ÏÏW · ;A
·;A
............................................................................................................ 67
33. By Logic Of Original And Reflection Non-Difference is proved. ................................. 67

)T
)T>
>R
R0
0U 1 > #
1> # 0. 5 : Q
.......................................................................................................................... 68
34.Refutation that Jiva Is Atomic (Minute) ......................................................................... 68
11Y1T;6S<'(3.........................................................................................................................
W3 69
PARICHEDA 3 .............................................................................................................. 69
:
:5 5 5
334;RA
4;RA5;
5;RW F>0 Rm 1>
F>0 1>
Í66
Í66H
....................................................................................................... 70
1. Thinking And Meditating Are Subsidiary To Hearing .................................................... 70

>>>
><<0
0RW
RW· H 5
·H 5;;:
:RW 6 6H
66H
...................................................................................................................... 70
2. Ordained Injunction Of Vivarana .................................................................................... 70
8
F>
F>00R 3W > ]4
>] 4W W; 1>Í6 6H
;1>Í66
....................................................................................................................... 71
3.Compatibility of Hearing Etc As An Injunction ............................................................... 71

>>'
'RR<A;F>
<A;F>00
>>
44: V = 1>Í66 H
=1>Í66
............................................................................................................ 71
4.Compatibility - Hearing Is The Root Cause For Discussion ............................................ 71
>
>R'A61;
R'A61;UU· HA>R4;; >
·HA>R4;; >4
4>'
>'R<
<Ì RD
RDWW6 "1>Í66 H
6"1>Í66
....................................................................................... 72
5.Compatibility of the presumptive discussion by the injunction of Adyayana according to
Vachaspati's View .................................................................................................................... 72

EER 5A;
5A;
6
6UUÀ@ 1 5G
À@ 5G11R
R9m
9m
..................................................................................................................... 72
6. Refutation Of Man's Effort For Knowledge..................................................................... 72
E
ER5
>>
449m
................................................................................................................................. 73
7. Refutation Of Injunction Of Knowledge............................................................................ 73
?
?R8 3R6
3R6<RW D 1> : Q
D1>
................................................................................................................................. 73
8. Immediate Knowledge From Verbal Testimony ............................................................... 73
'1U2]]6
6S<'(3...........................................................................................................................
W3 74
PARICHEDA 4 ............................................................................................................... 74
Ì
Ì>>}R
}R5
5>>Y H 5Á6
H 5Á600: Q
...................................................................................................................... 75
1. Proof Of Eradication Of nescience .................................................................................... 75

ÌÌ>}
>}RR5 >
>1
1]]" 5Á60
" 5Á60: Q
..................................................................................................................... 76
2.Proof of Eradicator Of nescience....................................................................................... 76

::U · H W<
·HW R 55 3Á61>
<R5 3Á61>WW5 6U À
56 @R 2] 5 Á60
À@R2 Á60:Q
............................................................................................................ 76
3.Proof - Moksha Is Bliss And Man's Goal....................................................................... 76
'
'5
5:R
:RGGA;:
A;:RW
RWD 9 R
D9 R$$1
1>>Í66H
Í66HWW
................................................................................................................ 77
4.Compatibility - Consciousness Alone gets the release........................................................ 77
)
)T>
T>5: U t ·HÍ6 6H
t·HÍ66
........................................................................................................................... 77
5. Compatibility Of Jivanmukthi............................................................................................ 77

::U · H RX1
·HRX 1RR<1 :;
:;99m
............................................................................................................................. 77
6.Refutation of presence of Gradation in Mukti ................................................................... 78
Books ......................................................................................................................................... 78
1. Sanskrit ................................................................................................................................. 78
2. English................................................................................................................................... 78
Appendix I ............................................................................................................................... 79
Appendix II .............................................................................................................................. 83
9
Introduction
If an attempt has to be made to evolve a globalised religion, acceptable to Christians, Muslims,

Buddhists, Hindus etc., it has to be o n the sheet anchor of the commentaries of Sankara Bhagavatpada
(508 BC) on the three basic texts on philosophy-Vedanta (Prasthana Thraya - Upanishads, Brahma
Sutras and Gita} in general and the Adhyasa Bhashya (introduction to his Brahmasutra Bhashya ) in
particular. From this flows the different literature on Advaita.
Advaita literature can be broadly classified under two categories. First, those which strengthen the
arguments in the Sutra Bhashya. Second , those which are independent works defending the tenets of
Advaita involving a debative style.
The first category again contains two important branches. One is by Padmapada (sishya of
Bhagavadpada) in Panchapadika, which has a commentary by Prakasatman(1200 AD) in Vivarana
which again has a commentary by Akhandananda (1350 AD) in his Tatvadipana. This is called the
Vivarana school. The second is by Vachaspatimishra (840 AD) in his Bhamati,which has a commentary
by Amalananda (1260 AD) in his Kalpataru, which again has a commentary by Appayya Dikshita
(1600 AD) in his Parimala. This is called the Bhamati school. These two differ in some aspects of
reasoning adopted in explaining the multiplicity while strengthening Advaitic point of view.
The second category contains three important independent works defending Advaitic concepts.
These are highly dialectical in nature. 1) Khandana -khanda-Khadya by Sri Harsha (1200 AD)
2) Citsukhi by Citsukhacharya (13th century AD) 3) Advaitasiddhi by Madhusudana Saraswati
(16th century AD).
Advaitasiddhi, unlike the other independent works is a verbatim rejoinder to the arguments by
Vyasathirtha (16th century AD) of the Dwaita philiosophy. There are three other important siddhi
works - Brahmsiddhi, Naishkarmyasiddhi and Ishtasiddi, dealing with what, how and why of Brahman.
Madhusudana Saraswati is a Sanyasi, of 16th Century, probably from Bengal and is a great devotee of
Sri Krishna as a child. He is said to be contemporary of Gadhadara and Goswami. His important other
works are:
1. Siddantabindu
2. Advaitaratnaraksana
3. Vedantakalpalatika
4. Samksepasarirakasara samgraha
5. Gitagudhartadipika
6. Bhaktirasayana
Advaitasiddhi contains four Paricchedas, nearly 108 topics. The first one with 60 topics and has taken
two thirds of the work, dealing mainly with Mithyatva. The second is about Brahman, third Sadana and
the
fourth Pala.
An attempt has been made in the booklet to give the Siddantas in Madhusudana's own words with the
English translation. Page No. in the edition of Parimal Publications has been given at the end of
each quotation.
For ready reference, a note on each of Logic and Grammar is given in Appendix I and II.
This is the seventh publication in the Vandanam series, previous ones are Sandya vandanam, Devata
vandanam, Guru vandanam, Gita vandanam, Upanishad vandanam and Nama vandanam.
10
This publication was possible only after my full-text study under Dr. R. Krishnamurthy Sastrigal, Principal
Sanskrit College, Mylapore, Chennai, who has spent considerable lot of his precious time in teaching
especially as I have not studied separately Grammar and Logic in the traditional detailed way. My
thanks are due to him in no small measure. My thanks are also due to Mr, S.V.S.Sastry and Mr, V.
Swaminatha Sastrigal for scrutinising the draft and for suggesting corrections in the translation. I am also
indebted to Dr. K. Ramasubramanian for hisd suggestions and the get up and Mr. Sateesha for his help in
proof reading. The work would not have been easy but for my newphew Mr, Sivasankar and his son Arun
who have made computer literate i n a short time and my thanks are due to them.
11
Stotras of Madhusudana Saraswati
:R;R"tº61:R1Y1R:U#:Y@RX16_6bRF;A1;ER5AU#R1:"FU1?#RW12R#0.4T$RW'<:2;R854>4V55W5
6<:R553X"1R5R1:":Q:RWD\6_RªÒ>A>;\>);1W>@0U>]"º6RWt)*1

1. Vishnu, who is the substratum for the illusory world of duality such as the character
of cogniser, who is Truth, Consciousness and Bliss, who is to be realised by the impartite
knowledge derived from the Mahavakyas, excels on his own, as if having attained sole
supreme blissful emancipation as a result of severing the non-real bondage and its
ramifications.
>\?TS>9V@1"<R¿>5T<3R9R1Q6T1R:8<R3À08:87=R4<RW®R1Q6V0W]53NAU53<:U#R3<>535WGR1Q"Y@0R16<\":6
11>:B\5)R5W

2. I do not know of Truth other than Krishna, whose hand is adorned with the flute,
who shines like the fresh clouds, who wears the yellow cloth, whose lips are red as the
Bimba fruit, whose face is attractive as that of the full moon and whose eyes are like
that of the lotus.
AT5R\Ò5X@":;]8_¯$R5R\Ò;\'<R1QÌX1A<4U5R'1U2T]A:)R;1

3. Advaitasiddhi, the fourth is now born, - of the other Siddhis, Ishta, Naishkarmya and Brahma.
X1\854R;:RWDR1Q6_R"Q6_RªW8RW4W:5T@;R9·H;2^"tº61\X1\ÌX1R36AU53<:Q
4. Duality is bondage before Moksha and after realisation it is wisdom. The imaginary
duality for the purpose of Bhakti is sweeter than even Non-duality.
Notes:- * The source for this fourth sloka by Madhusudana Sarasvati is not known but is quoted by Sri
Gautamananda, head of Ramakrishna Mutt, Madras.
12
6S<'(W3

Paricheda I
13
ÌX1A
AAR<A\$_B
Ì>1<0$_52
1GÌXX1AWX1:2;R1>AS6V>]"1>R1QX1:2;R1>:W>6_2::QÍ66R35T;:Q

Beginning of Grantha
First, the non-reality of duality has to be proved., as the accomplishment of non-duality

is preceded by the accomplishment of the non-reality of duality.
14

>6_16H>>R·;A;>'R<Rm1>5Á60:Q
1G:2;R1>W>6_16H8_¯6_:R1S<xÌ8R4;1>WA1A1>W56_1T1;B\]:Q'¿:Q6_16¿RW6R4RXGX"R="
5@W46_1;RW$5>R6R<:R2]"1>R"R<W0Íx5@W46_1;RW$5>RÒ1

1. Proof for discussion the sentence with diversity of opinions.
There is diversity of opinions on non-reality.
Whether it is or not?
1.When that cannot be sublated by any knowledge other than that of Brahman.,
it is capable of appearing as "is"
2. it is different from Consciousness,
3. it is the counter-positive which is negated for all time (past, present and future)
in the locus in which it appears.
4. it is the counter-correlative of the said negation in its absolute form.
6D1R>'(W3">'R<
>:1:Q:2;R"?;1>R1Q#).1>R1Q$6S<t'(¿1>R1Q?UxÁ6;>1Q

2. Discussion of the delimiting adjunct of subject.
1. The subject of dispute is non-real.
2. Because its being is a) Cognisability b) insentience c) limitedness
3. Like the shell-silver.

Notes: To prove the non-reality (Mityatva) of the world, the proposition has been brought out in the form of a syllogism.
1 is called Pratijna consisting of the first word (paksha/subject /minor) and the second word Sadya/probandum /to be
proved.
2 is called Hetu/reason/proof./probans
3. is called Drishtanta/example
15
66_6b:2;R1>
5Á60:Q

6_2:\

A3A=D01>:Q:2;R1>=D0:Q
1. :2;R?83RWÌ5>]'5T;1R>'5Ò16b6R3"R>'5R1QA3A354"<01>Á6:QÌ5>R]';1>:Q

A1>Ì1;51Ì9R>ÌA1>Ì1;51Ì9R>Á64:];>>DR;R\3RW@Ì9R>R1Q

3. Proof Of Non-Reality Of World
(Non-Reality Is Different From Being And Unbeing)
1. The word non-reality means "indeterminability" according to the author of

Panchapadika .What is not the locus of being and unbeing (opposite of being) is
indeterminable.
2. The character of absolute absence of being as well as the character of absolute

absence of unbeing is non-reality. There is no defect in the definition with these two
characteristics as intended.
Notes: 1. The above definition also indicates that non-reality is not the combination of both Sat and Sat.
2. Padmapada, the author of Panchapadika, was a student of Sankara.
3. Sat = absolute reality Asat = absolute un-reality (opposite of reality)
4 . Definition of Non-reality Author work
First Padmapada Panchapadika

Second & Third Prakasatman Vivarana
Fourth Chitsukha Tatvapradipika
Fifth Anandabhoda Nyayadipavali
5. Being/reality is further classified as follows:
a)6R<:R2]"absolute = Brahman

b)>;R>BRS<"empirical = other than Brahman

c)6_R19RA"phenomenal = objects of erroneous cognition (rope as serpent. shell

as silver) and dream objects.
6. Unreality is like hare's horn, that which does not exist - Thuchha.
7. Compound Sanskrit words have been split with a dash (-) for easier understanding.
1T;
:2;R1>=D0:Q
1. 6_16¿RW6R4RXGX"R="5@W46_1;RW$1>:Q>R:2;R1>:Q

Ï>\'6_"Y1W 65@W48R4"W56_1;RW$56_6bA;5@W4A;'8R45R1Q55@W4A;8R4;1>W 66_6bA;

1Rt1>"1>:Q

16
4. Second Definition of Non-reality
1. Non-realty is the character of the counter-positive of the negation for all

three times (past, present and future) in an object where it appears.
2. In the present case, the negation of the world (counter-positive) is equally negated,
with the negation of the negation, the world does not become real.
Notes: Pratiyogi = Pot is the Pratiyogi of the absence of Pot.
11Y1T;:2;R1>=D0:Q
ER55>1;]1>:Q>R:2;R1>:Q

>R1]""Y'Íx:Q
11>:A;R3>R·;RW12A:;$4T)5::RG1Ì>}RAB"R;W]05RAT3tA19>@;1

5. Third Definition Of Non-Reality
1. Non-reality means the character of being sublated by knowledge.

2. It has been said by the Vartikakara:
. As soon as the valid cognition is generated by the statement, "That thou art", nescience with its effects
becomes non-existent in the past , does not exist at present and will not exist in the future.
''1U2]:2;R1>=D0:Q
A>RF;5®Ì1;51Ì9R>6_1;RW$1>:Q>R:2;R1>:Q

1cA>R1;51R9R>R4"<0WÏ>6_1T;:R51>:Q

6. Fourth Definition Of Non-Reality
1, The non-reality of a thing is its character of being the counter-positive of the absolute negation
residing in its own locus.
2, That it appears where it does not exist.
17
Notes" In the second definition, the negation is in the locus where it appears.
In the fourth definition , it appears where the negation is.
66+':
:2;R1>=D0:Q
A>x1>:Q>R:2;R1>:Q

ÌGR6ÌA154]:]"W8__¯0'Ì1>;Rª>R<0R;A1>W56_1T;:R51>\>?W@0\3W;:Q

7. Fifth Definition Of Non-Reality
1. Non-reality is being different from the real.
2. Here also, an adjective has to be added - "it has to appear as existent" in order to avoid the defect
of extension of definition to absolutely real and absolutely unreal.
:2;R1>:2;R1>:Q
55UÍx:2;R1>A;:2;R1>W6_6+Q'A;A1;1>ÌR6R1:2;R1>A1;1>W'13W>6_6b
A1;1>ÌR6HWÍ9;2R6ÌX1>;R%R1Ò1'W1Q

5Ì1A:AHR"1>R1Q:2;R1>8R4"W56_6bA;R68R4R1Q5ÌX1D1

8. Non-Reality Of The Non-Reality
1. Objection: When the said non-reality itself is non-real, then the world may become real.--------when the
non-reality is real, then also, the world can be real; in both cases, the non-dualism will get
affected..
2. Reply: No; They have the same grade of being (existence) and hence along with the sublation of
the non-reality , the world also is sublated; so non-dualism does not get affected.
Notes: the logic for the negation of the world and the non-reality is one and the same ie, different from Brahman.
?;1>BW1V66H
18
:2;R1>WAR4;WBW1V"Y1\;Y?;1>\136;U66R35T;:Q

?U\B8_¯5?;:Q

>A1U1A1U?83Ì)5;>YH>@;1>:W>?;1>:Q

;RA6_"R<">YH>@;1>:W>?;1>:Q

9.Compatibility of Cognisability as cause
1, What is cognisability , the reason for non-reality, has to be explained.
2. Pure Brahman is not cognisable.

3. In fact, the character of being the object of mental states (vrittis) other than those
produced by word is cognisability.
4, Or, the character of being the qualified object of a mental state is cognisability.
).1>BW1V66H
1T;1Y1T;6D;RW3RW@Ì9R>R1Q
ÌER51>\Ì5R1:1>\>R).1>:Q

Ï>\ÌA>6_"R?1>:Q>R).1>:Q

10.Compatibility of Insentience as cause
1. Insentience is different from Consciousness and Self.
2. Or it has not the character of self-luminosity.

66S<t'(¿1>BW1V66H
1c3W?1"R=1>A1U1?'W1G>4:Q
1G3W?16S<t'(¿1>\Ì1;51Ì9R>6_1;RW$1>:Q
"R=16S<t'(¿1>\4>\A6_S1;RW$1>:Q
>A1U16S<t'(¿1>\Ì5;RW5;Ì9R>6_1;RW$1>:Q

11.Compatibility of Limitedness as cause
1. It is of three kinds, by place, time and thing.

2. Limitedness by place is the character of, being the counter-positive of absolute
absence of existence .
19
3 Limitedness by time is the character of being the counter-positive of destruction.
4. Limitedness by thing is the character of being the counter-positive of mutual
absence..
Ì\?1>BW1V66H
'1AU#R'R;X]A1U
ØÌ;\6,Ï1H51U5Ì1;51Ì9R>6_S1;RW$T
6,1>R1Q
6,R51<>1QØÒ1;Ux:Q

12. Compatibility Of Being An Effect as cause
1. It is said by Chitsukhacharya:
1. This cloth is the counter-positive of the absolute

negation resting in this thread.
2. Because it has the character of being a cloth.
3. Like any other cloth.
Notes: This is called Maha Vidya Anumanam and is flawless.
ARW6RR44"1>5<RA
5
?;1>R3BW1>5ARW6R4"R8_¯ER5:RG8R4;W3WBR1:X·;W:1;R9V1WAR4;Ì>;R6"1>R1Q

5R66_R19RA"1>\Í6R418_¯ER5W1<8R4;1>\1A;'3WBR1:X·;W:2;R9V1WÌ6ÌA1>W5AR4;Ì>;RªW

13. Refutation Of Adventitious Condition
1. Reasons for non-reality do not have the fallacy of adventitious conditions.
2. In the nonreality of the identification of soul-body which is sublated only by the

knowledge of Brahman, the upadhi is not concomitant with the probandum. (sadhya).
Notes: Adventious condition (Upadhi) is one of the five fallacies of reason (Hetu Aabhasa) in a
syllogism. It means that the Upadhi while concomitant with the Probandum (sadhya) but is not
concomitant with the probans (hetu).
20
ÌR9RAAR:;9m
55U
>:1\6_R19RA":Q?;1>R1Q?Ut·HÁ6;>1Q
8_¯:2;R>;>BR<>@;1>R1Q?U·HÁ6;>1QÒ1
'W1QQ
5
?;1>R3T5R\5ÌR9RAAR:;:Q)$1>;R>BRS<"A1>8R4W>;>BR<Ì5U66H8_¯0:2;R1>W
?V5;>R3R6H

14. Refutation Of Similarity With Pseudo Inferences
1. Objection: (1) The subject is phenomenal, (2) Because it is cognisable (3) Like shell-
silver, (1) Brahman is non-real (2) Because it is subject of empiricality. (3) Like shell-
silver.
2..Reply: No. Cognisability etc are not similar to pseudo inferences.
3.. Because when the empirical reality of the world is sublated, activity is not possible.
If Brahman is the character of non-reality, nihilism will result.
6_1;D8R4RWR<
55UØA5Q%,ØÒ1;R}4;D8R41>@;R?;1>R3;Ò1'W1Q
5'DU<R}4;D;RW$;:2;R1>><RW4AH>Ì5À·1W

A>6_"R?Ì1T;'X15;Á61>:W>8_¾:0AH>:Q13W>'W1Q).A;R6)$113R<)11>><RW4?UxAH;R
<)1A;W>).1>><RW4A>6_"R?AH;R)$1A>Á61RW:2;R1>Í66HW

15. Refutation Of "Contradiction By Perception"
1. Objection:- Cognisability etc. is the subject of the sublated perception like "the pot is"
etc.
2 Reply: No. The existence which is contradictory to non-reality and which is capable of
perception by eyes etc, has not been explained.
21
3., The character of existence (being) of Brahman is its self-luminosity, non-duality
and Consciousness. If the same is so of the insentient world, it is compatible that the
world is non-real in its form by its self-luminosity which is contradictory to insentience,
just like the silver by the exitence of shell which is contradictory to silver.
6_1;D6_R8º;9m
55UÍ·H5;R;X6_1;DA;Í6)T>;1>W56_R8º;:Q1À$_B0W1W58R4?'Ò1'W1Q

5Í6)T>;Ì><RW4R1Q 12RB;1A>Á6\Í6)T>;1W11Q58R4;1W8R4;1W'1Rt1>"1>R"R<
A'5Í6)T>;1W"R<01>W1A;Ì6_>W?R1Q

6<TDRB6_>YHA\>R3>A\>R3Ì9R>3RW@Ì9R>ÌR3Á6R1;R'A>A:R53W?"R=T5>@;Ì8R4;1>\
6_R:R0;A;>;>A2R6;1W4V:W5A>A:R53W?"R=T5>5\BS<>

12R'>;>BR<3?R:RGÌ8R4;1>\3WBR1:X·;AR4R<0\6<TD16_:R0W>;>tA21:QÒ1"2:QÌ1;51
Ì8R4;1>Ì9R>$_RB"ÌR$:Ì5U:R5;RW6_>YH5A;R1Q!

1A:R1Q>?>RA6_:R013R9RA>;>A2R)T>W?9W3R3"\'>;R>BRS<":QÒ1Í66¿:W>A>^)$1Q
:2;W1

16. Refutation Of "Superior Validity Of Perception"
1. Objection: Perception which is depended upon is stronger, When it is contradictory it

is sublated by perception.
2. Reply: No; it is not contradictory to that which is being depended upon, The form
which is depended upon is not sublated, Only its ultimate validity is sublated. That is
not depended upon, as it does not enter into the cause.
3. The examination is in the form of (a) of fruitfulness whenacted (b) absence of

fruitlessness (c) absence of defects.. By that the validity is established of the non-
sublation of an object of same place and time - like the fire of same place and time by
the smoke.
4. Like wise, only in the empirical state, the non-sublation is established of the ordinary
body-Atman identity after examining the means of knowledge. How then can it be not
possible for Sruti and inference not to function since they negate the absolute reality of
the world.
22
not be of the ground for Sruti and inference which negates the absolute reality of the
world.
5. Therefore, the establishment of the validity and its semblance, as also the duality
of Jiva and God are of empirical nature. So it is compatible that the entire world is
non-real.
6_1;DA;
Ì
Ì5U:R58R4;1>:Q
"\'>6D8R4"A'>\Ì5U:R5:66_1;D8R4":Q

Ì6<TD16_1;D\B6<TD1Ì5U:R5Ì6WD;R3N8]=:Q

Ø5T=59ØÒ16_1;D:>59RW5TÁ61>Ì5U:R5R6WD;R

17. Sublatability Of Perception By Inference
1 .Moreover, Inference also sublates cognition when it is supported by the disproval of

the counter-example.
2. The cognition that has not been examined is weaker, compared to the examined
inference.
3. Just like the cognition, "sky is blue" is weaker, compared to the inference "sky
is colourless.
6_1;DA;
Ì
ÌR$:8R4;1>:Q
"\'6<TD16_:R09R>?838R4;:66_1;D:Q

1R16;]>@;T9V1R2]8RW4"1>:QB:U#;R2]1>:Q5?·;R2]:RG8RW4"1>:QÌ5;R2]1R16;]"1>R1Q
'Ì:U#;R2]1>:Q5=RD0"1>:RG1>:QQ

18. Sublatability Of Perception By Sruti
1. Moreover, perception is sublatable also by Sruti, which has been validated

by examination.
2. Giving the import (Tatparya) is called the primary meaning. and not merely the
denotation (Sakyartha - direct meaning ) .Secondary meaning is that which has other
import. and not merely the indicative denotation.
23
Ì
Ì6'(35
W35;R;
>>X@:;
99m
"\'Ì6'(W35;R;W5R6ÌR$:A;6_R8º;:Q

Ì1Ï>A$U0A6_6bFU1;RW5$U]05@6_6bFU19;R:QÌ6'(W35;R;W58R4Ò1AU@,UÍ·H:Q

13N·H:QÌR5538RW4R'R;X]
116<1>R1Q6<1>Rc53RW]@1>Rc>X3":Q6V>]A;8R4":Q5R;\A6]Ò1;R3>R·;>1Q

19. Disproof Of The Inequality Of Apaccheda Nyaya
1. Moreover, even by the Apaccheda Nyaya, Sruti is stronger.

2. Therefore alone, the Srutis describing Brahman with qualities and with the world are
sublated by the Srutis describing Brahman without qualities and without world
3. It is said by Anandacharya.
Since it refers to the purport, comes after and Vedic text is free
from defect it sublates the former; like the sentence "this is not a snake".
Notes: Apaccheda Nyaya of Poorva Mimamsa Sastra means that what follows is more powerful than
what went before.
>>t5B?X1;
Ì
Ì5U:1AR:;
99m
55U;36_1;D8R41:QÌ6Ì5U:R5\AR4;W1Q13R>t5BÌ5RX@0;:QÌ6AR4;W1Q

:X>\>ÀR2]$_RSB1>W5>?W@R1Q6_1;DAÌ;):R51>ÌRX@0;R3>1Q?83=m$_RÅ;):R51>Ì5RX@0;R}6
>;R>BRS<":1A:1>R1Q6_1;DW08R4;1W6_"Y1W1UA1>\>;R>BRS<"\6_1;DA\1À\'5:2;R1>:Q
1A;6R<:R2]"A1>><RW4R1Q

20. Refutation Of The Equality Of The Inference "Fire Is Cold"
1. Objection: If inference can establish a thing which is sublated by perception, then it

can establish" "Fire is cold".
2. Reply: Not so; there is difference as the meaning is contradictory. The person
having t he character of non-Yajamana and the presence of heat in fire which are
perceptions (Pratyaksha) and the person having the character of Yajamana and the
absence of heat in fire (sound and probans) -both are empirical (vyavaharika) - so they
are sublated. But in the present case, they are empirical reality and non-reality which are
not contradictory. It is contradictory to absolute reality.
24
6_1;DA;
=mR}8R4;1>W88R4":Q
"\'6<TD11>W5X>6_R8º;\5Í6)T>;1>W5

12RBØÒ3\<)1\ØÒ16_1;DA;Ì5U:R5ÌRª>'5R9;R\59RW5Xº;6_1;DA;5TÁ61>$_RB"Ì5U:R5W5
Ø$RX<RWW B\ØÒ1;A;ØÌB:QÒBX>RtA:A35W)R5R5ØÒ1;A;'5Ç6_R3W?"1>6_1;DA;'Ì5U:R5ÌR$:R9;R\Ø6T1?lØ
Ø1·HRW$U.ØÒ1;R3W?'Ì5U:R5ÌRª>'5R9;R\8R4RW?;1W

Ï"G6_R:R0;5?';W8=R8='51R;RÏ>Ì5>"R?R1Q

21. Refutation Of " Perception Cannot Be Sublated By Inference"
1. Moreover, greater validity is because of being examined and not because of

the character of being depended upon.
2. Thus - the perceptions, "this is silver", "sky is blue", "I am fair", "I am in this house",
"the moon disc is the size of six inches", "the conch is yellow", "Jaggery is bitter",
etc are sublated by inference, friend's word, verbal testimony etc. This is seen.
3. Where the validity is to be established in the same place, there is no question of
the thought of its strength or weakness.

99RR>>
88R4RW66H
Ï>\'Ø9R>8R45?';R1Q'ØÒ1;3Nx\136Í66¿:W>
6_"R<R51<W0Ì8R41A;'5Ç6_R3W?"1>6_1;DA;;2RÌR$:W58R412R6_"R<R51<W0Ì8R41A;
ØA5Q%,ØÒ1;R36_1;DA;:2;R1>8RW4"ÌR$:W58R4Ò150];R1Q

22. Compatibility Of Future Sublation
1. Therefore, what was said "because of future subation" is also compatible.

2. "the six inch-size of the moon" which is not sublated by other means is sublated
by scripture. Similarly. the perception "Pot is etc" which is not sublated by other
means is sublated by scripture which teaches non-reality. This has been established.
A1;1>
Ì
Ì 5 U : R 5 9 m

:2;R1>Ì5U:R5A;Ì5U:R58R4RWR<
13Nx\A\DW6?R<T<"XÌRF;1>>@;1>9R$5T5>]9R$'1<W>"W>=R6V>]A1:ARWB6t?':RW5RF;RW9>1
5R6$RW'<

Ì>}R4;RAA;Ì4;RAR51<Ì56WD1>R1QA>6<AR4R<0A>]5>R]"1>RW66HW

25
13W>\5<R"Y1R6<:R2]A1>WAR4;W@.:TBW1>

Ì2
AR>:1\5A=D0:Q
BWÌA=D01>R1Q
ÌR1:>1QÒ1Ì5U:R5R51<\9>@;1Ò1:1:Q

1¿6_R19RA"W?Ut·HÁ6;R3RX>;9'R<R1Q
23. Refutation Of Inference Of Absolute Reality Of The Empirical World
1, It is said in Samkshepasariraka: The indivisible consciousness alone is the locus and

object of nescience. What came after nescience cannot be its locus or object.
2. The superimposition due to nescience is not in need of any further superimposition. It

is compatible that it is capable of managing itself and all other superimpositions.
3. Like this, the six reasons for the absolute reality of the world have been rejected.
(Sadya) Subject is not different from reality (Hetu) Because it is different

4.. Objection:
from unreal. (Drishtanta) Like the Atman
5. Reply: It is not; In the phenomenal and shell-silver, it strays away. (it is in hetu but not
in sadhya)
:2;R1>W>?W@
Ì
Ì 5 U : R 5 : Q

AR>:1\:2;R
BW8_¯R5;1>R1Q
3Y?Ut·HÁ6;>1Q

Ï>\Ì5;W 66_;RW$R;2RW'1\ÌR<'5T;R>6t?'SÒ13"Q

BW1>RW 9TA4;2Â:;bRW8B>?'5Ìº6R6<A;3N@,?'W1;GA6@,:U3TS<1:Q
Ì9TAR>5U"V=1"]8=R8=\'RG6<TD;;±R1Q6_>D;1W3RW@$06<W@R\5#W35T;:Q1U:5RW 4U5X>

26
24. Special Syllogisms On Non-Reality
1. (Sadhya) Subject is non-real (Hetu) Because it is different from Brahman (Drish) like
the shell-silver.
2. Like this, many other reasoning may be put forward by the learned
3.. We have clearly shown that there are many and excellent reasons for establishing
our position and the opponent has fewer and defective. Later, will be said the
strength and weaknesses after examination for establishing our thesis and the defects
of opponents; at present one should not worry.
Notes: there are twenty-seven syllogisms listed by the author..
Ì
Ì2ÌR$:8R4
ÍÍR<
55UÌA1U?838R412RB
"Ø>?>\A1;\Ø
KÌ
#;c"W1A1;:H¿:RW%\
KÌ
$;R2R12;1RW 2R]5>;34R'(R?>1T9;
Ò]ÍÒ1;R3FU19
%ÌA1;:6_1\1W)$3RBN<5T?><:Q
9$TÒ1;R3A:Y19
&5R9R>Í6=84W>X4:;R]''5A>6PR3>1Q
8_AVÒ1;R3AVGX?'
>?>A;A1;1>6_16R35R1QÒ1'W1Q
5FU1WA116<1>Ì9R>R1Q
">?>\A>Â1RWG\A1;\;2R2]:Q12R'A1U16<1;R5>?>A1;1>W
1R16;]:Q

#;c"W1)R5R111QA1;:1QA1;:W>5:RW%\5>;2]:Q

$Ø;R2R12;1RW 2R]5>;34R1QØÒ1;6>R·;\56_6bA1;1>W6_:R0:Q1A;6V>]AY6_"R<W0A)]5:2]51U)$1A1;1>\
)$1A)]5$1A1;1>\>R

%A>·H1>>R35RW::)$1ÌAX=D0;ÌmT"R<W0116_36R3"A:Y1><RW4Ì9R>R1Q

&AVGR2]A1U5R9R>ER5R1S<·HA;Ì2]A;5ÌA1>:Q"\1U>;BR<3?R8R4;Ì2]"_;R"RS<1>Á6\A1>:W>
Í6=84WER5R1<W"W06_:R0XÀ6=84WA>6P>X4:;RW]t·H8R4;1>R}U6R46_3?]5R;1W58R4R1QARW6R4"1>Rc6V>R]5U:R5\
3N:1;2]

27
25. Justification Of Sublation By Srutis
1. Objection: Let there be sublation by Srutis:
1 The universe is real. by the Srutis. - that which is regarded as real is not useless. For
eternity, hr created things in reality.
2.. They (ill-guided) declare the world to be un-real, unstable and without God..
3. The perception of the world cannot be regarded as dream as there is dissimilarity
By these the reality of the Universe has been established.
1. Reply: The Sruti has not this import. ....(a)...Viswam = all praise , Satyam = exact
...since it relates to praise, it has no import on the reality of the world.
(b). What Indra understands to be done now is real and is not a waste..
(c).The sentence is no evidence of the reality of the world. Its meaning is creation
according to previous creation and not in the reality of the world or in its creation.
(d). For me who advocates difference from reality and have accepted difference from
unreality in the world, there is no contradiction in this Smriti.
(e) . Meaning of Sutra. Na Abhavah = "Things (pot etc) have no existence other than
knowledge" - This is not valid because in the empirical state, they have their existence
for its fruitfulness and action. . Upalabdeh = because they are cognised different from
knowledge. The sentence on the difference in nature like dream etc, is to show the
adjunct which is sublatable. Therefore the previous logic is defective because of
sublatability and also with the adjunct.

Ì
ÌA1AAR4"1>:Q
55UAH>AR4"R5R\:2;R1>AR4"Ì5U:R5W9;6_R_8º;:QÒ1'W1Q

28
5:2;R1>AR4"6_1ER}U65T16DR3T5R\:2;R1>8RWW45W 6>;RB1;9R>R1Q6_1ER19A1W@R\G"R=R8R4;1>Á6A1>
Ì6_16R35R1Q

>A1U1A1UER1RER1AR4R<0\>;R>BRS<"\AH>:W>AR4"1>W15G:Q1c8_¯ER5W1<Ì8R4;1>:W>1c5:2;R1>
%,1:Q

26. Non-Real is Capable of Proof
1; Objection: that which prove the reality is stronger than the inferences that prove their
non-reality.
2.Reply: No; the subjects for the establishment of the non-reality teach the non-reality;
yet there is no contradiction, because they do not relate to the reality which cannot be
sublated for all periods of time.
3. In fact, empirical reality , cognised or non-cognised is the criteria for proving. It is
not sublatable by any knowledge other than that of Brahman; nor does it necessarily
involve non-reality.
Ì
ÌA1AAR4"1>Ì9R>W8R4":Q
6_18:8W8:8AR4"1>\1R>3tA11A;8:8R1:5RA1>W 66_18:8R"R<W0RA1>R1Q6<:R2]A1>\5AR4"1>W
6_;RW)":QÏ>\A>6PR2]A;RA1RW 69R>?U9R?U9AV'"1>:Q

5'Ø"2:QÌA1AdR;W1ØÒ1FU1;RØ5RA1RW 1>R1QØÒ1AVGW0??>@R0R39;A3U16HÌ3?]5R1Q
Ò1;R39R@;W0'><RW41W@R\1U'(W)5"1>5@W46<1>R1Q

ÌA:R9?'1U'(W)5"1>A;Ì5Ux1>R1Q

27. Sublation of "Non-real cannot prove"
1. In the reflection. the character of establishing the original is there, Although it is

existent as the original, it is not there in the form of the reflection; absolute reality is not
the criteria for its establishment. Similarly, though things in the dream are not existent,
they indicate the oncoming auspiciousness and inauspiciousness.(which are true)
2. There is no contradiction; in the Sruti - How can real come from unreal:- in the
Sutra"Not from unreal, because it is seen" -in the Bhashya "From hare's horn etc.,
creation of reality is not seen". Because their purport is to deny creation from absolute
unreality (un-existent)
29
3, We have not said that absolute unreality can have the character of creation.

$?;A\854
99m
"Q?;A\854R5U66HW

1A:R1QA1;1>WA\854R5U66HWÌR4;RA"Ï>$?;;RWA\854Ò1

28. Refutation Of The Cogniser-Cognised Relation
1. The relation between the cogniser-cognised (seer and seen) is incompatible.
2, Therefore, since in the absolute reality relation is incompatible, the character of

superimposition is the relation.

Ì
Ì5U"V=1"]
5Á60:Q
1Rt1>"A\854A;>;R6"R5U6=84;R8R4R1Q12RB1Rt1>"A\854A;>;R6"RW3W?"R=>6_"@R]9R>A'
Ì1T1R3>@;"ER5R3T5R\5RtA1Ï>Ò1"2\1Rt1>"A1W@R\A\854

1A:R1QA1;1>W$?;A\854R5U66H/X>

29. Proof Of Favourable Logic
1 There is sublation because of non-cognition of the pervasive reality relation. Hence -
the pervasiveness of the reality relation is the absence of difference in time and place.
That is not present like knowledge etc., which are of the past things; so, how then can
they have reality relation.
2... Therefore, if it is absolutely real, the incompatibility of the relation between
cogniser and cognised is strong.

66_1":]
>>;>A2R
12RBÌ51"<0\'DU>]1Q1W)RW >;>1cÒ53_;R<W011A\;U·H\>@;\>;R6;13R"R<\9>1;2R5}R}U3"\
6_0RÊR5AY1;"W3R<R}R"R<\9>1AX>>YHS<1;U';1W1G)T>'X15;\Ì>}RW6R4"\A1QA>]$1\Ì51"<0RW6R4"\
A1Q6S<(¿:1:1;\1GÌR}W>@;6_"R?"\)T>'X15;:Q1T;W8_¯'X15;:Q

30
13;:G5@"@];}6>W@;6_"R?"\ >@;R4R59V1\ 6_:WW;'X15;\
Ì51"<0R>'(¿'X15;\ 1U 1A;6_:R1Y
Ì51"<0>YHÌ>t'(¿'X15;\ 1U 6_:R0\

12R6;3T;R51"<0>YH;R>@;6;]51\ 'DU<R3R<R5AAY1;R
;16_"R?"\ 'X15;\ ;16_:R1Y 'X15;R9W3W5 Ì9>;);1W 1:W> A Ï> )R5R1 5RR5;\ 5R5;RW >R Ì1 Ï>
Ï">YH;U6RÁ/=D0Ï"=RW=T9R>R6¿\ 6_:R1Y6_:R06_:W;'X15;\ 9>1 11 13>'(W3W5 ÌER55>YH;R 5>YH;R
9RA:R5\6_:W;'X15;\Ì6<RWD\7=\Ò1;U';1W

G;R0R\Ï"=RW=T9R>WÌ6<RWD1>\;RWÏ"=RW=T9R>W1U6<RWD1>:15Ak<

30. Pratikarma-vyavastha
1. Just like the eye, the mind also is the effect of fire. . It through the sense organs
pervades and become the object to which it is connected ,. just like the water in the river
though canals flows out and takes the form of the field; this is called the modification
(vritti) of the mind. There are two schools. The Self- Consciousness, nescience as its
adjunct, is all pervasive; with mind as its adjunct, it is limited. There the first is the Jiva
Chaitanya which illumines objects; in the second it is the Brahman Chaitanya.
2. Here, the clarification is as follows:- Although the consciousness which has its locus
in the object and makes the object cognised (1), the mind-adjunct-consciousness is its
cogniser (2) and the mind-modification-limited consciousness is the cognition.(3), still
one becomes to know that object only, not any other and not anybody else; who by his
modification of the mind reaches the object which becomes known by that
consciousness and becomes non-different from the cogniser-consciousness. Therefore,
the cogniser-cognition-cognised consciousness become one in the form of the
modification of the mind. Therefore by the removal of ignorance conditioned by it , the
cogniser-consciousness glows and it is called immediate knowledge. In the first case, it
is Jiva who illumines the object; in the second, it is Brahman
3. When the three (cogniser-cognised-cognition) becomes one, it is called

immediate.(direct) when two becomes one it is called mediate.(indirect) Therefore , there
is no convergence.
66_1"V=1"]
5<R"<0:Q
>?>\ ;3 "tº61\ A;R1Q A1;R4R5\ A;R1Q 5 'X>\ AR:R5;1RW ER11>W A1 ÌER1>?W@>1>A; Ì4R51>
6_;RW)"A;5>]?W@W5AAR:R5;W'8_¯0ÌA\9>R1QÒ1'W1Q5

A>Á6W0ER11>WA1>?W@W0ÌER11>A;Ì4R51>6_;RW)"1>W5ÌER1>?W@>1>A;Ì6_;RW)"1>R1Q

5Ì4;A11>WÍ16H;R}5U66HÌ54;A1A;©R6Í16H;R}?]5W5Ì4;A11>A;X>13N66R3"1>R1QA1"R;]>R3
ÌA1"R;]>R35@W4W5Ì5>]'5T;"R;]>R3:RGW"R;]"R<09R>6;]>AR5R1Q13W>\"Y1£A;6_6bA;Ì;W8_¯0"º65R
Í66HW56_1"V=1"]6<RB1

31
31. Refutation Of Counter-Reasoning
1. Objection: If the world is imaginary, then Brahman (sat) must be the substratum; this
is not so ; that which is known in general, and has unknown special qualities is the
character of substratum; and this is not possible in Brahman, as it has neither special nor
general qualities.
2. Reply: this is not true. When it is generally known but particularly unknown is the
criteria for the nature of the substratum,, and not having the unknown special qualities..
3. There is no incompatibility of creation etc., when there is the character of

superimposition. Nowhere the creation is seen when there is no superimposition, its
character alone is the cause. By the negation of "real-effect" and "unreal-effect
theories" the theory of "indeterminability-effect" only remains true. Thus , the super-
imposition of the entire world on the non-dual Brahman is compatible and there is no
disproof by the opposite logic.
Notes: Real effect means that pot exists in the mud even before its production. Unreal effect means that
pot does not exist before production.
:2;R1>FU1;U66H

55UFU1;R6_1;DR3A11AH>RW6)T>5W5'8_¯W1<A"=:2;R1>RAS

56_1;DR3WA1UÌ1RW;1Q8R4;1W1Rt1>"1>\1¿RW6)T>;\;cRW6)T>;\Ì2]"_;RAR:2;]=D0
>;R>BRS<"6_R:R0;\1c58R4;1WÒ1"\"W5A\m1:Q

1A:R1QÏ":W>Ì1T;:QÒ1;R3FU1>?>:2;R1>W6_:R0:1A:Q

32. Compatibility Of The "Non-Reality" Srutis
1. Objection: By depending upon the reality of perception, the non-reality of all other
than Brahman is not established.
2.Reply : No,......... perception etc. ...therefore, the reality which is sublated is not
depended upon. That which is depended upon and which is the validity for empiricality
which has the capacity for purposeful action is not sublated. So, what and by which
there is connection. (your question is irrelevant)
1. Therefore, the srutis "one only which is non-dual" etc., are valid on the non-reality of
the world.
32
Ì
ÌX1FU1W8R]4RWR<
X16_1;DA;'5Ç6_R3W?"1>6_1;D>1Q A\9R>1Ì6_R:R0;1;RÌX1FU1><RW41>Ì9R>R1Q ;2R'FU1;R6_1;D\

8R4;1W12R6_6b1:QÌ4A1R1Q"\'6_1;D\5;1>@;\FU1A>]>@;R12R';G6_1;DW09W3RW5$YBT11GX>
Ì9W3FU1W<>"R?

>;R>BRS<"9W3:RGA;8R4"1>Ì6_;RW)"1>R1Q ;1Q B6<TD16_:R09R>1>W58=>1Q11Q 8R4":Q;HU A\t53$4

6_:R09R>1>W53N8]=\ 11Q 8R4;:1>;>A2R;R\X1ER5A;3N8]=1>W5Ì8R4"1>A;ÌX1ER5A;'8=>1>W58R4"1>A;
?836_1;D8=R8=>'R<W3?]11>R1Q

33. Refutation Of Sublation Of The "Non-Dual" Srutis
1. By the invalidity of the empirical dual-world, like the "empirical-6 inches moon”,
there is no contradiction in the non-dual srutis. We have already discussed how the
empiricality is sublated by the srutis. Moreover, empiricality relates to particular object;
sruti to all objects. Therefore, where difference is not seen, there itself is room for
Srutis, which speak of non-difference.
2. The mere sublation of the empirical difference is not the criteria. That which is strong
after examining its validity, that is the cause of sublation. That is sublated, which is weak
by the doubtful nature of validation. In this state, the dual knowledge is weak and
cannot sublate. Non-dual knowledge is strong and can sublate; in the discussion on the
strength and weakness of verbal testimony and empiricality, this has been shown.

ÏÏ":W>W1;RR3
3FFU1;2]
>'R<
ÌX1>R·;A;'@.Q>41R16;]=m>H;R8=>1>W5ÌR>}"X16_16R3"1>\AY×R3>R·;R5R\Ò1F>0A>Á65Á60W
>W3R51"º6=1"R;R\Ì9B1:QÌA:R9
Ì1Ï">ER5W5A>]>ER56_1E;RÍ6"_:R1QÏW13R1:;\Ò3\A>^11QA1;\AÌR1:R11>:AÒ1Í6A\BR<Rc
ÌX1A;X>:BR6_R_"<S0"1;R135UAR<W01R·;A263R5R\>;R#;W;1>Ì>4R<0R1Q5R5R2]63R5R\Ì2R]51<Í6A2R6"1>
A\9>W66_"Y1>R·;R2]Ì55>;1;R116S<1;R$W56_"Y1>R·;R2]Ì5U"V=63R2RW]6tA216<1>\Ï>Ì>A2W;:Q

Ì1RW5>}1W1T;\;GW18BN>_TB<W>ÌR3<0T;

13W>\A3QÁ6W8_¯063G;W09W3G;5@W4R1Q1¿:2;R1>W6;]>A1\ØÏ":W>R1T;:QØÒ1>R·;:Q

33
34. Discussion Of The Meaning Of The Sruti " One And Only Non-Dual"
Etc
1. By the six rules of import, the sentence on non-dualism is stronger ; the sentences on
creation etc have their import on dualism due to nescience, This has been said by us in
Kalpalathika.
2.. Here also is laid down by the commentators on the true meaning of six kinds of
signals. Therefore, in the beginning , by the promise of all-knowledge by the
knowledge of one, in the end, "All this has got That as the Self: That is the truth. That
is the Self. Thou art That", Svetaketu. by the overall context, it is of non-duality
From the understanding the meaning of the words in that sentence, in accordance with
non-duality, - although it is possible to interpret differently the different words - it has to
be fitted into the current context and interpreted accordingly leaving out the different
meanings.
3. Therefore, "where there is no second" - the Bahuvrihi compound alone - has to be

taken.
4.. Like this, in the Brahman - the Existence - the three differences are negated by the
three words and the sentence "one without second" points to the non-reality which is
different from Brahman..
Notes: Three words are, Yeka, Yeva, Advithiyam. Three differences are: same kind, different kind and
internal. The six rules of import are - beginning, end, repetition, novelty, euology,
compatibility.

ER55>1;]1>Ì5;2RRÌ5U66H
Ø1<1?RWR":R1:>1QØØ12R>R5Q5R:Á6R:U·HØØ9}1WÂ3;$_t52(}51WA>]A\?;RDT;51W'RA;":R]0
1tA:5Q W 6<R><W Ø Ò1;R3FU1A:Y18RW41ER55>1;]1>Ì5;2RÌ5U66H<6854:2;R1>W 6_:R0:Q A1;1>W 8_¯>1Q
Ì5>1;]1>ÌR6HW

12R'Íx\>R1]""YØ 11>:A;R3>R·;RW12A:;$4T)5::RG1Ì>}RAB"R;W]05ÌRAT1Q ÌtA1

9>@;1 Ò1 6_1;$;R2R1:;4T<W> 6_1;$ER5 BR5"Y1Q AR 'R1:RW16H1RW 5R5;3Q4>R514>A1R>6WD1W Ø Ò1 '

1A:R1QÌ4®R5ER51>W5ER55>1;]1>\:2;R1>W6_:R0:1\A:Q

34
35. Sublation by knowledge being otherwise incompatible
1. "He who knows Brahman, he transcends sorrow", "Thus, the wise is liberated from
"name and form"", "when that Self which is both high and low is realised , the knot of
the heart is untied, all doubts become cleared and one's action dissipated", - By these
Srutis and Smritis, the incompatibility of an alternative to knowledge for sublatability
is valid for the bondage due to non-reality. If it is absolutely real as Brahman, non-
sublatability will result.
2. Thus, it was said by the Vartikakara (Sureswaracharya):
By the emergence of the correct knowledge arisen from sentences like "Thou art
That" etc , the nescience with its effect was not there, is not there, will not be there.
The real knowledge of the individual Self alone destroys the individual Self's ignorance..
In addition to its birth in itself, it is not in need of anything else to destroy the ignorance.
3. Therefore, by the knowledge of the substratum, the sublatibility by knowledge is proof

of the non-reality,
AY
ÍÍ66H
Ì2"W;\AY!Ò1'W1Q53RW@6_;U·H1>58545A;ER1X"A1>A;ÌER1A1>R9R>A;>R>>D11>R1Q

AYRX'ØÏ>:W>RA:R3R1:5A>W]6_R0RA>W]=RW"RA>W]>W3RA>R]09V1R5A>]Ï1ÌR1:R5RW>;Uc<t51ØÒ1FU1
AUªRWt121)T>R1Q6_R0R3AY6_16R3;51T6_:R0:Q

>RA@->R1]"R:Y1R3R>R"<W 'A6:W>Í·H:Q ;2RØ Ì>}R;RW5;RW 9R>RA>]W :TW 8UN3RÒ>D0:UO;
$'(t51 ER5X")=4RX =;:Q Ø Ò1;R3 1A:R1Q 8_¯R1S<x\ "Y1£\ X1)R1\ ER5EW;Á6:Q ÌR>}":W>W1
6_R1T1"A1>\\A>]A;W1A:Q<dUA6R]3>?>\5RER1\A31tA21:Q6_8UAY1>R1QAU@UªRX'=;FU1W

36 Compatibility Of "Creation by mere sight"
1. What is this sight-creation.........if this is so; No. It is intended that it is existence (due
to a defect) which exists only when known or does not exist when not known.
2. The Sruti " from this Atman, all Pranas, all worlds, all Vedas, all elements are
born".which maintain the creation of Pranas etc, from the Jiva after waking from sleep
are proof.
35
3.. It is said clearly in the "Vasishta Vartika" etc and in Bhashya also : - All these which
are from the nescience are like bubbles. After appearing for a second , go away and
merge in the ocean of knowledge. Therefore , the entire aggregate of dualities other than
the Brahman are cognition-cognised form. The empirical reality is due to nescience.
Like the rope-snake, the world is not there when it is not unknown and is empirical
because of "sight-creation while awake and in deep sleep, they disappear.

ÏÏ"
))T>
>>R3
Ì>}R>?R1Q8_¯Ï>Ï"\A\A<1AÏ>)T>1A;X>6_1?<T<\ÌB\Ò1;R38U

1A:R1QÌ>}RW6R4"RW)T>Ï"Ï>Ò1A:Q

37.Discussion on One Individual Self
1. Due to nescience , Brahman only gets birth and rebirth. He only is the individual self,
Of him only. there is the knowledge of "I" etc.
2. Therefore, it is established that individual self is one only with nescience as his
adjunct.

Ì
ÌER5>R3W ER5
==D0
5Àt·H
Ì2"W;:>}R!51R>35R39R>Á61>WA1ER55>1;R]AW1ÌG8V:Á6;RW6R3R5RER5:6
Ì5R3'X15;RF11>R1QÌ5R}W>

;R9_:RW6R3R51>\ÌER5=D0:Q

ER51>W5Á6W0ARDR)ER55>1;]1>\>R1eD0:1'6_RR$U·H:W>

38.Discussion on Ignorance - Definition Of Ignorance
1.Objection: What is this ignorance? It caanot be said that it is sublatable by knowledge

as well as beginningless positve..
36
.Reply: We say - , . The ignorance of the material cause of silver is also beginningless
because it has its locus in the beginningless Consciousness.
2. Or, ignorance is the material cause of an illusion..
3. Ignorance is negatable directly by the character of knowledge. This definition has

been dealt previously
Notes: The follwoing six have been accepted to be beginningless: Jiva, Iswara, Pure Consciousness,
difference between Jiva a nd Iswara, Avidya and its relation with Consciousness. The discussion on
Ignorance continues upto 47th title.
Ì
ÌER5>R3W11G66_1;D6_:R0RW66H
1G'ÌER5W
"ØÌB\ÌE:R:QÌ5;\'5)R5R:ØÒ16_1;D\
#Ø1>3N·H:2^5)R5R:ØÒ1>?W@16_1;D\
$ØÏ1R>51\"R=\AU#\ÌB:QÌA>R6A\5"\'1QÌ>W3@\ØÒ16<R:?]A\ARX@Uª6_1;D\'6_:R0:Q

>@;ÌER5\Ì5U9V;'6UÀ@1¿>Y1;2^>'R<W6_>1]1Ò1A>]Ì5U9>A:Q

39.Compatibility of Perception As Evidence Of Ignorance
1. As regards ignorance, - ´ I am ignorant, I don't know me and anything ", (general

perception) and I don't know what you said (particular perception), "So far I had been in
deep sleep. I did not know anything (inferential deep sleep perception) - these are
evidences.
2. One knowing the ignorance of an object starts discussion to remove it. This is
common experience.

Ì
ÌER5>R3WÌ5U:R5Í66H

AR4;\>>R363\6_:R0ER5\A>6_R$9R>>;1S<·HA>>@;R><0A>5>1;]A>3W?$1>A1>51<6V>]":Q

BW1UÌ6_"R?1R2]6_"R?"1>R1Q

R51\Ì54"R<W6_2:RW16¿6_3T66_9R>1Q

37
40.Compatibility of Inference On Ignorance
1. (Sadya) - The knowledge defined by mental state under dispute (a) is along with
another substance (b) belongs to its own place (c) will be negated by it (d) veils its
object and (e) is different from its own antecedent negation.
(Hetu) Because it illuminates a meaning hitherto not illuminated.
(Drishtantha) - Like the light that appears first amidst darkness.

Notes: This anumana is by Vivaranakara.
Ì
ÌER5>R3WF
FU1;U66H
1G(R53RW$;W Ì:R4;R;W
Ø 1}2R6B<0;\ 545B1:DWGERÍ6;]U6S<A\'<51RW 5>53W;UÏ>:Q Ï>
Ò:RA>R]6_)RÌB<B]$'(51;Ï1\ 8_¯=RW"\5>53t51Ì5Y1W5B6_1;V/RØ Ò1FU18_¯ER56_1854"1>W5Ì5Y1\
8_U>R0R1R"QQÌER5W6_:R0:Q

1A:R1Q
Ì5Y1W56_1;V/R
(R
5TBR<W06_R>Y1R
K>WÌ
1:ÌRAT1Q
K>WÌ
:R;R\1U6_"Y1\>}R1Q
?>WÍ
Ì)R:W"R\=RWB1?U"Y@0R\
?>WÍ
Ì>}R;R:QÌ51<W>1]:R5R
"Í
9V;?'R51W>?>:R;R5>YH
?>WÍÒ1;R}RFU1;RW
>0]1RÌER5W6_:R0:1tA21:Q

41.Compatibility of Srutis On Ignorance
1. In the Chandyogya Upanishad (8-3-2), it is said - "As persons who are ignorant about
treasures do not get it even though walking over it again and again. So also, all these
creatures do not realise Brahman although they reach daily (during sleep) this world of
Brahman because they are carried away by untruth.
2. In the Chandyogya Upanishad (8-3-2), it is said they are carried by untruth..
3. They are covered by Nihara (Snow) (Rig.Veda.Adyaya 8-3-17)
4. In the beginning there was darkness. (Rig.Veda Adyaya 8-7-17)
5. Maya is to be understood as Prakriti (Svetssvetara Up, 4-10)
6. There is one unborn being red,white and black (Sve.U.4-5)
38
7. Those who dwell in nescience (Kato Up. 2-5)
8. There is further cessation at the end of the non-reality of the world.(Sve.Up..1-10)
These are evidences on ignorance in the Srutis.

Ì
ÌER5>R3WÌ
Ì2R]6H;U66H
)T>A;Ì5>t'(¿8_¯R553Ì6_"R?Ì5;2RÌ5U66H?'1G:R5:Q

42.Compatibility of Presumption On Ignorance
1. The otherwise incompatibility of non-illumination of unsurpassed Brahman bliss of

Jiva is also evidence for ignorance.
ÌER5>R3W116_1T1;U66H

AR'Ì>}RARD>W}R51U?U'16_"R?;RARDT'Ì>}R>YH6_18S:81'X15;:Q

Ì1Ï>Í';1W<RBN>1QA>R>Y1'X15;6_"R?;R >}W1

5'X>\"3R'3>}R;RÌ6_1T1;R6HÒR6HWA:R4RX12R9;U6$:R1Q

43.Compatibilty of Knowledge Of Ignorance
1. That nescience is known through Sakshin and not illuminated by pure

Consciousness. Sakshi is Consciousness reflected in nescience.
2. . Therefore it is said that nescience like Rahu is illuminated by the Consciousness
which it conceals.
3.By this it should not be said that nescience is not known sometime; this is acceptable,
since in concentration, this has been accepted.
Notes: The Rahu conceals the sun/moon during an eclipse and it is illiuninated by the sun/moon.
Ì
ÌER5>R3WÌ
Ì>}R;R'5:RGRF;1>
ÍÍ66H
Ì>}R;RÌRF;A1U?U\8__¯X>13N·H\ØÌRF;1>>@;1>9R$5T5>]9R$'1<W>"W>=R6V>]A1:ARWB
6t?':RW5RF;RW9>15R6$RW'<

1A:R1QÌ>}R"Y1>'(W3W58_¯0;W>51;:U·H1>A\ARS<1>A>]E1>"\')E1>R3>;>A2RW66H

39
44.Compatibility - Consciousness Is The Locus Of nescience
1. Pure consciousness is the locus of nescience.
2. It has been said (Sarvajnatman) :Pure Consciousness is the locus and object of
nescience. All that come into being after nescience can neither be locus nor object of
nescience which exists before them.
3. Therefore, because of the distinction due to nescience , only in Consciousness, the

state of being liberation and worldliness and omniscience and limited knowledge can be
compatible.
Ì
ÌER5>R3WÌ>}R;RAA>]ERF;1>
ÍÍ66H
A>]"Q63W5A>W]@R\ $9V1\ 'X15;:1;U';1W51U A>]E\ 1U<T;:Q1A:R1Q >?Ï>AR>]E;:Q 1cÌ>}R\ >5R5

A\9>1Ò1Ì>}RA

45.Compatibility- Omniscient Brahman Is The Locus Of nescience.
1. What is meant by cogniser of everything is the consciousness that which cognises

everything and not the omniscience of the fourth;(Brahman) therefore, the omniscience
is in the qualified Consciousness and that is not possible without nescience.

Ì
ÌER5>R3WÌ>}R;R>>R'A61A\:1)T>RF;1>Í66H
>R'A61:FXA1U)T>RF1X>Ì>}R5$}1W

13N·H\A>W5X>"tº61W3W?W>;RW:P;1Q%,R3":Q12R)T>RF;R>}R\:5;51WER5"RW>3R

1A:R1Q)T>RF;1>WÌ6Ì3RW@

46.Compatibility of Jiva As Locus Of nescience according to Vachaspati
1. Vachaspatimishra considers nescience as located in Jiva.
2. Learned men think that Jiva is the locus of nescience just as the pot exists in the space
limited by itself.
40
3. Therefore there is no harm in jiva being the locus of nescience.

Ì
ÌER5>R3WÌER5>@;
5Á60:Q
Ì>}R;R >@;RW 6 AU>' 12RB '5:RG:W> Ì>}R>@; 1A;Ì"tº611>W5Ì5;RW5;ÌRF;RS3 3RW@
Ì6_A·HW A>6_"R?1>W5 6_A·H6_"R?W 1tA:5Q ÌR><0"Y1;A\9>Rc 5 Ì5;1Q 1A; ÌER5"tº611>R1Q
Ì6_A·H6_"R?1>W5ÌR><0"Y1;Ì9R>Rc

47.Proof of Object Of Ignorance
1. It is only the Pure Consciousness which is the object of nescience.. Since it is not
imposed, there is no mutual dependency. Since it is self-luminous, it is possible for
nescience to veil its light: Nothing else is; because everything else is product of
nescience and has no light, there is no scope to veil.

Ì
ÌB:2]Ì
Ì5R1:1>Í66H
ÌB\"R<A1R>1Q Ò'(R3 >? Ï> $YÅ1 Ò1 ÌR>;RW A::Q AU@UªRX ' 5 Ò'(R3; Ò1 "2\ 13R ÌB:2R]5U9>!
12R'ÌER5RF;1>W5AU@UªRXÌ5U9V;:R5R1QÌR1:5RW B\"R<RW9¿

ØÌ2R1RW B\"R<R3W?ØØÌ2R1ÌR1:R3W?ØÒ1FU1<66Y2$U63W?W56R2]·;W6_:R0:Q

48. Compatibility of "I" is non-self.
1. Ahamkara is known to be with desire etc. This is acceptable to both of us. In deep
sleep there is no desire etc. and there is no experience of "I". So, Ahamkara is different
from the Self, who is experienced as locus of nescience.
2. The Sruti -"Then, therefore, instruction on Ahamkara, then therefore, instruction on

Atma - instructs separately. This is evidence for separateness.
41

""1]Y1>
Ì
Ì4;RARRÍ66H
ÌB\"R<A1U'3'1Q$_t52Á61;R\?1GÌ'3\?W8URX"1]Y1>A1>W 61?R;R8UW'1;X·;Ì4;RA\>5R
ØÌB\"1R]ØÒ16_1T1WÌ;RW$W5Ì4;RAA;ÌR>?;"1>R1Q

1A:R1QA\:5A"1Y]1>\ÌR1:5ÌR<RW6;1Ò1

49. Compatibility of Superimposition ofAgency
1. Ahamkara is in the form of a knot with two parts - one of the sentient and the other in-
sentient.
2. Although in the insentient part - the intellect - there is the agency and with this
qualification, the intellect, without superimposition on the sentient part, the cognition "I
am the agent " is not possible. Therefore, super-imposition is necessary.
3. Therefore , agency is superimposed on the Self.
33WBR1:X·;R4;RA
ÍÍ66H
ÌB\Ò1;A;\?1>W5'3\?W"1Y]1>R3>?Ì51"<0ÏW·;Ì4;RA>1Q8_R¯01>"R01>R3>?
3WBWt5Ç;R}X·;Ì4;RAW5ÌR1:X·;>@;1>A\9>R1Q12R'ÌR1:53WBWt5Ç;R}X·;Ì4;RARW;U);1WÏ>

1A:R1QÌR9T<AR4<0R1QØÌB\$RX<ØÒ1;R36_1;;R1QÌR1:5Ì51"<0ÏW·;Ì4;RAR1Q3WB1:R]4;RARW 6Ò1
A:Q

50. Compatibility of Superimposition Of identity between Body and Self
1. Ahamkara has two parts. As in the case of the superimposition of the mind along with
agency etc, on the Consciousness part, the body and organs along with Brahminhood,
deafness etc is superimposed on the Self. This is possible. Therefore, in Self, the
superimposition of body and organs etc. is compatible.
2. Therefore, from the cognition of the common cow-boy onwards of "I am white" etc -
the mind is superimposed on the Self. Similarly, the superimposition of the body and its
properties is proved.
42
Ì
Ì5>R]';1>=D0Í66H
A=D01>WA1ÌA=D01>WA1A3A=D01>:Q
AH>RAH>R9;R\>'R<RAB1>WA1A3A1>W5>'R<RAB1>:Q>R
6_16¿RW6R4RX8R4;1>\>RÒ1;R3=D0W5<>}1>A\9>R1Q

Ï>\'1R"]":1WA\;RW$139R>;RWS<>9y:1W9W3R9W3;RWS<>A1>RA1>R9R>;RW<6Ì><RW4Ï>

1A:R1Q5?Ut·HÁ6;6_6bAR4R<0Ì5>R]';1>=D0Ì5U66H

51.Compatibility of the Definition Of indeterminability
1. Different from (a) existence, (b) absolute nothing and (c) existence and absolute
nothing,
2. When it is incapable of being described as existence and absolute nothing, it is also

incapable of being described as existence cum absolute nothing.
3. It is sublatable at a given locus. . These definitions are possible without doubt.
4. Like in the opinion of Logicians - conjunction and its absence - of Bhatta (Purva
Mimamsa - difference and absence of difference, the existence cum absolute nothing and
its absence, are not contradictory.
5. Therefore, the common shell-silver indeterminability definition is not incompatible.
Ì
Ì5>R]';1>W6_1;D
Ì
Ì5U:R56_:R05Á60:Q
6_1;D\1R>1QØ:2;X><)1:QÌ9R1QØÒ1;R3

AR4;\>:1\AH><B11>WA1ÌAH><B1>WA1AH>RAH><B1:Q

BW1U8R4;1>R1Q3RW@6_;U·H9R51>R1Q>R
Í6

R51
>;1<W"W0;2R8_¯

52.Proof of Indeterminability by Perception And Inference
43
1, In perception, "the silver shone as non-real (false)."
2. (Sadhya) The thing under dispute is different from existence, from absolute nothing
and existence cum absolute nothing, (Reason) Because it is subject to sublation or it
seems to be the result of defect. (example) Like Brahman. (by negative example)
Ì
Ì5>R]';1>WÌ2R]6H6_:R0
5Á60:Q
12RB>:1\Á6;R3A1Q'W1Q58R4;W1ÌA1Q'W1Q56_1T;W18R4;1W6_1T;1W 61A:R1QA3A=D01>R1Q
Ì5>]'5T;:Q

53. Proof of Indeterminability by Presumption
1. The thing under dispute, shell-silver etc, if it were existence, it would not have been
sublated, if it were absolute absence of existence, it would not be cognised. But it is
sublated and also is cognised. (by perception) Therefore , it is different from existence
and absolute absence of existence and hence it is indeterminable..

5@W46_1;RW$1>R5U66H;R
RÌ
Ì5>]'5T;1>
AA:2]5:Q
1A:R1Q5@W46_1;RW$1>Ì5;2RÌ5U66H;R6Ì5>R]';1>A

54.Justification of indeterminability by the Incompatibility Of Counter-

Positive Of Negation
1, Therefore, the incompatibility of being the counter-correlate of negation also is

evidence for the existence of indeterminability

FFU1;2R]6HÍ66H
Ø5RA3RAT¿RWA3RAT1QØ
K>W:
Ò1;R3FU1;Ì6Ì5>R]';1>W6_:R0:Q

44
55. Compatibility of Presumption of Srutis
1. The Rigveda Sruti "then there was neither absolute nothing nor existence " etc, are
proof of indeterminability.

Ì
ÌA1#;RR119m
1A:R1QÌ5>R]';#;R1<W>6_:R0A\9>R1Q51UÌA35;2R#;R16_:R0><BR1Q
5'ÌAR5WÌA3W><)1:QÌ9R1QÒ16_1;D\:R5:QÌ551<RW·H8R4"W5AX=D0;>@;"1>R1Q
5'??ÓYm:QÌA1QÒ1;R3>R·;XÌA1;66<RWD6_1T1W1>;RÌmT"R<W01>R6;A1#;R1;R6H1GB56_1T1
"\1U>"º6:RG\Ò1;U·H1>R1Q1A:R1Q5ÌA1#;R1

56. Refutaton Of Asatkhyati
1. Therefore, indeterminable erroneous perception is only correct., as there is proof..

The absolute absence of existence or the difference from existence are not correct as
there is no proof.
2. It cannot be proof of perception "that silver shone was absolute absence of existence;
because of the later sublation; the perception indicates only the difference from existence
in the silver.
3. There is no cognition of non-existence through sentences like "rabbit horn - absolute

absence of existence." But it is vikalpa..(imagination/fancy) Therefore, there is no
asatkhyati.
Notes: 1. Atmakhyati - Superimposition of the attribute of silver in the mind on the external shell.
Advocated by Yogachara Buddhists (Kshanikavijnam) 2, Asatkhyati - Absolute absence like hare's horn.
Advocated by Madyamika Buddhists, 3. Akyati - absence of illusion. Advocated by Prabhakara
Mimamsakas. 4. Anyathakyati - Superimposition of the attributes of silver in shop in shell etc. Advocated
by Logicians. 5. Anirvachaniyakhyati - Indeterminability - Advocated by Advaitists.
45
Ì
Ì5;2R#;RR119m
5R6Ì5;GtA21A;Á6;A;9R5R1QÌ5;2#;R1Ì1;51ÌA1Ò>Ì5;GA1Ì6Ì6<RWD6_1T16_;RW)"
A\5"@]Ì5U66HW1Uº;1>R1Q

57 Refutation Of Anyatha-khyati
1."What is in another place shines here" - this explanation of Anyathakhyati is not proper.
Like the absolute absence of existence, it is incompatible for a thing which exists in
another place, as conjunction which is essential for immediate perception is not possible.
Ì
ÌRR>>}"<)1Í16HÍ66H
1cÌ5>]'5T;:QÌER5RW6R35":Q1H>ER5W55R?;:Q'

55UÏ>\ÁØ 6;\Í16¿\5\'ØÒ14T6_AmGX"R="5@W46_1T1?'5A;R1QÒ1'W1Q

5;2RÌ6<RWD6_1T1;R3Ì5;2R5U66H;RARW16R3R3"A;GX"R="5@W46_1;RW$1>\>@;T"_;1W

;R=RX""6<:R2]<)1A;X>1GGX"R="5@W4

"\'?U·HER5\ÌER5\5R?;1QÁ6;:65R?;11c13N6R3R51>\>5R5%,1W5:H5R?A;"R;]5R?\6_1
Ì6_;RW)"1>R1QÍ6R3W;WÍ6R3R5Ì5U>W45;:Ì9R>R1Q

58. Compatibility Of Birth Of Silver Due To nescience
1. That indeterminable is of the material cause of ignorance. It is destroyed by the

knowledge of absolute reality,
2. Objection:Then, "Shell silver is born and is lost" this mental state should arise and
also the negation for all the three times will not be there.
3.Reply: No; The character of the counter-positive of the negation for all the three times
of the known birth etc is perceived by the incompatibility of other than immediate
perception.
4. Or, it is negation for all the three times of the empirical silver.
5. Moreover, the known shell while destroying ignorance also destroys silver. That is
not possible if ignorance is not the material cause. Towards the destruction of effect, the
destruction of the agency is not relevant. There is no rule that the object should be
perceived in the form of its material cause.
46
99_:A;>>Y1;Í66H

1A:R1QÌ4R5R\?WÌ51"<0>YHÌ4;A1R\?W'Ì>}R>YH1A;R\'1R3R1:;A;9R5R1Q5Ì#;R1:1
6_>W?

12R'6<:R2]A1Q'X15;:QÌ4R5:QÌ4;A1ER5A;1c>4\>;R>BRS<"A1Q6_RS19RA"AcW1

13U·H\Ø6_R"Q>;R>BRS<"AH>>@;1>R1Q6_1;D\5ÌR$:8R4":QØ

6R<:R2]A1>\ÌR3R;G>4\A1>:Q

59. Compatibility Of Two Mental States(vrittis) In Illusory Knowledge
1.Therefore, in respect of the locus, it is the mental state of Anthakarana and in respect
of superimposition, it is of the nescience In it , as we accept the indiscriminate
superimposition between the two,the Akyati theory does not apply.
2. Hence, the Consciousness which is absolute reality is the substrtum for the
superimposed knowledge. That superimposed knowledge is of two kinds, empirical and
phenomenal.
3. It is said " Perception cannot sublate Scripture, since it is of empirical reality.
4. If you take the absolute reality into account, there are three realities - absolute,
empirical and phenomenal.
AAHRGX>4;Í66H

12RB6_R19RA"1>\B6_19RA:RGA1>:Q1cA>6P)R$<;RWA:R5:Q

60. Compatibility Of Three Existences (Being)
1. Hene, the character of phenominality is that it appears to be existent. That is common

to both waking and dreaming states.
47
48

1T;6S<'(W3
Paricheda 2
Ì
Ì # 0. R 2 ] = D 0 : Q
49
1cÌ#0.R2^>4:QÏ"\63R2]5®:QÌ6<\>R·;R2]5®:QÏ"X"\'6U5>X3"=RX""9W3W5>4:Q
63R2]5@- \ >X3":6 >4:Q 1163R2]5®\ 1>\63R2]5®\ ' 1G ' Ø A1;\ ER5:Q Ì551:Q Ø Ò1;R3
1163R2]5®:QØ;RW ;\>ER5:;6_R0W@UÂ}51);RW]16UÀ@ØÒ1;R31>\63R2]5®:QØ6_"Y6_"R?ØÒ1;R31U
=RX""\63R2]5®:Q>R·;R2]5®:6>X3"\Ø11>:A;R3Ø>R·;\ØARW;\3W>3HØÒ11U=RX"":Q

":QÌ#0.R2]1>:QÌ6;R];?83R5R\63>YHA:RS<1Ì1S<·HÌ$RW'<6_:R)5"1>:Q

1.Definition Of Impartite Knowledge
`1. Impartite knowledge is of two kinds, one of word and the other of sentence. Each one
of them is again of two kinds, one is of scripture and the other worldly. . Scriptural
word also is of two kinds, one relating to the the word "it" and the other "thou".
"Brahman is existence, knowledge and infinitude" is related to the word "it". "He who
dwells in the heart. surrounded by Prana, illuminating others, reflected in the intellect "
relates to the word "Thou". "(Moon is) profound light " relates to the word worldly..
Scriptural sentence is "Thou art that". "This is that Devadatta" is of worldly sentence.
2. Impartite cognition is the character of generating valid cognition produced by words

which are not synonymous and are not indicative of anything other than the one
suggested by the vritti of the word.
A1;R3>R·;
Ì
Ì#0.R2]1>RW66H

ARA1;R3>R·;:Q Ì#0.R2]5\8_¯6_R363"R2]5\ >R
BW=D0>R·;1>R1Q15:RG6_?5RWH<1>R1Q >R
3Y
6_"Y6_"R?'5ÇÒ1;R3>R·;>1QÒ163R2]>@;Ì#0.R2]1>Ì5U:R5:Q

2.Compatibility of Impartite Knowledge Of Sentence of Satya Etc
1.. (Sadhya) The sentence " Satya" etc is of impartite sense, or the sense only in the stem
"Brahman". - (Hetu) Because it is a sentence of definition, or it is an answer to a
question on the meaning of the stem, Brahman - (Example) Like the sentence "Moon
has profound light." This is the syllogism for impartite knowledge of a word.
50
111>:A;RR3
3>>R·;R2]Í66H
Ï>\1H>:A;R3:BR>R·;6D"Ì5U:R5:653RW]@:Q

AR 11>:A;R3 >R·;:Q Ì#0.R2]5®:Q ÌR1:A>Á6:RG5®\ >R
BW Ì"R;]"R<0Ç>;:RG5®1>W A1
A:R5R4"<01>R1Q15:RG6_?5RWH<1>R1Q >R
ARRW ;\ Ò1;R3>R·;>1Q Ò1>R·;R2]>@;Ì#0.R2]1>Ì5U:R5:Q

3.Compatibility of the Meaning Of sentence "Thou Art That" etc.
1. Similarly, the syllogism having the subject on "Thou art that" is also without defect.
1.(Sadya)- The sentence "Thou art That" is of impartite sense or is the essential nature
alone of Brahman. (Hetu) - Because it is co-existent when it is in a substance which is not
of cause-effect, or it is only an answer to a question. (Example) Like "This is that
Devadatta". This is the syllogism for sentence - impartite sense.
88_¯0RW5$]U01>Í66H
"X>º;FU1;R1R>1QÌR1:R5$]U0

Ò]?><A3RÌ>RªA:A1"º;R0$U0Ò1;G"R=\>;R6;ÌRª$U01>A;ÌA:R9Ì6ÌmT"R<R1Q5B54]:]"1R;R\
A1;R\"R=A\854RW tA1

13N·H\Ì51<4"<0W"º61À"Y5>]?W@\6<\8_¯ARDR1Q"1U]:QÌ5T?><R;W:53RA1WÌ5U":6;51W
A>?W@5Á60X>?T"Y1W:5A;W@R\A$U08_¯?T=5R1Q13W>R>9]>W1QARDR1QÌ6W1RW6R4"º65:Q

"\'A$U0>R·;R5R\ÌRX6R4"$U0>@;1>W5A>R9R>"54]:]"1>FU1W5><RW4

55UFU1;RW>]<RW4W5X"A;RÌ1Rt1>">@;1>\?R><RW4WA\"RW'>"º6R35RÍ9;6_R:R0;A;6V>]15GW>;R"<0W'
50T]11>R1QÒ1'W1Q

51G?R;RW6_R:R0;WA:R5"D;1;RÏ"1<A;ÌR1;t51"8R4Ì;RW$R1QA\kRW'W5>"º6W5>R6RD"6_R:R0;\
ÌRF1:QÒB1UÏ"1<A;116<1;R6_8=1>R1QÒ1<A;'Ì116<1>W53N8]=1;R>X@:;R1Q

4.Compatibility of Attributelessness Of Brahman
51
1. Brahman is attributeless by the Kavalya Sruti.
2. In the sentence "Iswara has always all auspicious qualities ", the character of the
time bound fulfilled qualities is acceptable to us also. In the stage of attributelessness,
there is no relation with time.
3. It is said by the author of Kalpatharu in the Antara Adhikarana. " those who cannot
realise attributeless Brahman, are graced by the proof of Brahman with attributes.
When the mind is controlled by the Brahman with attributes, It will reveal itself without
the imagined adjuncts.
4. Since the sentences of Brahman with attributes are the subject of adjunct, there is no
contradiction with the Srutis of natural attributeless Brahman.
5. Objection: When there is contradiction between Srutis, one cannot have a lesser
validity. When there is contradiction in the Sastra, and when both are valid in the form of
lesser application or alternatively, they are reconciled in the Purvamimasa and
Vyakarana -
6. Reply: No. Where, between the two valid Sastras which have equal status and when
one is not possible to be sublated, there either by lesser application or alternatively,
partial validity has been determined. But here, one is stronger with a real purport and the
other with lesser purport is weaker; that is the difference.
5$]U0WA6_:R01R
ÌR}W
A7V1;]2Â>6_"R?1;R6_:R0>X;2;]:Q

1T;W
ÌER55>Y1;2^Í65@3Ï>6_:R01>R1QÌ1Ï>6_1;D\Ì5U:R5\>RÒ1;R3>"º6A;5Ì>"R?

55U)R1$U0"_;R3Á65:HR9R>W5Í65@1Q:R5\55>]?W@WÒ1'W1Q5
:U#;$RX0;A\9>W 6=D0R;RA\9>R1Q

5. Proof Of Attributelessness
1. In the first ( for the purpose of revealing itself) , as it is self luminous, there is no
necessity for proof.
52
2. In the second (for the purpose of removing ignorance), Srutis themselves are proof.
The question therefore does not arise when the proof is perception and inference.
3. Objection. Since there is no word-meaning connection in the form of class, attribute

and action, the Upanishad is not valid in attributelessness:..
4.Reply. No. Though there is no possibility of primary/secondary implication, indication

is possible.
88_¯0RW5<R"R<1>Í66H
55UØÌR31;>0]\ØØÀ·:>0^ÙØ"Y@06m=\ØØ>?>1?'DUØØAB?T@R]ØÒ1;R3
FU19>$_BAS<1'W1Q5

ÌR31;>0]:1;A;Ì>}R>=D0A>6_"R?A>Á66_16R356<1;RÍ6RA;6<1;R'Í66HW

>?>1?'DUS<1;R3FU1A:Y1T5R\A>R]1:"1;RA>R]51;R]:1;R'5;:;)T>?<T<'DU6R0?<6_9Y1;5U>R31>RW66HW

6.Compartibility of Brahman's Formlessness
1. Objection: By the Srutis, "Sunlike Lustre", "Golden colour", ":Reddish colour",

"Universal eye", "Thousand heads", form is established: .
2.Reply: No. The Sruti "Sunlike lustre etc " deals with the essential nature of self-
luminosity.. which is different from nescience.. It is compatible since it also deals with
meditation.
3.The Srutis and Smritis -"Universal eye etc," - are of omniscience and also all-
controlling; they are therefore compatible in using their bodies, eyes, hands etc of the
controlled.
88_¯0RWER51>RR3
3ÍÍ66H
55U5>]?W@\'W1Q8_¯1B]8_¯X>X"\ER5R1:":QÌR553R1:":QÌ1T;\51;\ARSD'W15RW66}1WÒ1
'W1Q5

Ì2]6_"R?1>:W>ER51>:QÌR5531>A;5À6R4"W1>Á61>R1Q

6_R9R"<<T1;R1T;R9R>A;Ì4"<0R51S<·H1>W56_R:R0"1>W 61W5A1T;1>Ì9R>R1Q
Ì1T;1>\

53
'1U2]6DA;
Í9;R>4<RB1;\DRW3AB1>R1Q
51;1>\

?U8_¯R1S<·HA;8U4;U6R4")T>R1S<·HA;ARRD0RW mT"Y11>W5116DÍ·H3RW@Ì9R>R1Q12R'Ì>}R>YH
6_17=1\'X15;\ARSD

1A:R1QER5R553X"Á6\Ì1T;\51;\ARDT'8_¯W1A:Q

7.Compatibility of Knowledge Etc Of Brahman

1. Objection: If Brahman is formless, then the statements "Brahman is one, knowledge,
Bliss, non-dual, eternal, Sakshi " will not be compatible. .
2.Reply: No. Consciousness is the character of illuminating objects.
3.. Blissfulness is without any adjunct.
4. According to Prabhakaras, the absence of a second has no different locus. Still there is
absence of a second . ..
5. The fourth (pre and post negations) is acceptable (for eternality)
6. Sakshi is different from Pure Brahman and Jiva having intellect as its adjunct. This has
been accepted a nd there is no defect. Sakshi is Consciousness reflected in the vrittis of
nescience.
6.Therefore,it is established that Brahman is Knowledge, Bliss, non-dual, eternal and

Sakshin.
88_¯0RW 9¿5:HRW6R3R51>Í66H
55U5>]?W@\'W1Q8_¯"2\13W>5:H:U6R3R5:1Ì9¿5:HRW6R3R5"1>\)$1!>"R<>1"R<0A;Ï>
Í6R3R51>R1QÒ1'W1Q5
6S<0R:1;RÍ6R3R51>Ì9R>W 6>>1R]4R51;RÍ6R3R51>A\9>R1Q>>1R]4R51>\'>>1]"R<0
ÌER5>@;1>:W>

Ï"A;X>Ì>}RÍ6B11>W5Í6R3R51>A;Ì>}R6S<0R:W'(R"Y1;R}RF;1>W55:HH>A;R6A\9>R1Q

8.Compatibility of Brahman as Both Material And Efficient Cause

1. Objection: If Brahman is formless, how can it be both material and efficent cause ?
Cause with transformation only can be the material cause. Reply" No
54
2.. Although by transformation (evolution), Brahman is not the material cause, but by
being the locus of transfiguration (illusory imagination), Brahman's material cause is
possible. The character of locus of transfiguration is the object of ignorance which is the
cause of of transfiguration.
3. The same indicated by ignorance is the material cause. By the locus of the desire.
action etc, which is the transformation of nescience, it is the efficient cause.
88_¯0RW>?>"1Y]1>Í66H
55UÏ>\"U=R=R3>3N6R3R5$RW'<6_;±R3:1>\"1Y]1>:Ux\A;R1Q1c"R;]A;"tº611>W5%,1WÒ1'W1Q5

"U=R="R;]%,R3R>6;"tº611>A;ÌA:6_16HWÁ6;R3W<6;"1Y]"1>RAW?'1GR6ARD0Ï>"1Y]1>R1Q5B
Ì3?]5:RGW0"G]6=R61>5:1W 6A>]E"1]UÌA4}R6HW

9.Compatibility of Braman As World Creator
1. Objection: Thus, the creatorship is deemed to have been said like the potter with the
effort through the materiality. That is not possible with the effect being imposed. .
2.Reply: No. In the potter's effect of the pot, there is no proof of absence of imposition .
Absence of creatorship of shell-silver etc is not established; there also Sakshi is the
creator. We cannot do away with creatorship on the simple ground that the same is not
seen. In that case, in your view also, the omniscient will lose his creatorship.
88_¯0RW 9¿5:HRW6R3R51>W6_:R0Í66H
Ø;1RW>RÒ:R59V1R5)R;51WØÒ1
1XÍØ)5"1U]6_"Y1ØÒ1
6RAVAVGW6_"Y1;12]>B16b:T
FU1;RØØ;1Q6_;51;9A\>?t51
1XÍØÒ1tA21=;R4R<1>=mRcÍ6R3R51>A

Ø13XD1Ø
(RÍØ>;R"<>R0ÐÒ1Ò]D0R3ÌR4R<1;R"1]Y1>A'

ØÌR1:5ÌR"R?A\9V1Ø
1XÍÒ1;R3R>66_"Y16b:T

Ï>:W>Ø13XD18BNA;RR\ØÒ1;R}G:R5\8RW4;:Q

ÌARÒ3:$_ÌRAT1Q11RW>XA3)R;113R1:R5\A>;:"UÀ1
1XÍÒ1;R3Ì6Í·HR2W]6_:R0:Q

55
Ø1O1;RW5:QØÒ1;RW5FU1;R'Í6R3R51>:Q

Ï">ER5W5A>]>ER5FU1<6Í6R3R51>W:R5:Q

ARÏ>\')$1QÌ9¿5:HRW6R3R5":Q
BW6_WDR6V>]")51"R;]1>R1Q
AU#3N#R3>1Q
Ò1Ì9¿5:HRW6R3R5\8_¯A4;1

A>]"R;]5:H"R=%,A\;RW$A;Í9;>R3A\6_16¿A;R51A;=R9Rc

10.Compatibility of the proof of Brahman as Both Efficient And Material
Cause
1. "From which these elements are born" By the fifth case ending (the prime cause of the
agent of the verb jan meaning to be born is called apadana (ablative/fifth case). "To
which they return " - by indicating that it is the support for existence and end - by
these the material causality is established.
2." It saw ", "Let me spread" - Brahman is the support of "seeing" etc. By this the
efficient causality is established.
3. From Atman, Akasa was born etc. In these also there is the fifth case of materiality.
4. Similarly, "It thought, let me become many" - should be understood as evidence for
this..
5. There was nothing before. From it, Sat was born, It created itself. This also is evidence
for the said meaning.
6. "It is the birth place of elements. This indicates material causality..
7. When one is known, all are known - this is also evidence for material cause.
8. (Sadhya) World is of a cause which is both material and efficient - (Hetu) Because it
is the effect born preceded by thinking . (Exam) Like pleasure and pain.
9. Moreover, there is the advantage of the example which is acceptable to both parties of
the conjuntion of time and pot which is the cause for all effects.
Thus it is stablished that Brahman is both (undifferentiated) efficient and material cause.
88_¯0AA>6_"R?1>=D0Í66H

Ì>W}1>WA1Ì6<RWD>;>BR<;RW$;1>R1;51R9R>R54"<01>:Q

56
11.Compatibility of the definition that Brahman Is Self Luminous
1. When it does not have the character of cognisability, it has the character of the
capacity for immediate emphirical use. It must not be the locus of the absolute
negation .
AA>6_"R?1>Í66H

ARÌR1:RA>6_"R?
BW1UA>AHR;R\6_"R?>;1<W">4U<1>R1Q
6_3T6>1Q

12.Compatibility of the Self Luminosity Of Brahman
1. (Sadya) Brahman is self luminous (Hetu) Because it does not depend on other
luminous object for its existence, (Example) Like the lamp.
??83
3
Ì
Ì>R';1>
ÍÍ66H
54]:]"1;RÌ>W}1;R'ÌR553R363=D;:Q5>R';:Q6_>YH5:HÌ9R>R1QÒ1

13N·H:QØ@,R$U0"_;R)R1A\854R?83BW1>5R1:5;1:RWÅW@R\1W5R1:R5R94T;1W

13.Compatibility that Brahman Is Not Describable By Words directly.
1. Since Brahman has no attributes and is not cognisable, it is only implied (Lakshyam)
by words like Anand etc and cannot be expressed directly, since there is absence of
connection between word and meaning as cause for action.
2. It is said: "It is seen that words are correlated to quality, action, kind and relation.
These are not in Brahman and therefore, Brahman cannot be expressed with a sense. "
57
AAR:R5;1RW9W3#0.5:Q
5B>;\9W36_1T1WA>Á6\"R<0\>RÌ6=6R:"\1U8R41>@;1>\8_V:

14. Refutation Of Difference In General
1. We do not deny the case or the nature of perception of difference; but we say that it is
the object of sublation.
>?W@1RW9W3#0.5:Q
"\'9W3WA>W1<9W3A;>x>;1;RA>>YH><RW4RW 5>A2R>R"\'9W3W9W31>:U6R4Á6\)R1Á6\>R>R';\
1G6U59]W3RW>R';12R'Ì5;RW5;>YH;RA>>YH;R6HW

15. Refutation Of Difference In Particular
1. In difference, the difference from other than its own has to be stated; this will result
in the contradiction of its own location. or there will be an infinite regress. In
difference, the character of difference, the character of an adjunct or the character of class
have to be stated. There again, difference has to be stated......................then, beause of
mutual dependence , its own location will result..
>?W@#0.5:Q
A>Á6R1S<xA;>?W@A;RmT"R<W1A;X>9W31>W59W3A;4:]9W3RW²;;RW$R1Q

16. Refutation Of The Particularity
1, If the particularity is accepted as separate from its own nature, it itself is the character
of difference. Then it is not possible for the difference to have the attributes of
difference.
58
99W36b"6
W6_1;D9m
Í·HR5U9>A;Ì51"<0R}>t'(¿'X15;A;135>'(¿'X15;6_1;RW$"9W3R>$RB1;R?U'X15;4:]"53]N#R3
6_1;RW$"9W3Ì5>$RB1>R1Q

FU1<6Ì>t'(¿9W3R5U>R35T

1A:R1Q9W36b"W56_1;D\6_:R0:Q

17. Refutation Of Perception In Five Differences
1. The said experiences are of only Consciousness limited bythe mind. They therefore
govern difference having the consciousness not qualified by the mind as its counter-
correlate and not difference having pure consciousness as the qualified and painlessness
etc as the counter-positive.
2. Srutis also restate difference qualified by the consciousness of mind.
3, Therefore, perception is not valid in the five differences.
Notes: The five differences are: 1) between Jiva and Iswara 2) between Insentient and Iswara 3)
between Jiva a nd Insentient 4) between Jivas and 5) between insentients.
))T>8_¯9W3R5U:R59m

AR)T>W?><RX9¿RX
BW1U>À4:R]4"<01>R1Q
3B51UB5>1QÒ1;G3N#R3W<51"<0R34:]1>W5
A>Á6RAW9W3:RGWAAR45R1Q1RtH>"9W3WAR4;>X"º;R1Q

"tº61AR>]E;ÌAR>]E;ÌR3>;>A2R;R>0W]ÃA>3T%]1>R3>;>A2R>1Q"tº619W3W5X>Í66H;RA>R9R>"9W3\6_1
Ì6_;RW)"1>R1Q'

59
18. Refutation Of Difference Between Jiva And Brahman
1. Objection: (Sadhya) Jiva and Iswara are different (Hetu) because they have the locus which has
contrary nature (Example) Like the fire and Snow.
2. Reply: Here, pain etc is of the nature of mind(not related to Self) and therefore, the hetu is not
established......If it is mere difference, it is the establishment of what is already established;(acceptable to
advaitins) if it is real difference, there is negation of probandum.
2. The omniscient and non-omniscient states are imposed like the shortness and length
on a letter, It is compatible only by the imposition and it is of no criteria for natural
difference.
))T>6<A6<9W3R5U:R59m

ARR4;\'XGRW:XG6_1;RW$"4:]ER5R8R4;9W3>R5Q
BW1U:XGR5UA\B13N#R55UA54R1Y1>R1Q
%,>1QÒ1;G
4:]63>"º6W5AAR45R1Q

19. Refutation Of difference Between Jivas
1 Objection: (Sadhya) Chaitra has difference which will not be sublated by the
knowledge of the one having the nature as its counter-positive. (Hetu) because he is not
able to recognise the pains suffered by Maitra. (Example) Like the pot.
Reply: Because of the word "one having the nature" , it is the fallacy of establishing the
established.
))T>9W3W5U"V=1"9
]9m
55U;3ÌR1:X·;\A;R1Q'XGW0A>]3N#R}5UA54R5\A;R1QÒ1'W1Q5ÌRX6R4"9W3W5Ì55UA54R5Í66HW

A>]>"º6RAB1>W5:2;R9V1A;X>Í6R4W:2;R9W36_;RW)"1>A;6_R$W>Í66R35R1Q

20 Refutation Of Logic On Difference Between Jivas
1.Objection. If there is unity of atman, Chitra will remember pain of every one. -
Reply: No; because of the difference in adjunct., it is compatible that he will not.
60
2. Since the adjunct is non-real, the criteria for non-real difference has already been
explained.
9W36+'" 5U:R599m

AR4;\8_¯)T>RW>RÌ5R1:6_1;RW$"4:]ER5R8R4;9W3>R5Q
BW1U63R2]1>R1Q
%,>1QÒ1;R3@U
6V>RW]·13RW@R51>YHW6S<t'(¿1>A;).1>A;)5;1>A;'Í6R41>R1Q

AR4;\8_¯9W3BT5\5R>1@-1W
BW1U63R2]1>R1Q
%,>1QÒ1:U·1;AB>YH1>A;).1>A;'Í6R41>R1Q

1A:R1Q9W36b"\5Ì5U:R5>@;

21. Refutation Of Five Differences (Logical)
1. Objection: Brahman or Jiva has difference which is not subject to sublation by

knowledge of the one having the nature of anatman as its counter-positive (Hetu)
because it is a substance (Example) like the jar.
Reply: Because it has the fallacy of an adjunct of insentience, limitedness and being
born.
2. Objection: (Sadya) Brahman is not with out difference (Hetu) because it is a substance
(Example) Like the pot.
Reply: Insentience is the fallacy of adjunct.
3.. Therefore, the five differences are not the object of inference.
99W3FU1W<5U>R31>Í66H

55U9W31RtH>"1>W]RAU60R]ØØ;ÌR1:515Q]Ò1FU1;RW:R5:1'W1Q5

9W3>;63W?A;"Rº65"9W3:R3R;Ì6Í66HW9W31RtH>"1>Ì6;]>AR;1>R1QFU1;51<><RW4Rc5'Ï11Q
FU1><RW4R1QAX>FU1<5;6<R9W3FU1W6_1;DA9W3R5U>R31>W5BT58=1>R1Q

22 Compatibility - Srutis On Differences Are Restatements
1. Objection: The Srutis, 'Two birds, who is in Atman' are valid for real difference.
61
2. Reply: No It is compatible that mention of differences is based on imposed
differences; since difference is not absolute and since it contradicts other Srutis; Not that,
because they are contradictory, they have other import; Srutis on difference are weaker
because they are restatements of the difference based on empirical perception.

99W3FU1W>;R]>BRSRS<<"9W36<1>Í66H
Ì2>RÌ5U>R3"1>Ì9R>W 6>;R>BRS<"9W36<1>W5FU1;U66H

5'Ì9W3FU1WÌ#0.'5:RG6<1>W59W3R><RW41>:Q1R<T9V1R2]:R3R;1<RW4R1Q

23. Compatibility - Srutis On Differences Are Based On Empiricality
1. Or though they are not restatements, the Srutis are compatible as they take into
account the empirical differences.
2. There is no non-contradiction of difference, since non-dual Srutis have their purport
only in impartite Consciousness. The contradiction is only taking into account the
meaning through which we have to go to.
??83R51<R3Ì
WÌR1:9W3AR4"1>ÌA\9>
6_1;DR3A:"D;1;R?83R51<R3T5R\9W3"1>W 61RtH>"Ì9W3Ì><RW41>R1Q

24. Other Srutis Cannot Establish Difference
1. Although other Srutis with the same empirical reality speak of differences, there is
no contradiction on absolute non-difference.
99W3FU1@
W@t.Q>41R16;]=m
m99m
ÌR2>]0W6_2::U0."WÌ9W3A;X>Í6"_R511>R1Q1T;:U0."W:4;W6<R:?R]1Q1Y1T;:U0."R51W'

ÏW·;=D07=W5Í6A\BR<Rc:U0."G;Rt1:"R;RÍ65@3ÏW·;6<1>WtA21WÌ5?55QÒ1;R3W"Rº65"9W3W5
Í66H;R1RtH>"9W3Í66H1>Ì9R>R1Q

1>3N65;A1=mR5R\9W36<1R50R];"1>W 6"tº619W36<1;R1Rt1>"R9W3R><RWS41>R1Q

62
25. Refutation Of The Import of Six Principles In Srutis On Difference
1, In the first chapter of Mundaka (of Atharva veda), it begins only with the non-
difference, 2) In the second , in the middle , non-difference is analysed 3) In the third, it
ends with the result of non-difference. The three chapters of Mundaka are of identity.
There'"Not eating etc" are compatible only with imposed difference, as absolute
difference is not compatible.
2. Although the charcteristics given by you favour the purport of difference , there is no contradiction
taking into account the purport of imposed difference.

ÏÏW·;A>Á6Í66H
13>YH4:R]5R4R<1>Í6=D1A>Á6A;Ì9W31>R1Q

5'Ï>:9W3A;R8R41R1:A>Á66;]>ARR5W1A;'ÌR1:A>Á6A;6<X<6A\:11>W51>'(RR>@;1>:1>R';:Q
26. Essential Nature Of Unity
1, Unity is the essential nature indicated by not being the locus of properties which do not
exist in Atman.
2. It should not be said - This is not the subject of your Sastra, as it is agreed by others
on the nature of Atman which is not sublated and non-dual.
))T>8_¯R9W3W6_:R0:Q

55UAR>]E;RAR>]E;R3>S?;RW<X·;:Q8RW4;:1'W1Q5ARW ;:1;R3RXÒ>>ÀR"R<1;R$W5
?U;RWÏW·;8RW45R1Q

27. Authority On Non-Difference Between Jiva And Brahman
63
1. Objection: How can Unity be taught when it is qualified by Omniscience and non-
omniscience attributes.
Reply:.. As in the case of "This is that" by dropping the contradictory qualifications, the
pure substrates are taught in the sense of unity.

ÏÏW·;FU1WÀ6)T>;><RW4R9R>
?·H$_BR3RX1;RWÀ)T>;1>W 6A>6_:W;WÌ5U6)T>;1>R1Q13N·H\>R'A61;WØ;1QÍ6)T>;\1¿8R4;1W;R4;1W
1¿RW6)T>;:QØÒ1;2R"2\'1QÌ6WDR:RGW0Í6)T>;1>W5W3\<)1\Ò1;GR6Ò3\<)1\Ò1;A;Í6)T>;1RÌR6HW

13R1>:R'=D1;RW<W>63R2];RWÏW·;8RW4A;6_R"Q6_36R311>R1Q

28. Non-Contradiction Of The Evidence Which Is Depended Upon With The

Srutis On Unity
1, Although they depend on perception for significative potency, still they (the Unity
Srutis) do not depend on perception for the object signified.
2. It is said by Vachaspati: - "That which is depended on is not subject to sublation., and

that which is sublated is not depended on. If it is said that the state of depended upon is
to be accepted, then in the knowledge "this is not silver", the knowledge "this is silver"
will have to be accepted as that which is depended on."
3. By the words of "it and Thou", only the indicated meaning of the two words is unity.
This has been explained before.
111>:A>R·;R2]5Á60:Q

Ì9W3W 1R16;W] >4Y1W 1¿>R]B=D0R8RBNº;A; Ì3RW@1>R1Q 5 B =D0X·;R5U<RW4W5 1R16;]6S<1;R$ 13N·H\
Ø5;R;'51R:0RWXØØ1R16;R]1Q1U>YH51U>YHWA1R16;]:QØÒ1)B3)BeD0;R:U#;6<1>WA\9>111QAB'S<1R}2]6<1>
"º65A;Ì5U'11>R1Q

Ï1W5
1'(83R1Q12R'1W51>\1A>R11A\)R1Ò1>R1A;1>:1>R1tA:5Q1>:Q Ò1
>RXÌ2]5<A1:Q

64
Ï1W5 1A; 1>\ 11>\ ÒS1 A:A1\ 63:1 5<A1:Q ÌA:RAW5X> @®×2]=D0R3<B1W5 Í66HRX @®TA:RAA;
Ì5;R;;1>R1Q

29 Proof of the Meaning Of the sentence - 'Thou Art That
1.When it is understood that non-difference is the purport, there is no harm in having

many secondary implications to maintain non-difference. The main purport cannot be
sacrificed to be in line with secondary implication. It is said in the Nyayachintamani that
vritti is for the purport and not the purport for the vritti. By the implication, "quasi-
inclusive", when the important purport is possible, it is not proper to invent that its
purport is on concomittance.
2. By this, the following (interpretations of "Thou art That) has been refuted. (a) "you
stand by him " (b) from him you are born (c) you are of him (d) you are in him.
3. By this, the following is also refuted. - You are of him., as a compound. It is improper
to invoke the sixth case compound, as it has to apply to their lakshana/
Ì
ÌB\8_¯RRAA:Ò1;RR3
3ÌÌ5W"FU1;2]"25:Q
8YB3R<0;"tA21A;
Ø8_¯>RÒ3:$_ÌRAT1Q13R1:R5:W>R>W3B\8_¯RtA:ØÒ1>R·;A;Ì5U6RA5R
6_"<0A21;RÌ9W36_:R6"1>:W>

Ï>\:U0."W
ØA;RWB>X116<\8_¯>W38_¯X>9>1ØÒ1Ï136>R·;\Ì9W36<:W>

8_¯X>A5Q8_¯R6;W1
8YÍÒ1FU1<6ÏX·;6<R

6<W >;;WA>]Ï"T9>t51
:UÒ1Ï136Ì9W3W:R5:Q

12RÌ51;R]:6_"<0A2\
8YÍØ5R5;RW 1RW tA1ÇRØÒ1>R·;\ÌD<6_"<0A2\
8YÍ
Ø5R5;31RW tA1ÇYØÒ1>R·;\'ÏW·;W6_:R0:Q

65
Ø"\'1T;RX9;\9>1ØÒ19W3A;9;BW1U1>W55t5311>R1QÌ6Ì9W3Ï>Í65@~:;

ØÏ1tA:¿U3<:51<\"UÀ1WÌ21A;9;\9>1Ø
1XÍÒ19W3553;RÌ6Ì9W3At

30. Meaning Of Srutis 'I Am Brahman' Etc
1. In the Brihadaranyaka , the sentence "In the beginning this was verily Brahman and
that Brahman knew only itself as I am Brahman " is not in the context of meditation and
therefore is of non-difference .
2. In the Mundakopanishad - "He who knows the highest Brahman becomes Brahman
himself" The purport of this sentence is non-difference.
3. "Being Brahman. attains Brahman " The purport of this Sruti also is non-difference.
4. "In the Supreme indestructible Brahman, all become one " This also is valid in non-
difference".
5. In the Antharyami Brahmana - "There is no other seer than He" and in the Akshara
Brahmana " there is nothing that sees but It" are valid in non-difference.
6. "From the second only there is fear " - difference is spurned and therefore, non-
difference only is the purport of the Upanashad.
7 "If he makes the smallest distinction in It, there is fear for him. " - non-difference is
established as difference is spurned.
))T>8_¯Ì9W3R5U:R5:Q

AR)T>R6<:R1:5A11>1RW59}51W
BWÌR1:1>R1Q
6<:R1:>1Q

ARÌR1:RÇ>;1>R6<)R1;R5R5R5
BW>9U1>R1Q
ÌR"R?>1Q

AR>:1R9W34T:2;R
BW9W34T1>R1Q
'5Ç9W34T>1Q

31. Inference On Non-Difference Between Jiva And Brahman
1. (Sadhya). Jivas are not in reality different from Brahman (Hetu) because they are
Atman (Example) Like Paramatman.
66
2. (Sadhya) Atma is not many as it is a class which is less pervasive than the character of
Dravya (Hetu) because it is present everywhere (Dris) like Akasa.
3. (Sadhya) The difference in perception of the subject is non-real, (Hetu) Because of
difference in perception (Drish) Like the difference in perception of the moon

Ì
Ì\?1>W5ÏW·;RW66H
Ø6R3R__W A;>?>R9V1R5ØÒ1FU1RXØ::X>R\?RW)T>=RW"W)T>9V1A5R15ØÒ1A:Y1RX'Ì\?1>>;63W?R1QÌ6
)T>8_¯Ì9W3A

1A:R1QØ1>\TA>R]0Á6R0ØÒ1;R3FU1;R)T>8_¯Ì9W3W6_:1W 6:51Y:51>;1>R3
9W3>;3W?5>R]BR2^"Rº65"R\?1>A;FU1A:Y1>;RÂ11>W51=R36Ì9W3RW >$:;1WÒ1A:Q

32.Compatibility of Non-Difference as Composite
1. In the Sruti "His feet are all beings in the world", in the Smruti "Jiva is part of me in
the world" - In these , Jiva is mentioned as part of Brahman. By these also,non-
difference results.
2. By the Srutis, although non-difference between Jiva and Brahman is meant, still for
explaining the difference between the meditator and who is meditated upon, difference
is assumed as a part, From this also , non-difference is the result.
8:86_18:85;R;W5ÏÏW·;A

12R)T>8_¯0RW:U#6_1:U#>1Q8:86_18:8À61>R1QÌ6Ì9W3RWÌ>$51>;

13W>\6_18:8A;8:8W5X·;W>;>tA21W8_¯X·;\)T>)R1A;A\116_18:85R1Q

33. By Logic Of Original And Reflection Non-Difference is proved.
1. Non-difference is to be understood as in the case of an original and reflection , as

Brahman is the original and Jiva its reflection.
2.When the reflection is non-different from the original, Jiva by its reflection of Brahman
is non-different from it.
67
)T>R0U1>##0.5:Q

55UÌ0U1>RdT>A;"2\>;R6"R3T?><R39W3Ò1'W1Q5
Ø 51; A>]$1Ø Ø A >R Ï@ :BR5) ÌR1:R Ø Ò1;R3 FU1;R

AR )T>RW 5R0U
BW 6_1;D$U0 ÌRF;1>R1Q
6_1;D1>Rc
%,>1Q

BWÌR1:1>R1Q
Ì9V11>R1Q'
Ò]?><>1QÒ1;R3Ì5U:R5X?')T>Ì50U1>AW
>6DW'3WB>;R6AU#ER5R3Ì5U6=:9R6H8R4"R

AR)T>Ì0U
BWER5RA:>R;"R<0A\;RW$RF;1>R1Q
:5RW>1QÒ1;G).1>A;RW6R41>Rc

34.Refutation that Jiva Is Atomic (Minute)
1. Objection: How can Jiva which is atomic be non-different from Iswara who is
omnipresent.
2. Reply:. By the Srutis, "Eternal all pervading", "He is that great unborn Atma" and by
the inferences, (Sadya) Jiva is not atomic, (Hetu) because he is the locus of perceptible
properties (Example) like a jar, (2nd Hetu) because he is Atman, he is not matter (2nd
Example) like Iswara, Jiva is not atomic. If Jiva were atomic, it will not be possible for
him to feel pain or pleasure pervading the whole body.
3. (Sadhya) Jiva is atomic (Hetu) Because it has the characteristic of being the locus of
conjunction which is the nonconcomitant cause of knowledge. {Drish) Like the mind.
Here insentience is an adjunct.
Notes; In Laghu Chandrika ( by Brahmananda Saraswati) which is a rejoinder to Tarangani (By

Ramathirta of Madwa school ) which is a rejoinder to Advaitasiddi, the following sloka is quoted at the end
of second Parichheda in support of Jiva-Brahma non-duality: ÇRX63T?R"R:RA>R} G=RW"u ;W5 16]1R 1dT >8_¯0RW<·X ;W ARD
8_¯X>5RWBS<
68
11Y1T;6S<'(W3
PARICHEDA 3
69
::55534;RA5;RWF
F>0Rm1>Í66H
13W>\ÏW"R1:;W>;>tA21W11ARDR1"R<R;F>0:QÌm:55534;RA5W13m1;R:U:UD9Ì5U®W;W13N·H\>><0RW
Ø F>0:m 6_:R0A; 6_:W;R>$:\ 6_1Ì>;>4R5R1Q :55534;RA5W 1U 'HA; 6_1;$R1:6_>0A\A"R<6S<5@6¿
13W"R$_>YH"R;]R<W08_¯R5U9>BW1U1R\6_16}W1WÒ17=RW6"R;]mW

1. Thinking And Meditating Are Subsidiary To Hearing
1. Thus when the oneness of Atman is established, those wishing realisation should have
hearing as primary with thinking and meditation as secondary means. It is said in the
Vivarana - "Hearing is primary, as there is no gap between the means and the object,
whereas thinking and meditation are secondary for the realisation and become the cause
for Brahman realisation by the concentration of the mind purified by the samskara of
direction towards Self.
>><0RW·H5;:RW66H
1GF>0R3"\>@;R>$:\6_1Ì5>;>;1<W"ARW6R;Ò114W5Ì6V>]>41>:Q"\1U5;:>41>:W>

2. Ordained Injunction Of Vivarana
1. Hearing etc are the means for realisation of Brahman by positive and negative
reasonings. The injuntion is not "Apurva" but of ordained injunction only.
Notes:Vidhis are of three kinds. a) Apurva vidhi = not known for all times by any way. Example: Vrihin
prokashati = Sprinkles the grains. (b) Niyama vidhi = Partly known to be done and partly not known to
bedone.. Example: Vrihin avahanti = strikes grains. (c) Parisankya vidhi = when an effect can result in
more than one way, ordaining of one. Example. Pancha Pancha naka Bhakshyah. Only five fingered five
animals should be eaten..
70
FF>0R3W>]4W;1>Í66H
ÌR}6DA;X>DRW3D:1>R1Q
?x1R16;R]>4R<0\>R5'1G?83?t·HÌA\9>RW3RW@?UW?t·HÌA\9>W 6
>??·HW1RW4RW6;RW$5;RÌ>4R<0T;R;RA\9>R1Q1R16;R]A;R6A\?;4:]0RW5t?'11>W51GÌA\9>W 6
A\?;"RWÈU6=SD1W5>]?W@WA\9>W5>'R<Ì>X;2;R]1Q

1A:R1QF>0R3WÌ4TÁ61;R:5RW>;R6<1>W5>4W;1>Í66H

3.Compatibility of Hearing Etc As An Injunction
1. The first can be accepted (understanding the purport of the potency.) There is no harm
that the potency of the words is not possible. Although this is not possible in pure
Brahman, the qualified potency 's usefulness in understnding is posssible. Although the
doubtful aspects have been decided and it is not possible there, still it is possible in the
pure Brahman by the indication of the doubtful aspects. - thus discussion is not
unnecessary.
2. Therefore, injunction of hearing etc. are compatible as they are of mental state and
different from knowledge.
>'R<A;FF>0>4:V=1>Í66H
Ï>\>'R<>4R;"F>0>4W<W>)ERARAVG:V=:Q

;RA:5>;R4;R;RW·H1R16;]5?'R;"Í6"_:R3;Ut·HÌ5UA54R5\F>0\1T;R4;R;RW·HÌ2]ÌAH>
?kR5>1]";Ut·HÌ5UA54R5\:55:Q

1A:R1QF>0>4:V=\>'R<>4R;"S)ERARAVGA;51U:55>4S<1A:Q

4.Compatibility - Hearing Is The Root Cause For Discussion
1. The root cause for Jignsa Sutra is the injunction for hearing which is the case for the
injunction for discussion.
2. Or hearing is the repetitive thinking of the reasons like beginning etc. which decide the
purport, as said in the Samanvaya Adyaya, Reflection is the repetitive thinking of the
reasons for clearing doubts and impossibilities etc, as said in the Second Chapter.
71
3. Therefore, the injunction of hearing is the cause for injunction for discussion of the
Jignasa Sutra and not the injunction for reflection.
>>R'A61;U·HA>R4;;>4>'R<<ÌRDW6"1>Í66H
6_A2R5R51<W1UÌ4;;5>4W<W>R2R]>$:6;]511>R1Q"R0.;>'R<RDW6"1>:QF>0R3@U'5>4

5.Compatibility of the presumptive discussion by the injunction of

Adyayana according to Vachaspati's View
1.In the other Prastana, the injunction for reciting is upto the understanding of the
meaning and which applies to both the Khandas, there is no injunction for hearing.
ER5A;66UÀ@15G1RR9m
5'?RR2]ER5A;5;:W56U\15G1>3?]]5R1Q8_¯0?'?RR2]1>R1Q1)ER5A;6U\15G1>:1>R';:Q1GR6
ER5AR45A;X>6U\15G1>R1Q;c6_?A1Ì6_?A1ER5;RW>45@W43?]5\136ER5"R<0>@;":W>;cÒ'(R35R
Í16H5<RW4;RWÌ5U9>ARW 6"<0>;R6R<>@;":W>

5BÌ5;15G1R:RGW0Ì>4W;1>\8_V:"\1U6U:'(R9;1Q"R<0WA1Ì5;2R"1]ÛÌ?·;1>:Q

6. Refutation Of Man's Effort For Knowledge
1 Objection:. It should not be said : - Since the knowledge of the meaning of the Sastra
is always seen as an effort of man and since Brahman is the meaning of Sastra,
Brahman knowledge is also of man's effort.
Reply:. There also the human effort is with reference to the instruments of knowledge.
The good which are enjoined and bad which are prohibited pertain only to the
instruments of knowledge. The experience of pain etc, which are born or eradicated
also pertain to instruments of knowledge.
72
2. We do not say that it is non-injunction by other effort alone, but when there is cause
by human desire, it is not possible to do it otherwise .
EER5>49m
1A:R1Q 6±Ö;>WD1:QÌR);\Ò1;R3RX Ì6ER5A;Ì>4R5R1Q4;R5A;R6 >ER5>;1<W"AR45R1QAVD:?RR2]8URX

"Y1;5>;>;1<W";RW 11AR45>@;1;R Ì5;2RA1>Rc 5 ÌR1:ER5\ >4R1U\ ?·;1W 13W>\ F>0A; ER5Á61>W
>4W;1>Ì5U66H 1A:R1Q ER5>)R1T;\ F>0\ Ì6<RWDER5)5"?83Ò1"1]>;1;RÁ6>'R<R1:"\
:55534;RA5Rm"\6_:W;R>$:\6_1Ìm1;R6_4R59V1\Ì6<RWDER57="1;R>4T;1Ò1A:Q

7. Refutation Of Injunction Of Knowledge
1. Therefore, in "Ghee seen by wife" etc. also, knowledge is not an ordained injunction;
in the case of concentration also , since it is separate from knowledge, injunction is
possible. In understanding the subtle meaning of Sastra there is an injunction, by
induction and deduction of reasoning and it does not relate to knowledge but to
instruments of knowledge. and therefore , knowledge of the Atman is not possible to be
enjoined. Likewise, hearing if it is defined as knowledge is incompatible to be enjoined.
Sravana is discussion to find out the methods to get immediate knowledge from the
Sabda.Therefore, hearing is different from knowledge. Thinking and meditation are
subsidiaries to hearing. It is the principal means for realisation of Brahman and is
enjoined.
??R83R6<RWD1>:Q
55U"2:6<RWDER5)5"1>:Q?83A;!:R5R9R>R31'W1Q5]>W3R51>ER5AU5t?'1R2R]]ØÒ1;R3W?':R51>R1Q

5'
AR>:1?83RW5R6<RWD4TBW1U
BW?831>R1QÒ16_1AR45:Q3?:A1>:AÒ1;R3R>W>>;9'R<R1Q

1A:R1Q1H>:A;R3>R·;A;Ì6<RWDER5)5"1>R1QÌ>}R5>YH;R1:":RWDAR458_¯ARDR1"R<R;:55R}m"\F>0\
Ìm5;:>4>@;Ò1A:Q

8. Immediate Knowledge From Verbal Testimony
1.Objection: How can word produce immediate knowledge as there is no authority.?

Reply: The authority is the Sruti: " Those with knowledge of the Vedanta have the
determination of the identity (Jiva-Brahma)
73
2. It is not : (sadhya) Word isnot cause of immediate knowledge (Hetu) Because it is a
word. Because it strays in "you are the tenth" etc.
3.. Therefore, sentences like "Thou art That " generate immediate knowledge. It is in the
form of release of nescience, a means for Liberation for Brahman realisation. Hearing is
principal, meditation etc, are subsidiaries, it is the subject of Niyama Vidhi. This is
established.
'1U26
]6S<'(W3
PARICHEDA 4
74
Ì
Ì>}R5>YH5Á60:Q
Ø5>YH<R1:R:RWBA;ER11>W5Í6=D1Í6=D05R?WW 6A;R5:Ut·H6R'R"R3>1Q

6_Rª6_RªÁ61;R7=A;ÌR5536_"R?A;A>Á61RW AR4;1>W 61H<RW4R;"ÌER55>1]">YHWAR4;1>:RGW0

AR4;1>Í66HW"0-$1'R:T"<R3RX12R3?]5R1Q1A:R1QÌER5BR5ÌR1:A>Á6\13R"R<R>YH>RÒ1A:Q

1. Proof Of Eradication Of nescience
1.The Atman who is indicated as knowledge is eradication of ignorance. Even though

the indicator is destroyed, release will be there like the cook etc. (even when the action
of cooking ceases, the cook remains,)
Release is in the nature of what one gets that which he already has. In its nature of
Bliss, although it is not possible to be a Sadhya, still it can be established by the mental
75
state of ignorance which veils Bliss. It is similar to one getting the necklace which he
already has. Therefore, eradication of ignorance is the essential nature of Atman or of a
mental state in that form.
Ì
Ì>}RR55>1]"5Á60:Q
Ì>}R5>1]"\';}65A>6_"R?8_¯Á6ER5:RG:Q1A;11AR4"1>R1Q12R6F>0R3AR4;Ì6<RWD>YHA:RÁ/\
13W>

13U·H\1Y0R3W9R]A"R6;W@RAV;]3TªA1Y0\3BW1QAV;]"R51:U6RÀÅ1¿;R;\>5;RW);W1Q

2.Proof of Eradicator Of nescience
1. The realisation of the self luminous Brahman cannot be the eradicator of ignorance
because it is by realisation that ignorance comes to be known to be . However, Brahman
reflected in the the perceptual mental state attained by hearing etc. cannot but be the
eradicator of ignorance.
2.It is said: Sunlight, by itself illumines grass etc: the same will burn grass. through a
lense. That logic should be applicable here.
::U·HW<R553Á61>W566UÀ@R2]5Á60:Q
55U1>5:1W:U·HRX1G5AU#R1:1R1R>16UÀ@R2]AU#TA;R:1>1QAU#\A;R:1Ò'(R;R
Ì3?]5R1QÒ1'W1Q5AU#R3RWXB6U:2]1R5R6<"u;1>6_;U·1R5R6A>"T;1>6_;U·HR$RX<>R1Q"\1U
ARDRt1"_;:R01>R1Q

3.Proof - Moksha Is Bliss And Man's Goal
1. Objection: In your opinion,,,,,,,,,,man's goal is not the nature of happiness; Because

no wish is seen that "let me be happiness" like the one "Let me be happy".
Reply: In happiness etc the goal is desired neither because it is not related to others
nor is it because it is related to one's own self. as it is round about. But it is to be
experienced without a veil..
76
'5:RGA;::RWD9RR$$1>Í66HW
55U"A;R;\:RWD6U:2]!":B:2]A;ÌRBRWtA>1Q'5:RGA;!Ò1'W1Q5ÌB:2]$1\'3\?\
:Ut·H"R=R5>;5\6_16U:2]A;:RWDWA\9>Ò1;U·H6_RR;1>R1Q

1A:R1QA>6_"R?'39¿\AU#\6U:2]

4.Compatibility - Consciousness Alone gets the release
1. Objection: Whose is this man's goal of liberation? Is it of the "I" or "Consciousness

alone"
Reply: Man's goal of liberation is possible as Consciousness which continues in its state
of liberation is a part of "I".
2. Therefore, bliss which is non-different from self-illuminous Consciousness is the goal

of man.
))T>5:Ut·HÍ66H
1c)T>5:U·HR5R\A>R5U9>A:Q
5'11>ER5R3>}R5R?WA}?<T<6R1R6H5>YHA6]9_:A;R6
A\A"R<R1Q9;":6R5U>YH>1Q30.A\;RW$5R?W 6'"_9_:0>cA\A"R<R5U>YHWÌ>}R5>YHR>611"R;R]5U>YHA\9>R1Q

5. Compatibility Of Jivanmukthi
1.Thar Bliss is experienced by a Jivanmukta. There is no question of the fall of the body
immediately real knowledge is realised. Because of the continuance of residue,
although relieved of illusion, the resultant body is possible to be continued, like the
continuance of fear and shaking after an illusion of a serpent and also like the circling of
the potter's wheel even after taking away the stick
::U·HRX1R<1:;9m
77
5R6:U·HRXÍc5T'9R>1A;1T;AR6WD1>W513RÌA\9>R1QØ6<:\AR:;\ØÍ6X1Ò1AR:;FU1W?'AR1?;1>W
:U·HWA>$R]3>1QÌ51;1>\A;R1Q

AR45RWH:1>W5AR4;RWH:A;Ì6<::Ut·H>@;1>R1Q

1A:R1QA>Á6R553A;A>6_"R?R1:Á606_Rª:U]t·H5]1GRtA11R<1:;\"2\'5

6.Refutation of presence of Gradation in Mukti
1. There are also no high or low grades in mukti., as the question of degrees arise only in
duality which does not exist in Moksha. "he obtains absolute equality " says Sruti. If
there are grades in Moksha like Swarga, it will become non-eternal.
2. Attainment of bliss in its form in the self-luminous form of Atman is moksha. Since
there is no question of grades whatsoever.
3. Therefore Liberation is attaining the form of self-luminosity which is the nature of

bliss. There is no gradation there whatsoever.
Books
1. Sanskrit
1. Advaitasiddhi (with Vittaleshiyam and Laghuchandrika - edited by Pandit

Sri N.S, Ananthakrishna Sastri ) Parimal Publications, Delhi
2, Advaitasiddhi with Balabhodhini - Ratna Publications, Varanasi
3, Advaitasiddhisiddhantasara by Sadananda Vyasa - Vidya Vilas, Varanasi
2. English
78
1, Advaitasiddhi First chapter translation by Dr, Ganganath Jha - Satguru
Publications, Delhi,
2. Advaitasiddhi - Translation on Mityatva by Karuna Bhattacharya - ICPR, New Delhi
3. Advaitasiddhi - A critical study by K. Maheshwaran Nair - Satguru Publications,

Delhi.
Appendix I
1. Prof. S, Kuppuswamy Sastri's English translation and notes on the Tarka Sangraha
(Primer of Indian Logic) gives a good working knowledge of the methodology of
Indian Logic, with its introduction on the origin and development of Indian logic . It is
published by the Kuppusway Sastry Research Institute, Mylapore, Madras 4.
2. To understand the new School of Logic, a study of the Karikavali (Bhasha

Pariccheda) with the commentary of Mukthavali is nescessary. An English translation
by Swami Madhavanda is availble, published by Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta.
3. As a ready reckoner, the following terms and explanation s are given. These are not
exhaustive but only indicative.
4. The new school of Indian logic lays much stress on the means of valid knowledge
(Pramana), particularly to inference (reasoning). The terms are defined very accuratley.
The methodology is unique in its brevity without sacrificing clarity.
5. It deals with four Pramanas - Perception (Pratyaksha), Inference (Anumana),

Similarity (Upamana ) and Verbal Testimony (Sabda), Vedanta has accepted two more -
Presumption (Arthapatti) and Non-cognition (Anupalabdhi).
6. Perception is the knowledge through the sense organs.
7.1. Inference is in the form of a syllogism -(1) The Mountain is with fire
6>]1RW>t5B:R5Q
Because it has smoke (4V:>1>R1Q Like the hearth
:BR5A>1Q In this syllogism, Mountain
is called Paksha (subject) ." With fire" is Probandum (Sadya), Fire is the reason (Hetu)
and Hearth is the example (Drishtanta). The sadya is established by the knowledge of the
invariable concomitance between fire and smoke.
79
7.2. A defective probans (fallacious reason) (Hetvabhasa) will obstruct the inferential
knowledge and they are of five kinds. (1) Reason that strays away (Savyabhichara) (2)
the adverse reason (viruddha) (3) the opposable reason (Satpratipaksha) (4) the
unestablished reason (asiddha) and the stultified reason (bhadita)
7.3. The straying reason (savyabhichara) is otherwise known as anaikantika (literally not
unfailing in its association with the probandum) It is of three kinds - viz, common
(sadharana) , uncommon (asadharana) and non-conclusive (anupasamharin)
7.4. The common strayer (asadharana) is that variety of straying reason which is present
in a place where the probandum (sadhya) is not present; as in the argument-"The
mountain has fire,because it is knowable". In this argument, knowability is found in a
tank where fire is not present. The uncommon strayer (asadharana) is that reason which
is present in the subject (paksha) and not present in any similar example (sapaksa) or
counter-example (vipaksa); as soundness (sabdatva), in the argument - "Sound is eternal,
because it is sound", sabdatva (sound-ness) being present only in sound, and nowhere
else, eternal or non-eternal. The non-conclusive strayer (anupasamharin) is that reason
which has no affirmative or negative example (anvayadrishtana or
vyathirekadrishtanta); as knowableness (premeyatva) in the argument - " All things are
non-eternal, because they are knowable". Here, no example is available since all things
are treated as paksa.
7.5. The adverse reason (viruddha) is one which is invariably concomitant with with the
non-existence of the probandum; as producibility (kritakatva), in the argument - "Sound
is eternal, because it is produced". Here producibility is invariably concomitant with
non-eternality, which amounts to the non-existence of eternality.
7.6 The opposable reason (satpratipaksa) is one which admits of being counter-balanced
by another reason that proves the non-existence of the probandum; as audibility in the
argument--"Sound is eternal, because it is audible, like soundness (Sabdatva). The
counter - reason in this case is producibility (Kritakatva) in the argument-"Sound is non-
eternal, because it is producible:".
7.7 The unestablished reason (asiddha) is of three kinds; viz, unestablished in respect of
abode (asrayaasiddha), unestablished in respect of itself (swarupaasiddha) and
unestablished in respect of its concomitance (vyapyatvaasiddha). The reason is
asryasiddha in the argument - "Sky-lotus is frgrant, because it is lotus, like the lotus of a
pond." Here, sky - lotus is the abode or subject and it never exists. The reason
swarupasiddha in the argument - "Sound is a quality, because it is visible, like colour".
Here, visibility cannot be predicated of sound, which is only audible. The reason is
said to be an adventious condition (upadhi) which is pervasive of the probandum but not
pervasive of the probans, In the argument - "The mountain has smoke, because it has
fire",contact with wet fuel is the adventious condition (upadhi). "Where there is smoke,
there is contact with wet fuel"-thus it is pervasive of the probandum . There is no
contact with wet fuel in every place where there is fire; for instance, a red-hot iron ball
has no contact with wet fuel; thus the upadhi is non-pervasive of the probans. In this
80
manner,contact with wet fuel is the upadhi in the present instance, because it is pervasive
of the probandum but not pervasive of the probans. And fire, in the argument under
reference, is vyapyatvaasiddha, since it is associated with an adventitious condition
(upadhi),
7.8 The stultified reason (bhadita) is one which is put forward to prove a probandum
whose non-exitence is established by another proof.. "Fire is not hot, because it is a
substance ", the probandum is "not being hot"; its reverse - "being hot" - is perceived
through tactile perception; so the probans is stultified (badhita).
8. Similarity (Upamana). Analogical cognition consists in the knowledge of relation

between a name and the object.
9. Verbal testimony (Sabda) . Verbal expectancy (Akanksha) congruity (Yogyata) and

proximity (Sannidhi) these are causes that bring about verbal cognition.
10. Presumption (Arthapatti) is of an explanatory fact (upapadaka) from a knowledge of

the thing to be explained (upapadya). Stoutness of a man who does not eat at day time
is inexplicable unless we assume his eating at night.
11, Non-cognition (Anupalabdhi) is the distinctive cause of that experience of non-

existence which is not generated by an instrument of cognition, If on a brightly lit
ground, there existed a pot ,it should be known. Now it is not known. Therefore there
is non-existence of the pot on the ground.
12. Definition (lakshana): The usual method is to give a simple definition and examine
the purpose of each word included in it (Dala-prayojana-chinta). Definition is
susceptible to three faults. (Dosha). If we define a cow an animal with horns, it extends
to non-cows (ativyapti-over-applicability), it does not include cows which have no horns
(avyapti-non-inclusiveness) If we define cow as "a single hoofed animal", it is not
applicable to any cow at all (Asambava-non-applicability).
13. The cause and effect relationship (Karya-karana bhava) is established by the
copresence (anvaya) and co-absence (vyatireka) (Yatsattve yatsatvam yadabhave
yadabhavah).
14. Causes are three. (1) Material cause (Samavayi karana) is a substance e, thread for
the cloth. (2) Non-material cause (asamavayi Karana) is quality or action. eg conjunction
of thread (Tantusamyoga) (3) Others . Nimitta karana - the weaver -
15. I n order to point out the difference between the various cognitions, perceptional,
inferential,verbal etc, an attribute is assumed in each. objectness (vishayata), subjectness
(Vishayita), Causality (Karanata) effectness (Karyata) etc.
16. Avacchedaka and avacchinna: That which delimits a thing or an attribute is called
avacchedaka, while the delimited is avachinna. Gatatva is avacchedaka and Gata is
avachinna.
81
17. Abhava" Non-existence is a positive entity and it is of four kinds. Prior non-
existence (Pragabhava) annihilative non-existence (Dwamsabhava), absolute non-
existence (atyantabhava) and mutual non-existence (anyonyabhava).
18. Pratiyogin: A thing of which the non-existence is predicated is the pratiyogin. The pot
is the pratiyogin of the non-existence of the pot.
19. Vyapya and Vyapaka: That which has narrower extension is vyapya and that which
has wider extension is vyapaka. Smoke is vyapya and fire is vyapaka.
20. Upajivya and upjivaka: That which is depended upon is upajivya and that which
depends upon is upajivaka. Perception is upajivya and inference, sabda etc. is upajivaka.
21. Defects in Anumana (1): Siddasadana is establishing what has already been
established. (2) Arthanthara Probandun (Sadya) will not be there while Probans (Hetu)
is there. (3) Sadana Vaikalya: Probans (Hetu) is not established in example (Drishtanta)
(4) Baghaasiddha: Probans (Hetu) partially non-established in Paksha (subject).
82
Appendix II
1. Siddanta Kaumudi (By Bhattoji Dikshita ) with a commentary "Balamanorama" by

Vasudeva Dikshita is the standard text book for the study of Sanskrit grammar. English
translations are available. Siddanta Kaumudi is a detailed explanation of the Sutras of
Panini in a subjectwise order.
2. Panini has formulated Sanskrit Grammar in "Ashtadhyayi" with 8 chapters of four

Padas each - total 3983 Sutras. In addition, he has given a list of verb roots (Dhatupata)
under ten categories classified into Atmanepada a nd Parasmaipada - total 1943 roots.
3. Panini's Ashtadhyayi is a masterpiece in the field of Philology. It has been

commented upon by Vararuchi in a vartika and by Patanjali in his Maha Bhasya.
4. In the methodology of the Paninian Grammar, the most important and the unique is
the Pratyahara Sutras.
ÌÒÍ0QKL"QÏÌRW&QÏWÌRX'QB;><,Q=0Q+:&05:Q
*9+Q%/4@Q)8$.3?Q#7(-2',1>Q"6;Q?@A<Q
B=Q
5, Based on these 14 Sutras, Pratyaharas which are grammatical symbols or abbreviates
are formed For example, the Pratyahara Ì'Q (beginning letter in Sutra 1 and the last
letter in Suitra 4 ) denote all the vowels, Similarly B=Q (the first letter of Sutra 5 and
the last letter of Sutra 14 denote all consonants. There are 43 Pratyaharas for different
combinations. The last letter at the end of each Sutra is the indicating letter.
6. The technical terms numbering about 100, the interpreting and injunction rules have
been clearly defined at the outset.
7. Another scientifically designed feature is the rules for conjunction of words, (Sandhi).
This is based on the concept of Savarna, - letters which have the same place of
utterance in our vocal system and which in uttering have the same amount of effort.
83
8. Another important feature is the large number of Pratyayas - affixes - to be added to
nouns and verbs and a great variety of derivatives are obtained. For example, for nouns,
21 affixes are given - called AU6Q (7 case ending each for Singular, Dual and Plural).
Similarly, 18 Suffixes are given for verbs called - 1&Q There are also number of
suffixes for noun and verb derivatives.
9. Amarakosa is a Sanskrit dictionary , a separate work by Amarakosa , giving

synonyms of Sanskrit words.
84

Advaida Siddhi

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Advaida Siddhi

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

.

under the guidance of

Published on the eve of

If an attempt has to be made to evolve a globalised religion, acceptable to Christians, Muslims,

First, the non-reality of duality has to be proved., as the accomplishment of non-duality

There is diversity of opinions on non-reality.

>:1:Q:2;R" ?;1>R1Q# ).1>R1Q$ 6S<t'(¿1>R1Q?UxÁ6;>1Q

2. Discussion of the delimiting adjunct of subject.

1. The subject of dispute is non-real.

2. Because its being is a) Cognisability b) insentience c) limitedness

3. Like the shell-silver.

3. Proof Of Non-Reality Of World

(Non-Reality Is Different From Being And Unbeing)

1. The word non-reality means "indeterminability" according to the author of

2. The character of absolute absence of being as well as the character of absolute

First Padmapada Panchapadika

b)>;R>BRS<"empirical = other than Brahman

c)6_R19RA"phenomenal = objects of erroneous cognition (rope as serpent. shell

Ï>\'6_"Y1W 65@W48R4"W56_1;RW$56_6bA;5@W4A;'8R45R1Q55@W4A;8R4;1>W 66_6bA;

1. Non-realty is the character of the counter-positive of the negation for all

Notes: Pratiyogi = Pot is the Pratiyogi of the absence of Pot.

5. Third Definition Of Non-Reality

1. Non-reality means the character of being sublated by knowledge.

6. Fourth Definition Of Non-Reality

2, That it appears where it does not exist.

7. Fifth Definition Of Non-Reality

1. Non-reality is being different from the real.

8. Non-Reality Of The Non-Reality

9.Compatibility of Cognisability as cause

1, What is cognisability , the reason for non-reality, has to be explained.

2. Pure Brahman is not cognisable.

10.Compatibility of Insentience as cause

1. Insentience is different from Consciousness and Self.

2. Or it has not the character of self-luminosity.

11.Compatibility of Limitedness as cause

1. It is of three kinds, by place, time and thing.

12. Compatibility Of Being An Effect as cause

1. This cloth is the counter-positive of the absolute

Notes: This is called Maha Vidya Anumanam and is flawless.

13. Refutation Of Adventitious Condition

1. Reasons for non-reality do not have the fallacy of adventitious conditions.

2. In the nonreality of the identification of soul-body which is sublated only by the

14. Refutation Of Similarity With Pseudo Inferences

2..Reply: No. Cognisability etc are not similar to pseudo inferences.

15. Refutation Of "Contradiction By Perception"

16. Refutation Of "Superior Validity Of Perception"

1. Objection: Perception which is depended upon is stronger, When it is contradictory it

3. The examination is in the form of (a) of fruitfulness whenacted (b) absence of

17. Sublatability Of Perception By Inference

1 .Moreover, Inference also sublates cognition when it is supported by the disproval of

18. Sublatability Of Perception By Sruti

1. Moreover, perception is sublatable also by Sruti, which has been validated

19. Disproof Of The Inequality Of Apaccheda Nyaya

1. Moreover, even by the Apaccheda Nyaya, Sruti is stronger.

20. Refutation Of The Equality Of The Inference "Fire Is Cold"

1. Objection: If inference can establish a thing which is sublated by perception, then it

21. Refutation Of " Perception Cannot Be Sublated By Inference"

1. Moreover, greater validity is because of being examined and not because of

22. Compatibility Of Future Sublation

1. Therefore, what was said "because of future subation" is also compatible.

23. Refutation Of Inference Of Absolute Reality Of The Empirical World

1, It is said in Samkshepasariraka: The indivisible consciousness alone is the locus and

2. The superimposition due to nescience is not in need of any further superimposition. It

(Sadya) Subject is not different from reality (Hetu) Because it is different

>:1:Q:2;R"?;1>R1Q#).1>R1Q$6S<t'(¿1>R1Q?UxÁ6;>1Q

b)>;R>BRS<"empirical = other than Brahman

c)6_R19RA"phenomenal = objects of erroneous cognition (rope as serpent. shell

Ï>\'6_"Y1W 65@W48R4"W56_1;RW$56_6bA;5@W4A;'8R45R1Q55@W4A;8R4;1>W 66_6bA;

Ì51"<0>YHÌ>t'(¿'X15;\ 1U 6_:R0\

X16_1;DA;'5Ç6_R3W?"1>6_1;D>1Q A\9R>1Ì6_R:R0;1;RÌX1FU1><RW41>Ì9R>R1Q ;2R'FU1;R6_1;D\

>;R>BRS<"9W3:RGA;8R4"1>Ì6_;RW)"1>R1Q ;1Q B6<TD16_:R09R>1>W58=>1Q11Q 8R4":Q;HU A\t53$4

12R'Íx\>R1]""YØ 11>:A;R3>R·;RW12A:;$4T)5::RG1Ì>}RAB"R;W]05ÌRAT1Q ÌtA1

A>]"Q63W5A>W]@R\ $9V1\ 'X15;:1;U';1W51U A>]E\ 1U<T;:Q1A:R1Q >?Ï>AR>]E;:Q 1cÌ>}R\ >5R5