BIBLIOTHECA INDICA Work No. 259
VEDANTA-PARIJATA-SAURABHA OF NIMBARKA
AND
VEDANTA-KAUSTUBHA OF SRINIVASA (COMMENTARIES ON THE BRAHMA-SUTRAS)
(DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS)
VEDANTA-PARIJATA-SAURABHA
OF NIMBARKA
AND
VEDANTA-KAUSTUBHA
oF
SRINIVASA (COMMENTARIES ON THE BRAHMA-SUTRAS)
(DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS)
EXPOUNDED BY
ROMA BOSE, M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
VotumeE III
PRINTED AT THE BAPTIST MISSION PRESS PUBLISHED BY THE ROYAL ASIATIO SOOIETY OF BENGAL CALCUTTA 1943
PREFACE.
The Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal accepted Dr. Roma Bose’s (Choudhury) doctoral dissertation on Vedanta-Parijata-Saurabha of Nimbarka and Vedanta-Kaustubha, of Srinivasa for publication in the Bibliotheca Indica Series and the printing of the first volume was completed early in 1940. When the second volume was printed off in 1941, the two volumes together came to 884 pages, Royal 8vo. Dr. B. S. Guha, the then General Secretary hoped to publish Indexes for both the volumes at the end of Vol. IT, but the Indexes were not ready and as the third volume would give a general survey of the life and thoughts of Nimbarka, we found it convenient to print the Indexes of all the three volumes together at the end of Vol. III.
The learned author has given a lucid and comprehensive exposition of the doctrinal as well as the historical problems of the Nimbarka school in its entirety. Opening with a brief survey of the life of Nimbarka, the author discusses briefly the date as well as the specific works of the great philosopher. The rest of the book is devoted to a detailed analysis of the doctrines of Nimbarka and his followers (pp. 18-279). Incidentally the author institutes comparison of the doctrine of Nimbarka with some other Bhedabheda (unity in plurality) doctrines as coming from Ramanuja, Bhaskara, Srikantha and Baladeva. <A résumé of the various doctrines was then given, bringing out the inherent similarities and dissimilarities. The various rituals of the Nimbarka sect were finally described and an evaluation of Nimbarka’s system was made in the concluding section of the book. An exhaustive bibliography has been added and the Index to all the three volumes will facilitate, let us hope, further studies along the line chalked out by the author whom we congratulate on the completion of her monumental work. Brahmavddini was a well-known and well- merited title held by several femmes savantes of the later Vedic age and the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, the pioneer institution in the revival of ancient Indian culture, may take legitimate pride in the fact of setting its seal on the merits of the exposition of Brahmavada by a brilliant woman scholar of modern India.
KALIDAS NAG, General Secretary, 2let October, 1943. Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal.
0
CONTENTS
Life of Nimbarka- Works of Nimbarka Date of Nimbarka Doctrine of Nimbarka. .. Brahman The Cit: the Jiva Nature, size, number and kinds of the Jiva Different States of the Jiva: Jagrat, Svapna, Sugsupti, Mircchaé and Marana ‘ Different destinies of the Jiva: Svarga, Naraka and Apavarga The Acit: Prakrta, Aprakrta, Kala Relation between Brahman, Cit and Acit Criticism of other schools Moksa Ethics: the Sédhanas (i) Karma (ii) Vidya Nature of Vidya and its relation to Karma Adhikarins of Vidya Rise of Vidya (iii) Upasana or Dhyana Mode of Meditation Posture of Meditation Place of Meditation Time of Meditation Fruit of Meditation Kinds of Meditation Adhikarins of Meditation Upasana and Bhakti (iv) Prapatti Its general nature and factors Adhikarins of Prapatti
viii CONTENTS
(v) Guripasatti Its general nature Adhikarins of Guripasatti Sahakarins to the Sidhanas . Virodhins to the Sidhanas .. Conclusion Theology
5. Followers of Nimbarka Introduction (1) Srinivasicirya Life and Date Works Doctrine (2) Viévacirya (3) Purugottamacarya Life and Date Works | Doctrine Trinity of Reals Brahman His nature and qualities His forms and manifestations Criticism of rival theorics
Nirguna-vada and Nirvisesa-vada
Aprameyatva-vada The Cit
Its nature, size, number and kinds
Criticism of rival theories Pratibimba-vada Avaccheda-vada Sarva-gatatma-vada Eka-jiva-vada
The Acit
Prakrta
Kala
Aprakrta
Criticism of rival theories Vivarta-vada
Epistemology
Reconciliation of abheda and bheda texts
CONTENTS
Relation between Brahman, Cit and Acit Interpretation of the text ‘Tat tvam asi’ The Sadhanas er Ae The five sadhanas Theory of Grace Mokga र
(4) Devacarya see
Life and date ..
Works
Doctrine Brahman The Cit The Acit : Relation between them Moksa Sadhanas
(5) Sundarabhatta
Life and date .
Works
Doctrine
Moksa
Sadhana: Guripasatti Its general nature Qualifications of Guru and Sisya Its successive stages
(6) KeéavakaSmiribhatta Life and date . Works Doctrine ५ ४ Criticism of Advaita-vada Advaita View of Brahman Nirvisesa-vada Advaita view of jiva Pratibimba-vida Avaccheda-vada Eka-jiva-vada Akartrtva-vada Advaita view of jagat Vivarta-vada
126 127
127
CONTENTS
Advaita view of Moksa General criticism Jivan-mukti-vada
(7) Sribhatta (8) Harivyasadeva
Life and date .. Works Doctrine Brahman The Cit Its nature, etc. 2 Criticism of Advaita view of Jiva Pratibimba-vada Avaccheda-vada The Acit Its nature, etc Criticism of the Advaita view of Jagat Adhyasa-vida Relation between Brahman, Cit and Acit Moksa Sadhanas
(9) Purusottamaprasida Vaisnava I
Life and date .. Works Doctrine Brahman The Cit The Acit sy Relation between them Moksa Sadhanas Destiny of Man Epistemology Criticism of rival theories Regarding Brahman Nirvisesa-vada Aprameya- vada Adhyasa-vada ५ Upadana-karana-vada
CONTENTS xi
Page Tévara-vida a .. 155 The text ‘Ekamevadvitiyam’ .. .. 156 Regarding Jiva a ae .. 157 Pratibimba-vada अ 3५ ~+ 157 Avaccheda-vada oe ॐ .. 162 Adhyasa-vada a 4 .. 163 Eka-jiva-vada es a .. 165 Regarding Jagat nd ५ .. 166 Maya-vada ; <2 .. 166 Sattva-traividhya-vada ee .. 168 Drsti-spsti-vada ae + .. 17 Regarding relation between them .. .. 173 Abheda-vada ef aa .. 173 Atyanta-bheda-vada .. is .. 173 Visistadvaita-vada Me म .. 173 {10) Purusottamaprasada Vaisnava IT sin .. 174 Life and date .. ue ड; .. 174 Works fs a4 a .. 174 Doctrine ae ध ५. 175 Criticism of Anirvacaniya-vada ats ~. 175 (11) Madhava Mukunda he 4 we AV Life and date ue ८.६ ~. 177 Works a ie ae .. 177 (12) Vanamili Misra .. nn ot .. 178 Life and date .. ae ie .. 178 Works... sa i .. 178 (13) Anantaréma - oe be .. 178 Life and date 4 oe .. 178 Works... A aes .. 178
5. Comparison of the doctrine of Nimbarka with some other Bhedabheda doctrines 180
(1) Nimbarka and Ramanuja: Svébhavika-bhedabheda- vada and Viéistadvaita-vada ५ 180
(2) Nimbarka and Bhaskara: Svabhavika-bhedibheda- vada and Aupadhika-bhedabheda-vada -. 182 Introduction .. ae न .. 182 Brahman he be we .. 182 The Cit ae Sa ५ .. 187
The Acit as 2s ४ .. 192
xii CONTENTS
Relation between them Moksa Sadhanas Conclusion (3) Nimbarka and Srikantha: Svibhavika-bhedabheda- vada and Visistasivadvaita-vida te ४ Introduction Brahman The Cit The Acit Relation between them Moksa Sadhanas Conclusion (4) Nimbarka and Baladeva: Svibhavika-bhedabheda- vada and Acintya-bhedibheda-vada Fa Introduction .. : Brahman 3 His nature, attributes and powers .. + His forms and manifestations His City The Cit The Acit Relation between the three Moksa, Sadhanas : Bhakti, its nature and pre-requisites Modes and kinds of Bhakti Kinds of Upasana Kinds of Bhaktas Rituals Conclusion Résumé
7. Ritualistic doctrine of the school of Nimbarka.. Initiation (Diksa), ete. Idol-worship Some religious observances and festivals
8. Conclusion Bibliography Abbreviations
298
LIFE OF NIMBARKA
Nothing much is known for certain about the life of Nimbarka. He was believed to be an incarnation of the Sudaréana-cakra (disc) of Lord Vignu, born on earth for suppressing the heretical doctrines, then prevalent, and for preaching the holy Vaignava religion.) He was a Tailanga Brahmana born in Telinga,? in the Sudargana-dérama, situated on the bank of Devanadi.8 According to a different account,
1 V.K., p. 1, Kasi ed.; V.R.M., p. 1; 8.J., ए. 1; 8.8., p. 1; A.8., quoted in 2.0., p. 35, of. also 8.R., pp. 124-125; G.M., p. 1; V.M., p. 1; L.M., p. 1; Preface to V.P.S., p. 3, 0.8.8. ed.; Preface to §.K., p. 4; 8.M.M., p. 2; 8.M., pp. 1-2; Bh.P., quoted in the Preface to V.P.8., p. 2, Kasi ed.
The account given in A.C., pp. 42-48, is as follows :—
Once all the sages were assailed with doubt as to whether the pravrtti-marga was better or the nivrtti-marga, and they approached Brahma with this question. Brahma took them to Lord Aniruddha on the bank of the Kegira-sigara and requested him to point out the right path to the sages. Thereupon, an unseen voice declared from heaven that to the Lord and to His devotees the nivrtti- marga was preferable, and that He should teach tho nivrtti-marga to the world, Being satisfied, the sages went away. Then the Lord summoned His own. Sudaréana-cakra—a part of Himself—and commanded him to descend on earth to revive and teach the Bhagavata-dharma, which was waning and which he could learn from Narada, and spread it all around. Accordingly the Sudargana-cakra was born as the son of Aruna and Jayanti.
Tho account given in Bh.P. is much the same, omitting only the first portion, viz., the going of the sages to Brahma, eto.
The account given in Naimisa-khanda, as quoted in A.C., pp. 34-35, is as follows :—
At the end of the Tretaé-yuga, the Brihmanas, being afraid of the Asuras, prayed to the Lord Hari. They also prayed to Brahma, who himself prayed to Lord Hari again. Thereupon Lord Hari gavo him His own Sudaréana- cakra for the protection of the Brahmanas. Sudarsana descended on earth as a sage, called Havirdhana or Niyamananda.
2 V.RM., p. 1.
Telinga is the country along the coast south of Orissa as far as Madras,
According to one account, Nimbarka was born in a villago called Mungt- patana in Tailadga; S.N., p. 2, and p. 2 footnote; of. also S.N.M., p. 2.
8 Bh.P., quoted in the Preface to V.P.S., p. 2, Kaéi ed. Devanadt is identified with the river Godavari in Southern India (vide G.M., p. 47).
In A.S. it is said that Nimbarka was born in a village called Nimbagrama near Govardhana. Govardhana is a celebrated hill in Vpndavana or the country about Mathura.
( 1 )
2 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
however, he was born in Vrndavana, on the bank of Siiryaputri or Yamuna.1
According to one account he was born in the month of Kartika in the evening of the full-moon night,? while according to another, he was born in the month of Vaisakha on the third day of the bright half of the moon.8
His father’s name was Aruna, and his mother’s Jayanti.4 Accord- ing to a different account, however, his father’s name was Jagannatha, and his mother’s Sarasvati.5
1 AC., p. 48.
Note that Purugottama, who was the fourth in succession from Nimbarka, states in the introductory part of his V.R.M. that Nimbarka was born in Telinga (Southern India), but Purusottama, the author of A.C., holds that Nimbarka was born in Vrndavana (Northern India).
British Museum Catalogue (Supplementary catalogue of Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit books, 1928) makes Purugottama, the author of V.R.M., identical with Purusottama, the author of A.O. (vide p. 819). But this is not really the case, as will be clear from the following evidence :—
The 2.0. begins thus :—
Once several highly learned men like Svabhtdeva and the like approached the great sage Harivydsadeva in the Dhruvakgetra in Mathura, and wanted to hear the biography of Nimbarka, the founder of their sect. Thereupon, Harivyasadeva first made obeisance to his guru Sribhajta and began to tell them about the life and doings of Nimbarka, ete. (A.C., pp. 1-4).
This shows that Purusottama, the author of A.C., must have flourished subsequent to Sribhatta, Harivydsadeva, and Svabhideva. But Sribhatta was the thirty-first in succession from Nimbarka, Harivydsadeva, the thirty-second and Svabhiideva, the thirty-third, while Purugottama, the author of V.R.M., was only the fourth (vide pp. 105-106 of the thesis, Part 1). This proves conclusively that Purusottama, the author of A.C., was other than Purugottama, the author of V.R.M.
४ A.C., p. 48; Bh.P., quoted in the Preface to the V.P.S., p. 2, Kast ed.; $.N.M., p. 2.
3 $.K., p. 3; A.S., quoted in 2.6., p. 35, ete. Vaiédkha is the April-May month.
4 A.O., ए. 48; A.S., quoted in A.C., p. 35, also given in S.R., pp. 124-126; Preface to 8.K., ए. 4; Preface to V.P.S., p. 3, 0.8.8. ed.; Bh.P., quoted in the Preface to V.P.S, p. 2, Kasi ed. (according to it, Aruna belonged to the Bhrgu clan); 8.N.M., p. 2; इ. प. p. 2.
5 §.K., p. 3.
It is interesting to note that the account given by Harivyasadeva in his S.K. tallies with that given by Audumbara Regi in 4.8. regarding the time of Nimbarka’s birth (viz. the month of Vaid&kha) and hia father’s name (viz. Jagannatha), but differs from it regarding his mother’s name, which the latter gives as ^“ Vaijayanti ”.
IB
LIFE OF NIMBARKA 3
Eggeling’s identification of Nimbarka with Bhaskaracfrya is wrong.! His disciples never refer to him as Bhaskara, but always as Niyamananda or Nimbarka.2 It will be shown later on that Bhaskara and Nimbarka were two different persons representing two different schools of thought altogether.
According to tradition, Nimbarka had some other names as well, viz. Aruni, because he was the son of Aruna 8; “Jayanteya’’, because he was the son of Jayanti4; “Haripriya’’, because he was very dear to the Lord, being His incarnation 5; “Havirdhéna’’, because he was a supporter and a nourisher of the havis, or sacrificial ghee ®; and “Sudaréana °", because he was an incarnation of the Sudargéana-cakra of the Lord.”
His most well-known names are, however, the first two, viz. Niyamananda and Nimbarka. Various etymological explanations of the first name have been given by his disciples, and several legends are connected with the second.
We do not know. and have no means of knowing, whether the parents of Nimbarka each bore two namos: Aruna and Jagannatha, Jayanti and Sarasvati,
1 1.0.C. of Sanskrit MSS., Part IV, 1894, p. 802.
2 Srinivasa, V.K., pp. 1-2—Nimbabhéskara and Niyamdananda; Purugottama, V.R.M., p. I—Niyamananda; Devacarya, ऽव. pp. 2, 6— Niyamananda; Sundarabhatta, 8.8., p. 1—Niyamananda; Keéavakaémiribhatta, T.P., ए. 1—Nimbarka; Harivyasadeva, 8.K., p. 3—Nimbaditya and Nimbarka ; Purugottamaprasdda Vaisnava I, S.K., pp. 1, 148—Niyamananda; Anantarama, V.M., p. 1—Niyamananda.
Cf. also Gopala Sastri, Preface to 8.K., p. 4—Niyamananda; Vindhyegvart- prasida Dvivedin, Preface to V.P.S., K.S.8., p. 3—Nimbarka; Kisori Dasa, S.N.M., p. 2 and $.N., pp. 1, 2, ete.
3 A.C., p. 56. This namo, it is said, was given to Nimbarka by Brahma. See footnote 1, p. 6 of the thesis, Part 1.
4 Op. cit.
5 A.C., p. 61. This name, it is said, was given to Nimbarka by Narada,
Keégavakasmirin, at the end of his T.P., p. 380, refers to Nimbarka as “Haripriya”, but the word seems to be used as an adjective rather than as a pronoun. ‘
6 Naimisa-khanda, quoted in A.C., p. 35; Sanmohanatantra, quoted in A.O., ए. 37. Krgna-upanisad, quoted in A.C., p. 39.
7 Naimisa-khanda, quoted in A.C., p. 34; Kafici-khanda, quoted in A.C., p. 37.
8 L.S., p. 1. He was called “‘Niyamananda” because (cf. the commentary on L.S., p. 3) he brought all people under his control, or because he devoted (controlled) himself to supreme bhakti of the Lord.
Vide G.M. also, p. 2, on 1.8, ; various oxplanations given, such as, He was niyama, because he controlled (niyamayati) thoze who deviated from the path of
4 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS bat
According to one account, when the boy was about five years old, Father Brahma went to the hermitage of the sage Aruna, in the guise of an ascetic. The sage was not at home at that time, and Jayanti, as the hostess, respectfully offered some refreshment to the guest. But as it was past sunset, the ascetic refused to comply with her request. Thereupon, the boy approached the ascetic and said: “Reverend Sir, do be pleased to accept our hospitality, for look, the sun is still lingering over the yonder Nimba-tree’’, and showed him the sun, shining as bright as ever over the said tree. But when the ascetic finished his meal, he was astonished to find that it was really past midnight. Thereupon Brahma, being pleased, gave the boy the name “Nimbarka’’ because he had shown him the sun (arka) over the Nimba-tree long after sunset.1
According to a different account, once a great and learned Dandin (or a Jaina ascetic, according to another account) visited our sage, and the two were engaged in controversial discussions till sunset. Then the sage offered some refreshment to the visitor, but as the sun was already setting, the mendicant was obliged to decline. There- upon the great sage arrested the further descent of the sun, and ordered it to stay over a yonder Nimba-tree till the guest had taken
religion, and he was ananda because he gladdened (anandayati) the heart of his devotees; and so on.
A.C., p. 56. He was called “ Niyamananda” because he expounded the Law, 1.6. the Veda.
8.P. p. 2 and 8.S., p. 4. He was called “‘Niyamananda” because the Bliss (Ananda, 1.6, Brahman) taught by him universally (niyamena) manifests the world; i.e. because he was the teacher of the highest truth, viz. Brahman.
Keéavakaémirin, in the Mangala-patha of his T.P., p. 1, gives an etymological explanation of the word “ Nimbarka ”’, viz. he was like a medicinal fruit (nimba) in curing people from the disease of the world, and he was like the sun (arka) in removing the darkness of the heart
1 A.C., pp. 52-56. According to this account, Brahma not only gave him the name “Nimbarka”, but also some other names, viz. Aruni, Jaéyanteya, and Niyamananda
A slightly different account is given in $.N.M., pp. 2-8. Once Brahma (or Narada, accordiitg to another account) went to the hermitage of Aruna and asked for alms. But the sage was out, and nothing was available at home. Then seeing the guest turn back, disappointed, Niyamananda placed his own Sudaréana-tejas (which looked just like the sun) on a Nimba-tree, and fetched, in the meantime, fruits, etc. for the ascetic, from the forest.
Cf. also the similar account given in Bh.P., quoted in the Preface to V.P.S., pp. 2-3, Kasi ed.
LIFE OF NIMBARKA 5
his meal. The sun did so, and from that time the sage came to be known as “Nimbarka’”’ or “Nimbaditya’’ or the Sun of the Nimba-tree.!
Nimbarka is said to be the immediate disciple of Narada.2 He himself refers to Narada as his guru in his commentary on the Brahma- siitras.8 The tradition is that Brahma, out of pity fur the world, merged as it was in the darkness of ignorance, produced four Kumaras, viz. Sanaka, Sananda, Sanadtana, and Sanatkumara, out of his mind (manasa-putra). These Kumaras requested their Father to teach them the highest reality. Brahma, being himself unable to teach them, prayed to Lord Visnu. Thereupon, the Lord, for the good of the world, manifested Himself as a swan (Hamsavatara) and taught. the supreme truth to the Kumaras, who taught it to Narada,* and Narada in his turn handed down this knowledge to Nimbarka.
It is evident that no historical importance can be attached to this alleged fact of Nimbarka’s being the immediate disciple of Narada, who is, after all, & mere traditional figure, like the swan-incarnation and the four Kumaras. It is true that Nimbarka himself refers to him as his preceptor,® but that by no means guarantees us in con-
1 B.MG., p. 171.
Cf. the similar account given in 8.N., p. 3.
2 A.C., pp. 57ff.; $.N., p. 4; $.N.M., pp. 7, 8.
3 V.P.S., 1.3.8, p. 80, Kasi ed.
4 Cf. also the Chand., 7th chap., the dialogue between Narada and Sanatkumara. Here Sanatkumara is represented as teaching the supreme truth to Narada. See V.K., 1.3.8
Nimbarka also represents Narada as learning the truth from Sanatkuméra in his V.P.S., 1.3.8. .
5 A.C., pp. 7-21, 57-64. Narada went to the hermitage of Nimbarka, initiated him properly, gave him the name “ Haridasa Haripriya’’ and taught him five-fold knowledge, viz. the Gayatrimantra, the Visnu-bhakti-rahasya- mantra, the Upanigads, the Vedas, and the Sri-gopala-mantra of eighteen syllables. He taught him, further, the Vedanta doctrine, viz. that there are three realities, viz. God, Soul and World, and that the relation between them is a relation of difference-non-difference.
Cf. also Mangala-patha, V.K., verse 1, p. 1, Kasi ed., where Srinivasa makes obeisance to the Lord Swan, Sanaka, and the rest, and Nimbarka.
Mangala-patha, T.P., verse 4, ए, 380, where Kesavakaémirin makes obeisance to the Lord who assumed the form of a swan for teaching the truth to Sanaka and the rest; P.R., p. 8, where Baladeva quotes from Padma-puréna to the effect that Sri, Brahma&, Rudra, and the four Kumaras, respectively chose Ramanuja, Madhva, Visnusvamin, and Nimbarka as the founders of their respective sects; $.N.M., p. 8; 8.N., p. 5.
‘See footnote 3, above.
6 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
cluding that he actually learnt the Vedanta-doctrine from Narada, asalleged. Nimbarka might have very well called Narada his preceptor simply for showing the antiquity of his own doctrine, as well as for glorifying it and making it more acceptable to the people, for quite naturally people would fall in with his doctrine far more easily if they were to learn that it was not invented by Nimbarka, a man, but was handed down to him by Narada, a divine sage, who, again, learnt it from the Kumfras, sons of Brahma, who, finally, learnt it from the Lord Himself. Another reason why Nimbarka chose to refer to Narada as his preceptor was perhaps that Narada was supposed to be well acquainted with the glory of Radha-Krsna, the central point of Nimbarka’s doctrine.1
Of course, Nimbarka does not seem to have been the first to hold the Bhedébheda doctrine. In the Brahma-sitras, for example, we find a reference to the view of ASémarathya 2 who seems to have held a sort of Bhedabheda doctrine. Nimbarka might, however, have been its first systematic propounder.
Nimbarka was a Naisthika-brahmacarin, 1.6. led the life of a perpetual religious student, observing the vow of chastity through his life, and never became a householder.3 He is said to have practised & severe penance under a Nimba.-tree, living on the juice of its fruits only.4 Afterwards, it is said, he visited all the holy places and travelled all around preaching the holy Vaisnava religion wherever he went. He visited the Setu-bandha in the South,5 Gurjara,® and Nariyana-sarovara. Finding the world plunged in ignorance, he deputed the sage Audumbara to compose a Samhita in his (ie. Audumbara’s) name, preaching the path of devotion.? Next he went to the Naimigiranya and stayed there for a few years with prominent
Cf. also M.R.§., verse 1, p. 1, where Nimbarka makes obeisance to the Swan, the Kumaras, and Narada.
Nimbarka refers to Sanaka and others as well as to Narada in his D.S., Sloka 6, also.
1 The Naradapafica-ratra brings out this fully.
3 Vide Br. SG., 1.4.20.
3 A.C., p. 64,
५ AC., p. 72,
5 Tho ridge of rocks extending from Rameévara on the south-eastern coast of India to Ceylon, and supposed to have been formed by Hanumat for the passage of Rima’s army.
6 Modern Gujrat.
? Audumbara-samhita, quoted in A.C., ए. 35, also S.R., pp. 124-126.
LIFE OF NIMBARKA 7
sages. Afterwards, he visited the Badari-désrama.1 After that he returned to his own place and engaged himself in a great penance.? It is clear from the above account that our knowledge of the life of Nimbarka is at present meagre and not satisfactory. The available accounts about Nimbarka’s life are mostly traditional which may, however, contain some elements of truth
1 The place near the source of the Ganges. 2 A.C., pp. 648.
WORKS OF NIMBARKA
Nimbarka wrote a short commentary on the Brahma-sitras called “Vedanta-parijata-saurabha’’.1 It is said that he dedicated it to his immediate disciple Srinivasa.2
This commentary is very condensed, and its peculiarity is that unlike most of the commentaries, it contains no attempt at refuting rival schools of thought,® or at expounding at length the theory of the author himself. In it there are very few 4 discussions and argumenta- tions, and the author is content with stating his case in as few words as possible in course of explaining the word-meaning of the siitras without ever entering into details of any sort. His language, too, is very simple, and just to the point. He quotes from the Upanisads, etc., the Bhagavad-gité, the Maha-bharata, Manu-smrti, the Puranas, etc. in support of his case.
Nimbarka composed also a small work containing ten stanzas, called “Daéa-Sloki’”’ or ‘“Siddhanta-ratna”’. It is said that he composed this also for his immediate disciple Srinivasa.6 This book is a succint statement of his views regarding the nature of the three realities (tattvas), viz. Krsena,® the cit,” and the acit.8 Here Nimbarka emphasises the fact that Brahman, 1.6. Krena, is to be meditated on at all times,® supreme devotion being the highest sidhana.10 And the object of meditation is not Krgna alone, but Radha and Krsna con-
1 “The Odour of the Heavenly Flower of the Vedanta.”” Traditionally, he is supposed to have composed it during his stay in the Badarikaésrama with Vyasa.
The colophons to V.P.S. call it “Sarirakamimamsavakyartha”, and not a Bhiagya, as they do Srinivasa’s V.K., vide e.g. the Kasi ed. of V.P.S., pp. 46, 47, etc. etc.
2 A.O., p. 87, and p. 120.
3 Nimbarka, ef course, criticises like othor commentators, the theories of the Samkhya, Yoga, etc. (vide V.P.S. 2.2), but he makes no attempt at criticising other schools of the Vedanta. His criticisms of the Samkhya, Yoga, etc., too, are very brief.
4 Cf. e.g. V.P.S., 1.1.4. 5 §.K., p. 3; A.C., p. 120. ५ D.S., éloka, 4. 7 Op. cit., élokas 1-2, 8 Op. cit., Sloka 3. ¢ Op. cit., Slokas 6, 8.
10 Op. cit., Sloka 9.
WORKS OF NIMBARKA 9
jointly. This is a new point brought out, not found in the “Vedanta-parijata-saurabha”’, there being not a single mention of Radha or Ksrna in it.2 Nimbarka ends this treatise by pointing out the five truths to be known by the wise, all of which, however, he himself does not propound in it.8
It is interesting to note that in this treatise Nimbarka insists, specially and separately, on the reality of all cognitions of objects, and on the trinity of reals (tri-riipa).4 By nature a very concise writer, he would not have devoted an entire verse (out of ten only) to this topic, unless there were prevalent at that time some views insisting on the falsity of our ordinary perceptions of the things of the world ‘of plurality, and on the sole unity and reality of the Self. This seems to suggest that Nimbarka flourished in an age when Advaita-vada was already in vogue.5 In no other work of Nimbarka we find any such special and separate emphasis on this point.6 The reality of the world is taken for granted everywhere, as if self-evident and outside the sphere of all dispute.
The “Daéa-sloki’”’ being so very concise itself needs commentation and interpretation in order to be understood properly. Several
1 D.S., Sloka 5.
2 Footnote 1, p. 18.
$ D.S., éloka 10. The five truths or arthas are as follows: (1) the nature of the Upasya (i.e. Brahman), (2) the nature of the Upasaka (i.e. the jiva), (3) the fruit of the Lord’s grace, (4) the Bhaktirasa, and (5) the obstructions to the attainment of the Lord. In 0.8. Nimbarka propounds the first two only, and incidentally mentions the fourth, but says nothing about the fifth and the third, whatever he may mean by the latter. (According to most commentators, he means “moksa’’ here; vide e.g. V.R.M., p. 132. According to Harivyasadeva however, the word means self-surrender (prapatti) and the giving up of all actions except the service of the Lord which results in self-surrender. Vide §.K., ए. 38.)
4 D.S., floka 7. Vide also V.R.M., p. 84.
5 Cf. discourses regarding the date of Nimbarka; vide infra.
6 In V.P.8., 3.3.39, Nimbarka says simply that the text “Neha nanasti kificana”’ (Brh., 4.4.29, Katha, 4.11) means that everything is brahmatmaka, but says nothing more, p. 334, Kasi ed.
In his §.N.K.8., too, as we shall see, while insisting on the sagunatva of Brahman (as against Nirgunavada), on the reality of the “I” (as against the view that the aham-padartha is something unreal as composed of the Ajada cit and the jada ahamkdara), and on the view that Brahman is never the substrate and object of ajiiana, he does not specially insist on the reality of the world as against Maya-vada.
10 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
commentaries have been written on it by different disciples of Nimbarka.!
The style of the “Daéa-éloki” is very simple and charming, specially suited to a devotee who does not want to be bothered with abstract logical theories and hair-splitting wranglings, but wants to have the truth immediately in a nut-shell.2 Hence it has been appro- priately termed “Vedanta-kéma-dhenu Daga-sloki”’.8
Nimbarka composed also a hymn of twenty-five verses in praise of Lord Krsna, called “Savisega-nirvidesa-Sri-Krena-stava-raja ee The tradition is that when Nimbarka went to see Krsna in Vrndavana, he eulogized the Lord by these twenty-five verses.4
The Lord is belauded here as Hari, Krsna, Keséava,5 the abode of all power,® and all beauty,” the source of everything,® the greatest of all,® all-pervading,!° yet abiding within all,1! and essentially fond of His devotees.12 The Lord is always an object of adoration and worship,!8 and can be attained through devotion alone.!4
This book contains undeniable attempts at criticising Nirguna- vada,15 the doctrine that the Aham-artha or the ‘‘I”’ is not the essence
1 See Appendix. 2 Vide 8.K., p. 3, whore it is said that the mastering of many sastras being
very difficult, Nimbarka, with a view to favouring his disciples, taught the kernel of truth in ten verses.
3 V.R.M., p.2. - ५ 8.N,, p. 2.
5 §.N.K.S., éloka प. 6 Op. cit., Slokas 8, 12.
7 Op. cit., dlokas 1, 3, 4, 10. 8 Op. cit., Slokas 1, 9.
® Op. cit., Slokas 3, 11. 10 Op. cit., Slokas 1, 7.
11 Qp. cit., loka 7. The Lord is both anu and mahan.
12 Op. cit., Slokas 11, 12. 13 Op. cit., flokas 3, 7, 15, 16.
14 Op, cit., sloka 18.
15 Op. cit., 8101९88 2, 6, 10. In éloka 2 it is said that the Upanisadic texts which declare the Lord to be devoid of attributes simply mean that He is abso- lutely free from all avidyaka viseganas only, which fact does not prevent the Lord from being an abode of an infinite number of auspicious qualities.
In Sloka 6, the dame thing is affirmed once more, viz. that the text “Not 80, not so” (Brh., 2.3.6) denies only certain (i.e. unworthy and inauspicious) qualities to the Lord, and not any and every (i.e. worthy and auspicious) quality.
The same thing is affirmed in 6éloka 10:—The Lord is said to be ‘nirvisesa-cit’ (in the sense of being froe from all imperfections), and ‘mangaldlaya’ (in the sense of being an abode of all auspicious qualities). These repeated attempts at explaining the nirguna-texts cannot but aim at refuting the theory based on them.
WORKS OF NIMBARKA 11
of the self,! Drgti-srsti-vaida 2 and the doctrine that Brahman is the asraya and visaya of ajfiana.3
The style of the “Savisesa-nirvidega-Sri-Krena-stava-raja”’ is rather heavy, and not so simple and to the point as those of the two books mentioned above. This book is also’ more controversial than them, for even the “Vedanta-parijata-saurabha”’ contains no sectarian controversy, as we have seen. Several commentaries have been written on this work.4
Nimbarka is alleged to have written also a book called “Rahasya- mimamsa’’.6 We know only of two sections of it, viz. “Mantra- rahasya-godadi”’ and ^^ Prapanna-kalpa-valli’’.6
Both these sections deal with the sidhana called guripasatti, i.e. the complete self-surrender to a preceptor as a means of being led to God. The latter speaks of both guripasatti and prapatti with its six parts, but recommends the former as the ossential pre-requisite of every sadhana.
These two saédhanas, viz. prapatti and guriipasatti, are not mentioned in the ^ Vedanta-parijata-saurabha”’, and though referred to incidentally in the “Daéa-éloki”’ and the “Saviéega-nirvisesa- Sri-Krsna-stava-raja 8 are not set forth in details therein. The above two sections of the “Rahasya-mimaimsa&” indicate to us the detailed method of procedure of approaching God through an intermediary—viz. a guru, the god on earth.
Besides the above-mentioned works, we know of a few hymns and verses composed by Nimbarka—viz. the ‘“Pratah-smarana- stotra’’, or ten stotras in praise of Radha and Krsna, to be recited
1 §.N.K.S., Sloka 21. It is said here that the Aham-artha or the “I”, the object of introspection (aham-pratiti) (viz. “I know”, etc.) is not a combination of two things (‘dvyaméa’) (viz. the cit and the acit). This seems to refer to the Advaita view that the “I” is not the essence of the self, but is ultimately unreal, because it is due simply to the unwarrantable commingling of two diametrically opposed things—the ajada cit and the jada aham-kara.
2 Op. cit., Sloka 22. It is said here explicitly that the ‘Drsti-srsti-vada’ is an untenable doctrine.
3 Op. cit., Sloka 23. Here it is explicitly said that the Lord is neither the aéraya nor the visaya of ajfiana.
4 Vide Appendix. 5 P.S.M., p. 1.
6 Vide 8.R., where these two chapters have been collected (Rahasya-godasi, pp. 86-87; Prapanna-kalpa-vallf, pp. 108-111). Mantra-rahasya-godaéi has been published separately with commentary. See Appendix.
7 D.S., éloka 8. 8 §.N.K.S., dlokas 3, 7, etc.
12 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
daily in the morning by the devotee,! the “Radhastaka” or eight verses in praise of Radha? and the “Krenastaka”’ or eight verses in praise of Krgna.8
These stotras are merely hymns in praise of the upasya-devata of Nimbarka, and are as such of no philosophic value.
The “Sva-dharmadhva-bodha”’, attributed to him, is preserved in manuscript form only + and mainly deals with ritualistic problems.
Other works by him, also preserved in manuscript forms, are ‘‘Madhva-mukha-mardana”’,5 “ Aitihya-tattva-riddhanta”’,® ‘‘Pafica-samskara-pramana-vidhi’’,? and ‘“Vedanta-tattva-bodha’’.8
These are all the works of Nimbarka actually known. Besides these, he composed some other treatises as well, which have not been found as yet. That he wrote a book called “Sadacara- prakaéséa’’, dealing with the Karma-yoga, is known from the works of some of his disciples.® It is evident from the same source that he wrote another book called “Prapatti-cintamani’’ 1° and a commentary on the Bhagavad-gitaé.11
1 48 given in 8.R., pp. 71-72; also in L.8.V., pp. 21-28.
$ Quoted in A.C., pp. 122-125; given in L.8.V., pp. 32-34.
8 Quoted in A.C., pp. 130-133.
According to tradition, Nimbarka: commanded his immediate -disciplo Srinivasa to go to Sri-Radha-kunda and recite the eight verses in praise of Radha and as a result he would be able to have a direct vision of Radha and Krsna. But Srinivasa, not being satisfied, said to his guru that he had taught him that the highest form of worship was the conjoint worship of Radha and Krsna, but so far he had been taught the Radhastaka only, and asked him to teach him the Krgnastaka as well. Thereupon, Nimbarka taught him cight verses in praise of Krsna. Then Srinivasa went to Govardhana, did as he was told by his guru, and was able to have a direct vision of the Lord Krgna accompanied by Radha. Vide A.C., pp. 128-129.
५ 1.0.C. of MSS., Part IV, 1894, MS. No. 2486.
5 Cat. Cat., p. 428, Part 1; N.W.P., Part 1, 1874, pp. 274-275.
8 Cat. Oat., pp. 14, 64, Part 2; Rep. Bh., 1894, p. 56.
7 Cat. Cat., ए. 63, Part 3; Rep. Kath., p. 29.
8 Cat. Cat., ए. 297, Part 1; Oudh MSS., 1898, p. 42.
9 V.R.M., p. 97; 8.K., p. 128; G.M., p. 34.
It is claimed that a few torn leaves of this treatise have been found in a place called “Aruna-ghata” in Bengal. Vide Preface to V.P.S., p. 6; Kasi ed.; 8.N.M., p. 9.
10 V.R.M., p. 140; vide also Preface to V.P.S., p. 3, Kasi ed.
We do not know whether this treatise is identical with the ‘“Rahasya- mimaémesa”. Tho subjects of the two,—judging the first by 1४6 name and the second by its two known sections,—seem to be identical. Even if this be the case, still ‘we have no sure ground for inferring that the two are identical.
11 T.P., ए. 380.
WORKS OF NIMBARKA 13
Finally, it has been claimed that Nimbirka wrote a commentary on the Veda,! too, but this view has no more than a traditional value, until we come across some definite evidence. The Vedanta-siddhanta- pradipa, attributed to Nimbarka in the Notices of Sanskrit MSS. (No. 2826), and the Guru-parampara noticed in the Catalogue of MSS. in the Private Libraries of N.W.P., Parts I-X, as a work of Nimbérka are not actually his works. The former is a work on the Advaita Vedanta school of Samkara and the latter is a list of the successive teachers of the school.
1 A.C., p. 56.
DATE OF NIMBARKA
So far as the date of Nimbarka is concerned, we do not unfortunately get any help from the writings of his disciples, for most of them are silent about it,1 and the few who mention it, unfortunately, contribute nothing to the problem, their accounts being mostly based on tradition and more or less exaggerated.
This latter class of followers attempts to assign Nimbarka to a very ancient date. Thus some of them make him a contemporary of Vyasa, the author of the Brahma-sitras,2 and other ancient mythical figures.3 Others,‘ again, identify the names Haripriya, Aruni and Sudargéana—the first mentioned in the Brahma-vaivarta-purana and the last two in the Bhagavata-purana—with Nimbarka, and argue therefrom that Nimbarka must have flourished in an ancient date.
It is evident at once that the above arguments are based on pure tradition, and not on historical truth; and may be rejected as such without further ado. Further, Haripriya and the rest are very common names, and may belong to anybody, and there is no evidence to show that they really refer to Nimbarka.
It has been claimed further that Nimbarka was the oldest of the commentators of the Brahma-siitras, because his commentary contains no refutation of the views of any other commentator. As such, it is said, Nimbarka must have flourished earlier than Samkara.5 It is alleged 6 also that in the Gaudapaida-karika there is a reference to the Dvaitédvaita-vada of Nimbarka in the italicised portion of the passage :—
“Advaitam paramartho hi dvaitam tad-bheda ucyate. Tesam ubhayathaé dvaitam tenayam na virudhyate.’’7
1 E.g., Srinivasa, Purugottama, Devacarya, Sundarabhatta, Keéavakaémirin, and Harivydsadeva, the well-known disciples say nothing about his date. 2 A.C., p. 87; $.N.M,, p. 7; 8.N., pp. 18ff.; Preface to V.P. 3, p. 3, Kasi ed. ॐ A.C., pp. 47, 57ff., e.g. Krsna and Narada. $.N.M., pp. 4ff.; 8.N., pp. 18ff.; Preface ४० V.P.S., pp. 3-4, एए ed. S.N., ए. 20; Intro. ४० V.P.S., p. 6, Kast ed. Preface to V.P.S., pp. 4-5, Kasi ed. G.K., 3.18, p. 216.
3 @ @ कै
( 14 )
DATE OF NIMBARKA 15
Now, as we have seen, it is a fact that in his Vedanta-parijata- saurabha, Nimbarka makes no attempt at all to criticise Samkara. But we find that in his Savisega-nirvisesa-Sri-Krgna-stava-raja there are references to Nirguna-vada, the doctrine that the ‘aham-artha’ is not the essence of the self, Drsti-srsti-vida and the doctrine that Brahman is the asraya-vigaya of ajfidna.
In Gaudapada we do not find any exposition of the Nirguna-vada. He, of course, repeatedly emphasises the point that there is absolutely no difference (bheda) in the Atman,! that the Atman is unborn, immortal, changeless,? etc., but he says nowhere explicitly that it is nirguna, or free from attributes, as Samkara repeatedly does.
Again, Gaudapida never once says that the Atman is the substratum (aéraya) and object (visaya) of ajfidna.
Hence when Nimbarka refers to these doctrines he cannot but refer to Samkara and his school. Gaudapada was the first systematic exponent of the monistic school, and hence it cannot be said also that Nimbarka is referring to some earlier teacher, in whose doctrine these tenets are found, though not in Gaudapada’s.
We also find that Srinivasa, the immediate disciple of Nimbarka, explicitly refers to the Pratibimba-vada.3
Now Gaudapada makes no reference to this doctrine also. He illustrates his theory by three sets of examples. First, he brings in the famous rope-snake illustration, and points out that just as in darkness a rope is imagined to be a snake, so the Atman, too, is imagined to be what it is not.4 Next he refers, at length, to the no less famous ether-pot illustration, pointing out that the individual soul is really nothing but the Atman, just as the ether within the pot is nothing but the universal ether, etc.6 Finally, he gives the illustra- tion of a burning stick, and points out that just as a stick burning at one end, when waved round quickly, produces the illusion of a circle of fire (alita-cakra), so is the world of plurality nothing but an illusion.6 But he does not say for a single time that the world of plurality is a reflection of the Atman on avidya, like the reflection of the sun on water, as Samkara often does.
Hence, there is no doubt that Srinivasa could not have flourished before Samkara. And this serves as a further evidence that Nimbarka,
1 Vide G.K., Advaita-prakaranam. 9 Op. cit. 3 “Pratibimba-vadi-vadaé ca paplyan apramaénatah”, V.K.V., let taratga, verse 5, p. 5.
4 G.K., 2.17-18. 5 Op. cit., 3.3-9. 6 Op. cit., 4.47-50.
16 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
who was a contemporary of Srinivasa, being his preceptor, cannot be a predecessor of Samkara. In the passage, alleged to contain a reference to Nimbarka’s Bhedaébheda-vada, there is really nothing of the kind.
The phrase “Tesim ubhayathé dvaitam’’ does not at all refer to Bhedaébheda-vada, but it simply means: ‘For them (i.e. for the Dvaitavadins) duality (is the truth) in both ways (1.6. from both paramarthika and aparamarthika points of view).! This is the explanation given by Samkara. He explains the whole verse thus: Non-duality is real, duality is its work (tad-bheda = tat-karyya), ie. is simply due to the working of the mind and ceases when the mind ceases to work, as in the states of deep sleep, swoon, etc. This is our view. But they, the Dualists, hold that duality is the ultimate truth, either from the real or from the non-real points of view. But our view is not contradicted by their view, because for an Advaitin there oan be no opponent, since he thinks every one, even his opponent, as his own self.
Thus there is a reference to the Dualistic view alone; and if there were really a reference to the Bhedibheda view, we see no reason why Samkara would not have interpreted as such.
Even if the phrase does refer to the Bhedabheda view, that does not prove in any way that Nimbarka’s view is referred to hore. Gaudapada explicitly refers to the Dvaita view,? but will any one take Madhva to be prior to Gaudapada for simply that reason? Just as absurd will be to take Nimbarka to be prior to Gaudapada and Samkara, simply on the ground of their referring to a kind of Bheda- bheda doctrine.
There is a manuscript called “Madhva-mukha-mardana”’, a criticism of Madhva’s religion, attributed to Nimbarka.8 This places Nimbarka after Madhva, provided the work is really by Nimbarka. The fact that the manuscript is not lent to anybody by the followers of: Madhva,4 perhaps prevented us as well from having it, no reply even being given to our enquiries. It seems Nimbarka undertook the work because it was Madhva’s immediate influence zpon the people which he had to fight against for making his own campaign successful.
1 “Dvaitiném tu tegim paramarthatah aparamarthatas ca ubhayathapi dvaitam eva.” Vide Samkara-bhasya on G.P., 3.18, p. 121.
2 “Sva-siddhanta-vyavasthasu dvaitino फलहे drdham ”’, etc., G.P., 3.17.
3 Cat. Cat., p. 428, Part 1; N.W.P., Part 1, 1874, pp. 274-275.
4 N.W.P., Part 1, 1874, p. 275.
DATE OF NIMBARKA 17
Thus, from internal evidences from well-known works by Nimbarka, we can definitely assert that Nimbarka could not have flourished before Samkara, whereas we are led to think, on the evidence of the manuscript mentioned above, that he did not flourish also before Madhva; i.e. not before the 13th century A.D.1
1 Madhva’s date is about 13th century A.D. According to Sir R. G. Bhandarkar (Vaignavism, Saivism and minor religious systems in loco), NimbAarka flourished shortly after Ramanuja. According to Dr. R. L. Mitra (Notices), he, however, flourished after Ramanuja, Madhva and Vallabha.
DOCTRINE OF NIMBARKA I. Brahman.
The Highest Reality, according to Nimbarka, is Brahman, Krsna or Hari,1 a Personal God. There is nothing that is equal to Him, nothing that is superior. He is the Lord of all, and the Controller of all. He is called ‘Brahman’ because of the unsurpassed greatness of His nature and qualities, because He is beyond any limit of any kind of space, time or thing.?
Brahman is the sole cause of the creation, maintenance and destruction of the universe. All beings arise from Him, are preserved by Him and return to Him. The Lord alone is the First Cause, the manifestor of all names and forms, and none else.®
Brahman is thus both the material and efficient cause (upadana and nimitta Karana) of the universe.4 In ordinary cases we find
1 Nimb&rka does not use the terms “Krsna” and “Hari” in V.P.8. There he speaks of .the Highest Reality throughout as ‘“‘Paramétman” (V.P.S., 1.1.13-16 ; 1.1.21-22, ete. ete.) also as “Brahman” (V.P.S., 1.2.3-4, etc.), “Para” (V.P.S., 1.2.8, etc.) and “Purugottama” (V.P.S., 1.1.1, 1.1.19, 1.2.9, 1.2.13, 1.3.8, 1.3.11, 1.3.24, ete.). Once he refers to Him as ‘“‘ Ram&kanta Purusottama ”’ (V.P.S., 1.1.1).
. In D3S., éloka 4, he uses all these three terms, viz. Brahman, Krsna and Hari, simultaneously, and in sloka 8 he speaks of Kyana.
In 8.N.K.S. also he uses all these three terms; e.g. in verse 1, he speaks of Hari, in verse 7 of Krsna, Hari and Kedava, in verse 8 of Brahman and in verse 16 of Hari. He refers to the Highest Reality also as ‘“‘Kesava” (verse 7), ““Vibhu” (verses 16, 19) and “Madhava” (verse 24).
9 V.P.S., 3.2.32. Of. also V.P.8., 3.2.31-36, where a pirva-pakga is raised that there is something superior to Brahman and refuted. D.S., éloka 1 §.N.K.S., élokas 3, 7.
S.N.K.S., éloka 3. V.P.S., 1.1.12, etc. D.S., éloka 8. S.N.K.S., éloka 5. V.P.S., 1.1.1, “Svabhavika-svaripa-guna-éaktyadibhik brhat-tamah”’. $.N.K.S., Sloka 14. Thus, Nimbarka identifies Brahman, Visnu and Krsna; Ramé and Radha&. For him ‘‘ Ramé-kaénta Purugottama”’ or (Vignu) is none but "^ Radha-vallabha Krsna’”’. This is a distinct difference between Ramanuja and Nimbarka.
3 V.P.8., 1.1.3, 1.4.14-15. §.N.K.S., Sloka 1. §.N.K.S., éloka 9. V.P.S., 1.3.42. Op, ott., 1.1.19. V.P.S., 1.4.23-27. ( 18 )
2B
BRAHMAN 19
that the clay, the material cause of a pot, and the potter, its efficient cause, are different. But in the case of the Universe, the two are identical, because Brahman, wishing to be many, transformed (and therefore He is the nimitta) Himself (and therefore He is the upadana) into the form of the world.! The Universe is thus a trans- formation (parindma) of Brahman.
Brahman is, thus, both transcendent and immanent. He is not an external creator, but pulsates within the entire universe. He is the inner soul, the inner controller and constant sustainer of His own creation.?
Several objections have been raised against this doctrine of the Causality of Brahman. The most formidable one is: Why should Brahman create this universe? All philosophies and religions have to answer this important and very natural question at the outset. Acts of intelligent beings are never motiveless. So the acts of the Supreme Intelligence must, too, have some definite motives or ends in view. We, as imperfect beings, act for attaining some goal. But how can we attribute any unfulfilled desire, any unattained goal to the Perfect Being in whom there is no incompleteness or insufficiency ? What possible motive can He have in creating the world? It can be of no good to Him, for He lacks nothing; it can be of no good to the individual souls, for worldly life is full of sorrows and sufferings, and, salvation, admittedly, consists in getting rid of the Samsara, of the eternal cycle of births and rebirths. =
This leads to the second difficulty, no less formidable. Why should the merciful Lord deliberately plunge souls in grief? If He cannot prevent pains and evils on earth, He is not all-powerful; if He can, but does not, He is not all-merciful. What is the way out of this eternal dilemma? Again, people undergo different lots, without any apparent reason, the honest and the good suffer; in spite of contrary reasons, the wicked prosper. Hence if God be the creator of this world, He must, of necessity, be charged with cruelty and partiality.
1 V.P.S., 1.4.26.
Nimbarka does not explain in what sense precisely Brahman is the material cause of’the universe. That He is the efficient cause of the universe is evident enough, but how He can be its material cause as well in view of the fact that all things are said to arise from prakrti, the primeval Matter-eternal and real—is not explained. This is explained clearly by his disciple Purugottama, vide V.R.M., p. 66.
2 V.P.S., 2.1.35; 1.2.6-6 ; 1.2.19.
20 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
These fundamental questions can by no means be easily solved. Some doubt the very capacity of human mind to grasp the motives of the Divine Mind. Reason must halt here, and make room for intuition or revelation. The sacred texts, learned prophets, ancient and modern, assure us that God alone is the cause, the creator of the world, whatever be His motive in creating it; that God is constantly working for our good, in spite of apparent injustice, wrongs and sufferings. And, we must accept these on trust.
Hindu philosophers, in spite of their deep trust in revelation or scripture, attempt also to find rational explanations, as far as possible, of these problems. In trying to solve the first problem, Nimbarka and other Vedanta philosophers bring in the conception of sport or 12.41 The creation of the world implies no want, no imperfection on the part of Brahman, for it is but a mere sport to Him. As a supreme monarch indulges in sports, not because he is in need of something, but because, on the contrary, he, as a King, has all his desires fulfilled and can indulge in pastimes at will, so Brahman creates the world not because He needs something, but, on the contrary, out of the fulness of His nature, out of the abundance of His joy.
But, the creation of the world may be a spontaneous sport, and not a necessity, on the part of Brahman, but to the poor souls, it is not so. How can that God be called merciful who only for the sake of sport, not even for any essential necessity, condemns souls to eternal grief? Hence it is pointed out that Brahman’s indulgence in this cosmic sport, though not serving His own purpose, is not entirely motiveless, but is essentially guided by the demands of morality. This explanation tries to exonerate Brahman from the charges of cruelty and partiality.2 Though creation is a sport, it is not a senseless or arbitrary sport. It is the eternal and inexorable law of Karma that determines the nature of every new creation and the fates of different individuals. ‘‘ As you sow, so you reap”’—this is the universal rule. So Brahman cannot be made responsible for the sufferings and varying lots of individuals,—it is the individuals themselves who are really responsible through their own Karmas.2 These Karmas are without beginning and are, as such, existent before the individual souls come
1 V.P.S., 2.1.82. 2 Op. cit., 2.1.33.
8 Brahman may be here compared to the cloud. The cloud, as rain, is the common cause of the growth of all sorts of plants, good or bad, but the differences among those plants themselves are not due to the rain, which pours down upon all of them equally, but to the differences lying inherent in their respective
OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE CAUSALITY OF BRAHMAN 21
into existence, and Brahman takes these Karmas into account when creating the world.
But can we really say that this creation of the world serves no purpose of Brahman, is of no use whatsoever to Him? Even if we suppose that creation is but a sport, can we say that this sport is of no use to Brahman? Sports, too, have their own uses. The fact is that, as admitted by Nimbarka himself, Brahman and the universe are correlatives, one always implying the other. Hence, the evolution of the universe is a logical necessity on the part of Brahman. If the universe is impossible without Brahman, Brahman is no less incom- plete without the universe.
Can we, again, say that Brahman is never responsible for the Karmas of souls, and hence for their consequent sufferings and unjust lots? If Brahman be the inner controller, how can He disclaim all responsibilities for the actions of the souls in whom He inheres ?
Good and evil are necessary correlatives. One is possible only in contrast to the other. Moral life requires freedom of will, and freedom is meaningless unless there be two things to choose between. Hence, He who creates souls as free moral agents, must of necessity create both good and evil. The existence of evils in a world created by the Supreme Good may, thus, be justified. But the problem as to why virtue and happiness should not always go hand in hand, why should the sins of fathers be visited upon their children, requires a better and a more convincing explanation.
We may consider here one or two other objections against this doctrine that Brahman is the creator of the world. It has been urged, for example, that the material cause and its effect are of the very same kind.1 From a lump of clay, we can get clay-pots alone, and not gold ones; from a piece of gold we can get gold rings alone, not clay ones. So, from the sentient Brahman a sentient world alone can arise. But who can assert that the world is sentient ?
But, Nimbarka points out,? there is no rule that the cause and the effect must always be absolutely sintilar. So it cannot be said
seeds, In the very same manner. the differences among men are due to the anadi karma-bijas of the men themselves, and not to the Lord. Cf. $.B., 2.1.34. Cf., also, V.K., ए. 175, Kaéi ed.; V.R.M., pp. 13-14. 1 ए.2२.8., 2.4-5. 2 Op. cit., 2.1.6-7. Here he cites the examples of nail, hair, etc. arising from living beings ; and dung-beetles from the dung.
22 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
that the world, being different from Brahman in nature, cannot arise from Him.
The real point, however, is that Brahman is immanent in the world, animates and sustains its every part,—so the world is by no means absolutely separate, absolutely different from Brahman.
It has also been urged that the universe not only does not arise from Brahman, but cannot return to Him as well at the time of universal dissolution,’ for then it is sure to defile Him with its own impurities.
But when the universe returns to Brahman, it inheres in Him as His power (Sakti) and ceases to be imperfect.
Further, it has been objected 2 that as Brahman is a component whole, without separable parts (niravayava), He must be transformed into the world in his entirety ; or, else, He must be held to be possessed of such parts (sivayava) which will make Him something divisible, and hence mutable.
Tn reply, Nimbarka points out that ® the universe is not a part, actually cut off from Brahman, but always inheres in Him during creation, as during dissolution. Before creation, it remains as a subtle power of Brahman, during creation this subtle power comes to be manifested. Creation, thus, means the full manifestation of -the powers of Brahman (svasakti-viksepa). So there is no question of Brahman’s divisibility and mutability here.4
There remains one more objection to be considered. If Brahman be the material cause of the universe, He Himself becomes individual souls (jivas), and as such, must of necessity undergo all worldly pleasures and pains.5 But why should Brahman be 80 foolish as to do what is not beneficial to His own self and create a world that causes nothing but intense and infinite suffering to Him?® Again, if Brahman dwells within the hearts of jivas, that also implies that He must share
1 ए..8., 2.1.8, 2 Op. cit., 2.1.26.
3 Op. cit., 2.1.28, 27. Vide also V.P.S., 1.4.26. Cf. Brh., 6.1.1. “From the whole arises the whole, ... still the whole remains.”
¢ Nimbarka refutes a few other objections against Brahma-kaérana-vada that are not of any philosophical importance, such as: (1) a creator must have external implements. A potter, e.g., needs clay, wheels, etc. But Brahman has no such implements. (V.P.S., 2.1.23.) Hence, He cannot be the creator of the world. (2) Brahman cannot be a creator, for He has no sense-organs (op. ०४५., 2.1.30), ete.
5 V.P.8., 2.1.13. 6 Op. cit., 2.1.20.
TWO ASPEOTS OF BRAHMAN 23
all the experiences (bhogas) of the jivas and be contaminated by their defects and blemishes.1
The fact, however, is, Nimbarka points out, that the individual souls are both different and non-different from Brahman.2 The former only are subject to Karmas and the consequent bhogas, not the latter. Again, though Brahman is the in-dwelling spirit, He is untouched by human defects and sins, for the pristine purity of Brahman can never be sullied by anything.8 God is God, Pure and Perfect in spite of all impurities and imperfections, and not excluding them. He pervades and contains everything, yet transcends every- thing.
So, Nimb&rka concludes, Brahman is the cause of the universe, and its soul.
Thus, on the one hand, Brahman is eternal and great, the Greatest of the great, the Highest of the high,—the Creator, etc.
‘of the universe, high above the individual soul, of which He is the Lord and the Ruler. But this is but one aspect of Brahman.
He has another aspect, equally real. He is also an abode of infinite beauty, bliss and tenderness, and in intimate connection with the soul. He is an abode of supreme peace, supreme grace,‘ the ocean of all sweetness and charms.5
Bliss is His very essence like existence and knowledge, since He 18 one indivisible mass of bliss.6 His bliss is unlimited, unlike human bliss.? He is called Blissful also because He is the cause of the bliss of the soul.8 He brings forth and maintains the universe through bliss.®
1 V.P.S., 1.2.8.
2 Op. cit., 2.1.18. This point will be discussed fully later on. Cf. V.P.S., 2.1.91-22,
ॐ Op. cit., 2.1.9 ; 3.2.11 ; 3.2.30.
Nimbarka refutes some other objections against the doctrine that Brahman is the Antaryamin, Inner controller. These are philosophically unimportant, e.g. it has been objected that Brahman, the all-pervading Being, cannot abide within the atomic soul, etc. V.P.S., 1.2.7, ete.
4 §.N.K.8., éloka 1, Santi, Kanti
5 Op. cit., loka 3. Sudhé-nidhi
6 Op. cit., loka 4.
7 V.P.S., 1.3.9.
8 Op. cit., 1.1.16.
9 Vide Tait., 3.6. Cf., also, Tait., Brahmanandavalll.
24 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Finally, Brahman is essentially gracious to His devotees 1 (bhakta- vatsala). He strikes terror in the heart of the wicked, but to his devotees He is tender and solicitous as ever. Out of pity for them, He enables them to have a direct vision of Himself,2 and is thereby the giver of salvation.2 He is, in fact, not only the giver of salvation, but the giver of all fruits whatsoever in accordance with the karmas of individual souls.4 Further, He manifests Himself in various forms with a view to pleasing His devotees,5 and descends on earth in the forms of various vyihas (and avataras) for the good of the world.®
We see, thus, that the Lord is, on the one hand, all-powerful, on the other, all-merciful; He is transcendent, yet immanent; all- pervading, yet abiding within the heart of man; Ruler, yet Helper. His supreme might and majesty constitute no truer aspect of His nature than His boundless love and kindness.”
It is clear from the above that Brahman is essentially possessed of attributes. On the one hand, He possesses an infinite number of auspicious qualities (which again, as we have seen, are of two broad kinds, viz. omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. on one side, beauty, bliss, tenderness, on the other), and on the other hand, He is absolutely devoid of all that is inauspicious, unworthy and defective.® In this sense, the Lord is possessed of a double set of characteristics,!9 one positive, the other negative. And it is this negative aspect of the Lord, 1.6. His freedom from all unworthy qualities, which sometimes leads to the description of Him as
1 §.N.K.S., éloka 12. Bhakta-vatsala. The Lord is called “ Atma-supriya” (शण 4) and ^^ Atma-vallabha” (éloka 14), which means, according to commen- tators, that He is bhakta-vateala, Vide §.K., pp. 19 and 46.
9 V.P.S., 3.2.24; 8.7. .8., 81०18 11.
3 V.P.8.,, 3.2.5; 8.N.K.S., éloke 1.
4 V.P.S., 1.1.4; 3.2.39-41.
5 70.8., dloka 8. Cf. Arjuna’s Visvariipa-daréana, Gita 11.
6 D.S,, éloka 4. Cf. V.R.M., pp. 47-48. See also pp. 121ff. of the thesis, Part 1. Nimbarka does not himself say what these vythas are.
7 It is to be noted that Nimbarka makes no reference to the softer aspect of the Lord—to His beauty, loveliness, tenderness, etc., in V.P.S., where the Lord is depicted in His sterner aspect of a creator, controller, and judge. The softer aspect of the Lord has been developed at length by the disciples of Nimbfrka. Vide e.g., V.R.M., pp. 45, 49, 113, 119, ete.
8 V.P.S., 1.1.1-2, ete.; 8.N.K.S., éloka 1.
9 7.8. éloka 4; 8.N.K.S., गा 10.
10 V.P.S., 3.2.11; 3.2.15, 17, 18. Ubhaya-linga.
PROOF OF BRAHMAN’S EXISTENOE 25
attributeless.1 He is thus attributeless in the sense of being free from all ordinary material and inauspicious qualities, and He is possessed of attributes in the sense of being possessed of all celestial and auspicious ones.2
The conclusion is, therefore, that the Lord Krsna is an abode of an infinite number of auspicious qualities, absolutely undefiled by any blemish, pure, complete and independent. He is one and self-sufficient, yet out of His own free will and without any want on His part, creates the world of plurality out of Himself, to fulfil the demands of morality, and He, out of His boundless kindness, again, leads the individual soul from the trammels of mundane existence.8
The Lord is accompanied, on His left, by Radha, the giver of all fruits, and of equal auspiciousness like Himself 4 and who is to be worshipped conjointly with him.5
The general nature and characteristics of the Lord being thus determined, the next question is: What is the proof of the existence of such a Being as Brahman? What is the source of our knowledge regarding Him? The reply is that Scripture alone is our source of knowing Brahman,’—from Scripture alone we come to know that there is a Being possessed of the above marks. The entire Scripture, in fact, is concerned with establishing Brahman as its sole supreme object.? Scripture may apparently seem to depict a variety of things, but really it depicts only one thing, viz. Brahman, for in Him alone all the diverse scriptural passages find their complete reconciliation.
Thus, some texts seem to enjoin the worship of the Person within the sun and the eye.8 Here a doubt may be felt as to whether this
1 §.N.K.S., éloka 6. Nirgune.
2 Op. cit., Sloka 2. Cf. also V.P.S., 3.3.39.
3 Samsara.
4 10.8., éloka 5. Vide also “Nanda-grhe-candanam”. §.N.K.S., loka 1. Nimbarka identifies Rama or Laksmi with Radhé. Vide above, p. 28, Part I. 8.N.K.S., dloka 5.
5 D.S., éloka 5. Cf. also Radhastake, Krendstaka, and Pratah-smarana- stotra.
6 V.P.S., 1.1.3.
7 Op. cit., 1.1.4. For the objection to this view and its refutation, see V.P.S., 1.1.4.
8 Chand., 1.6.6-8.
26 : DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Person is identical with Brahman or some other Being. In the latter case, of course, it cannot be held that the entire Scripture teaches Brahman alone as the sole object to be known and worshipped. But the fact is that this Person is none but Brahman, for the Person is said to be free from all sins, to be the soul of all, etc., and these qualities can belong to the Lord alone.
Similarly, all scriptural passages, Nimbarka points out, which seem to deal with objects other than Brahman really refer to Brahman and Brahman alone.?
Thus, the conclusion is that the Lord Krsna is known from Scrip- ture alone, and is the sole object and purport of all scriptural passages.
It may pertinently be asked: Why should we resort to Scripture alone for having any knowledge of Brahman? Is not our own reason- ing faculty a safe and sure guide here? Nimbarka frankly admits the limited capacity of ordinary human reason. Ordinary individuals like us can reason or infer about mundane, empirical objects alone,— but what is extra-mundane, transcendental, lies beyond the scope of reasoning. And, here and here alone Scripture is our sole guide.
But what, after all, is Scripture? It is nothing but the product of the mature reflection and sustained thinking of inspired prophets and sages. To them, to those extraordinary minds, minds that are wiser and purer than our own, nothing is a sealed book, and even transcendental truths are known directly through the help of super- developed reasoning faculty.
Hence, it would be manifestly wrong to accuse Nimbarka, and for the matter of that, other Indian philosophers, of dogmatism, of a blind, unwarranted reliance on authority and revelation alone. णा" the first place, they are only frank and practical enough to admit the distinction between grades of human reason—its undeveloped and super-developed forms. In the second place, even in the stage of this lack of full development, they admit, rather insist on, the need of manana or reflection after sravana or acquisition of philo- sophical truths from Scripture.
1 V.P.S., 1.2.9; 1.2.26-28 ; 1.3.14-16.
ॐ V.P.S., 1,1.21-22; Chand., 1.9.1; V.P.S., 1.1.23; Chand., 1.11.15; V.P.S., 1.1.24; Kaug., 3.2; V.P.S., 1.1.20-32; Chand., 3.13.17; V.P.S., 1.1.25; Chand., 3.14.1; V.P.S., 1.2.1-5; Katha., 2.25,
THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL 27
II. The cit: the jiva.
1. Nature, size, number and kind of the jiva.
First and foremost, the jiva or the individual soul is essentially of the nature of intelligence.1 It is different from the body, the sense-organs, the vital-breath, the mind and buddhi, which are all material and inanimate. It manifests all these, but does not need to be manifested by them,2 being manifested by the all-manifesting Lord alone. In fact, the sense-organs (eleven in number), the vital- breath (with its five modes),4 and the mind (with its four modes),5 are but implements of the soul;® they serve different purposes of the soul,” such as perception, enjoyment and action—and are under its complete control. As such, the jiva is not identical with any one of them, but is a different and a superior intelligent principle.®
The individual soul is not only knowledge (jfiana), but a knower (18808) as शला. That is, it is not a mere phenomenon of knowledge, but an intelligent substance having knowledge for its essential attri- bute.!! To say that the individual soul is knowledge and has know- ledge for its attributes is not contradictory by any means—for in spite of the fact that the individual soul, the substratum, and knowledge, the attribute, are equally knowledge, there is a distinction between them,12 as declared by Scripture itself,18 so that the relation of sub- stratum and attribute is possible between them.14
1 V.P.S., 2.3.26-30; D.8., Sloka 4. Jiiana-svariipa. There is no discussion about the individual soul in 8.N.K.S., except in 81018 21. 2 Cf. V.R.M., p. 3; V.M., éloka 5, p. 2. 3 V.P.S., 3.4.6. For the eleven sense-organs and their functions, vide V.R.M., pp. 26-29. Vide infra. 4 For the four vrttis of the mind and their functions saméaya, garva and ahamkara, vied infra, V.R.M., p. 25. 5 For the five vrttis and their functions, see V.R.M., p. 28; see below. ५ V.P.S., 2.५.10-12. Upakaranas. 7 Vide V.R.M., for details, pp. 26-27. 8 V.P.S., 2.4.15-16, 9 Vide V.M., Sloka 1. A man thus is composed of the atman or the jiva (soul), deha (body), indriyas (sense-organs), the prina (the vital-breath) and the manas (the mind). The first alone is intelligent or non-material and eternal, the others not. 10 V.P.8., 2.3.18; D.S., éloka 1. 11 V.P.S., 2.8.25-26, 12 Op. cit., 2.8.27. 13 Vide e.g., Kaug., 3.6. Cf. V.R.M., pp. 4-5. Also Sri. B., 1.1.1. See below. 14 V.P.S., 2.3.27.
28 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Knowledge being the very essence of the individual soul, persists always under every state whatsoever! It is present even in the states of deep sleep and the rest, though during these states it is not fully manifested as it is during the waking state.®
The soul being a knower is essentially a self-conscious Ego or “I” (aham).8 The “aham-artha” does not consist of two factors, one intelligent and the other non-intelligent,‘ i.e. it is not something which is ultimately unreal, but is the very essence of the soul, and real throughout. As we shall see, the soul continues to be an “I”, a distinct individual even when it is freed.5
The soul being a self-conscious Ego, is an active agent. If the individual soul be not an agent, all the spiritual injunctions regarding different means leading to different ends (viz. heaven or salvation) would be simply meaningless”; for example, it has been enjoined that one who desires to go to heaven should perform sacrifices,’ or that one who desires salvation should meditate on Brahman.® But if the individual soul be not an agent, it cannot possibly carry out these injunctions; and why should Scripture enjoin something which is quite impossible ? 10
Further, during the state of dream, the soul is said to move about within the bedy, controlling the organs as desired.!1_ This also proves that the soul is an active agent. The sense is that the soul is the guide and the controller of the entire body, regulating the different organs to their different functions and this the soul could not be unless it were an active agent. The fact that the soul some- times acts in a way which brings about unforeseen and undesired for consequences is no ground for arguing that it is not an agent, for the argument: ^^ Why should one wilfully do what is harmful to one’s self ?”’—has no force here seeing that the individual soul in bondage
1 V.P.S., 2.3.30.
2 Op. cit. See V.R.M., pp. 7-8.
$ Op. cit., 2.3.18.
५ .N.K.S., नर 21: “Dvyaméata’pi na ca bhati cetane ahampratiti- visaye aham-arthake”, etc. Cf. the Advaita Vedanta view of Samkara.
5 See below. 6 V.P.S., 2.3.32—40. 7 Op. ctt., 2.3.32. 8 Vide a.g., Tait. Sam., 2.5.5. 9 Brh., 1.4.7.
10 Scripture enjoins ‘‘ Samadhi’ also, which is possible on the part of an active agent only. Vide V.P.S., 2.3.38. 11 V.P.S., 2.3.33. Cf. Brh., 2.1.18.
NATURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL 29
is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and as such cannot always foresee or prevent the adverse consequences of its own acts.
The individual soul is an agent not only during the state of mundane existence, but also in its state of release.2
The individual soul is an enjoyer, too.8 This follows from the above; for an agent, a doer of karmas, good or evil, is also an enjoyer— the reaper of the fruits thereof, good or evil. Even when the soul is freed from all karmas, and consequently from the trammels of mun- dane existence, it remains an enjoyer still,5 though this enjoyment is not like earthly enjoyment and does not lead to rebirths.
Thus, the individual soul is a self-conscious intelligent principle, a knower, a doer and an enjoyer.
But in spite of this, it is not independent or self-dependent, as might be supposed, but is essentially under the control of the Lord,® and its existence, knowledge, activity, enjoyment—everything in fact—depend on and are guided by the Lord Himself.? Even when it becomes free and comes to attain similarity with Him, it remains under His control.8
The individual soul is without beginning and without end— eternal.° This is declared by Scripture itself, which explicitly says that there is no such thing as birth or death of the soul, for the soul does not die when the body is dead and is not born when the body is born.10 Hence such expressions like ^ One is born, one is dead ”’ are only figurative, and imply only that the material body is born or dead, but not the soul itself.1!
1 V.P.S., 2.3.36. Cf. V.K., 2.3.36.
४ The freed soul, e.g., creates its own body, roams about and sports with the Lord, etc. All these acts, however, incur no more rebirths or earthly existences for the soul. See below.
ॐ V.P.S., 1.3.7; 3.2.17.
« Of course, an exeeption is to be mado in the case of the Lord, who 18 a karté—as creator of the universe—but not a bhokta of it.
5 E.g., the freed soul enjoys all sorts of celestial pleasures with the Lord. See below.
6 D.S., sloka 1.
? See below. It is pointed out that the fact that the Lord makes some do good deeds, while others bad deeds, does not imply any partiality on His part, for He makes one do this or that act not arbitrarily, but out of regard for one’s own karmas. Vide V.P.S., 2.3.33 and 41.
8 See below. 9 V.P.S., 2.2.16.17. Aja.
10 Cf. e.g., Katha., 2.18. Also Gita, 2.20. 11 V.P.S., 2.3.16.
30 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
The fact that the individual soul is equally eternal’ with the Lord does not in any way subtract from Brahman’s supreme majesty, for the eternal soul from all eternity exists in Brahman and is under His control, so that no question of its being a “second” principle besides Brahman, the One, arises at all.
The souls (and the pradhana) are, in fact, both unborn and have Brahman as their essence or cause without giving rise to any contra- diction, for these two designations refer'to two different conditions of the souls (and the pradhina)—viz. their causal! and effected 2 states. In their causal state, they remain as powers of Brahman, and as Brahman is eternal, His powers must also be so; and it is in this sense that the individual souls, etc. are called unborn and eternal; in their effected states, on the other hand, they emanate from Brahman in some form or other and are said to have Brahman for their cause.’
The soul is a part of Brahman, and as such both different and non-different from Him.* All of them (as pure souls, untainted by Avidya) are really equally pure, all being equally parts of one Lord, yet they are distinguished from one another as Braéhmana, Sidra, pure, impure, etc., owing to their connection with different kinds of bodies, just as the same fire is acceptable from the house of a learned Brihmana, but not-from a crematory.5 :
Finally, the soul is really possessed of celestial qualities like ‘freedom from sins’ and the rest,6 though through the wish of the Lord, all these qualities remain veiled by Avidya, 1.6. Matter and Karma, and consequently non-manifest during its state of bondage.”
Next, the size of the soul. It is atomic in dimension. This is proved from the fact that the soul is said to pass out of the body through such small openings like the eyes, etc.,9 and unless it be very minute in size, it cannot possibly do 80.10 This is declared by Scripture as well which designates the soul as the hundredth part of a hair divided a hundred-fold.!!
But although the soul is atomic, it can yet experience the plea- sures, pains, etc., 1.6. sensations, of the entire body, just as a single.
1 Karyyavasthé. ४ Karanavasthéa, 3 V.P.S., 1.4.10. Cf. also V.K., 1.4.10. ५ See below.
5 V.P.8., 2.8.47. Vide also V.P.S., 2.1.22,
6 Cf. Prajapati-vaékya. Chand., 8.5.1. 7 V.P.S., 3.2.5-6 $ V.P.S., 2.8.19-22. 9 Cf. Brh., 4.4.2.
10 V.P.S., 2.8.19, ete. 12 Of. Svet., 5.9.
SIZE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL 31
drop of sandal in one part of the body can soothe and delight the entire body.1
And the atomic soul is capable of experiencing the sensations of the entire body through its attribute of knowledge, which is all- pervasive.2 Hence just as the rays of a small lamp in one corner of a room flood the entire room,’ or just as the smell of a tiny flower spreads far and wide,‘ so the all-pervasive attribute of knowledge of the atomic soul, abiding in the heart only, pervades the entire body and makes it possible for the soul to experience all the various states of the body.
Sometimes, of course, the soul is designated as all-pervasive like Brahman, but such designations are simply due to its all-pervasive 5 quality of knowledge. That is to say, while Brahman is by nature great and all-pervasive and also possessed of equally great and all- pervasive attributes, the soul is by nature small and atomic, though possessed of the all-pervasive attribute of knowledge, by virtue of which alone it is sometimes called all-pervasive.6 And there is noth- ing contradictory in such a designation of the atomic soul as all- pervasive on the ground of the all-pervasiveness of its attribute of knowledge, seeing that this attribute of knowledge is the very essence of the soul, persisting so long as the soul itself does.”
The doctrine of the all-pervasiveness of the soul, Nimbarka points out, is open to many serious objections. On this doctrine there must result either eternal perception or eternal non-perception on the part of the soul,8 for, the all-pervasive soul must be eternally in connection with all objects; or, even if somehow this connection be denied, there is no extra third principle outside the all-pervasive soul to bring it about. Further, since on this view, all all-pervasive souls will be in connection with all karmas, there is sure to result a confusion among the karmas of the different souls. The recourse to adysta is of no avail here, for there is no mark for distinguishing that one particular adrgta belongs to one particular soul. Further, it cannot be said that particular resolves, viz. ५५ ¶ shall do this and not that”, etc., on the part of particular indivi- duals lead them to be connected with particular karmas and adrstas (and hence with different lots), for such particular resolves themselves
1 V.P.S., 2.3.23. 2 Op. cit, ॐ Op. cit, 4 Op. cit., 2.3.26. 5 Cf. e.g., Mund., 1.1., ete. 6 V.P.S., 2.3.28. 7 Op. cit., 2.3.29. 8 Op. cit., 2.3.31.
32 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
are not possible. Finally, it cannot be said that one particular soul is connected with one particular body only, hence there can be no confusion of karmas and enjoyments, for that particular soul being universal, must be in contact with all bodies.!
Thus, the doctrine of the universality of the soul is fallacious.2 It is because the soul is by nature atomic, in spite of being a part of the all-pervasive Lord, and in spite of possessing the all-pervasive attribute of knowledge, that there is no confusion among the karmas, no universal perception or universal non-perception.® Thus, we conclude that the soul is essentially atomic in size and ever remains so, even in its state of release.4 ॥
Next, the number of souls. They are infinite in number.5
Finally, the kinds of souls. There are broadly two kinds of them, viz. souls in bondage and freed souls.6 The souls are, there- fore, in a condition to be associated or disassociated with the body,’ i.e. the souls in bondage, surrounded by beginningless maya, i.e. matter and karma, are associated with earthly bodies, while the freed souls, through the knowledge of the Lord, gained through His grace, get rid of all connection with matter and karma, and thereby of their earthly bodies.§
Thus, the conélusion reached is that :—
(1) In nature, the soul is knowledge, yet a knower, a doer, and an enjoyer, under the control of the Lord and a part of the Lord, yet eternal—all these being true of the soul in bondage as well as in release; further, it is possessed of the qualities of ‘freedom from sins’ and the rest, although not during its state of bondage.
(2) In size, it is atomic, in bondage as in release.
(3) In number, it is infinite ;
(4) and it is of two broad kinds—bound and freed.
1 V.P.S., 2.3.48-52. 2 Op. cit., 2.3.49.
3 Op. cit., 2.3.48. ५ See below.
५ D.S., शन > That is, in spite of the fact that more and more jivas are being freed from the samsara, the samséra still continues and will evidently do so eternally. This proves that the number of jivas is infinite. Vide V.R.M., p. 19. See below.
व 70.8., éloka 2, ` Baddhia and mukta. Cf. V.R:M., pp. 22-23, for details and subdivisions. See below.
7 D.S., éloke 1.
8 The freed soul may, of course, possess & celestial body at will. See below.
FIVE STATES OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL 33
2. Different states of the jiva < jdgrat, svapna, susupti, mircha and marana.
The soul has five different states: viz. the states of waking (1888४), dream (svapna), deep sleep (sugupti), swoon (mircha) and death (marana).!
The state of waking has been considered above. The waking soul is a self-conscious, knowing subject, an active agent and an enjoyer, experiencing the inevitable fruits of its own karmas and thereby undergoing a variety of conditions.
In the state of dream, too, the soul is a conscious subject,— a knower and an enjoyer.2 It enjoys the various dream-objects created by the Lord in accordance with its own karmas. It is held by some that the soul itself, and not the Lord, is responsible for the dream-creation,? but that is not possible, because the omnipotent and omniscient Lord alone, capable of realising all His wishes at once (without the help of any external implements), can produce the wonder- ful dream-objects and never the soul. The latter, of course, is possessed of the equal qualities of realising its wishes at once and the rest, but that fact is of no avail here, for all these qualities of the soul remain veiled, as we have seen, during its state of bondage.
Further, dreams are indicative of the future.5 Now, if the soul were indeed the creator of dreams, it would surely have dreamt only lucky dreams indicative of future prosperity to itself. But that, evidently, is not the case.
Next, the state of deep sleep. During this state, too, the soul is a conscious subject—a knower and an enjoyer, though its knowledge, etc. are not fully manifest as they are during its state of waking, but remain unmanifest and latent, as we have seen before.®
1 These are, of course, the states of the baddha-jiva only, not of the mukta- jiva.
2 V.P.S., 3.2.1-6. * 3 Op. cit., 3.2.21-22,
4 The sense 18 that the soul can make different things out of the materials and implements supplied, but it cannot evidently make anything without the help of these. Now, the dream-objects, unlike the ordinary objects, are not made out of ordinary materials, etc.—there being no such materials, etc. present then. Hence they are outside the limited power of the soul, and can be produced by the Lord alone who can produce anything through a mere wish.
5 V.P.S., 3.2.4.
6 Op. cit., 2.3.30. That the soul is a knower and an enjoyer in the state of deep sleep is clear from such memories: ‘So long I sleep weli and do not know anything”, etc.—which proves the presence of the conscious subject as
3
34 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Sugupti takes place in the Lord. The soul, after entering the vein and the pericardium finally rests in the supreme Lord and rises from Him again.?
It is the very same soul who went to sleep that rises again and not a different one.’ This is proved from three facts—viz. recollection of work, scripture and injunction.4 Thus, a soul after rising from deep sleep, remembers the work begun before, but left half-done, and finishes it. This proves that the soul which began the work before falling asleep is identical with the one which finishes it after rising from sleep. Scripture also proves the very same fact,5 and finally, injunctions regarding sacrifice, meditation, etc. are meaningless unless the same soul persists throughout.®
Next, the state of swoon.” This is a distinct state, not to be included under any one of the other states, though it resembles some of the other states in some points; for example, the state of swoon possesses half the characteristics of death, yet is not identical with it—it is, in fact, midway between sleep and death and not exactly identical with any one of them.
Finally, the state of death. There are two kinds of death— that which leads to rebirth and that which does not. In the first case, the soul leaves the body, goes to heaven, or to hell, and returns to a new body; while in the second case, the soul goes to the world of Brahman, not to return any more. These are considered in detail in the next section.
3. Different destinies of the jiva: svarga, naraka, and apavarga : heaven, hell, and salvation.
There are broadly two classes of souls in bondage, viz. docrs (or karmin) and knowers (or jianin). The former are, again, divided
the substrate of the knowledge: ^ do not know anything”, and of the feeling of happiness: “I am sleeping happily”. Cf. V.R.M., pp. 7-8; 5.K., pp. 101-102; of. also Sri. B., 1.1.1.
1 V.P.S., 3.2.7. 2 Op. cit., 3.2.8.
ॐ Op. cit., 3.2.9. 4 Op. cit., 3.2.9.
5 E.g. Chand., 6.9.2; 6.10.2.
6 The souls go to sleep daily, but if the same souls do not arise, there is evidently no sense in telling them to do this or that—to follow this or that path with a view to attaining this or that goal.
7 V.P.S., 3.2.10, ’ 8 Cf. V.K., 3.2.10,
38
DESTINY OF A WORKER 35
into pious workers (punyavan or istakarins), and sinners (papins or anistakérins); and these three kinds of classes of souls, pious workers, sinners and knowers, undergo different destinies, attaining different ends, through different paths.}
What happens to a pious worker after death is as follows?: His soul, accompanied by the sense-organs® and surrounded by the subtle elements‘ such as water, fire, etc., which are the germ for a new body, leaves the body with a view to enjoying the fruits of its own karmas. Thus, first the senses of the pious worker are connected with the mind—first speech and then the rest—next, the mind is connected with the vital breath, the vital breath with the soul, and the soul with the subtle elements. Then the soul comes out of the body through the eyes or any other opening.
After having come out of the body, the soul follows the path of Fathers, which begins with ‘smoke’. Thus, it first goes to the smoke, and then successively to night, the dark half of the moon, six months of the sun’s southern progress, world of Fathers, and finally to the moon.5 There it enjoys the fruits of its karmas, and after that, with a remainder of its karmas still clinging to it,6 it returns once more to earth and assumes a new body in accordance with its karmas.?7 Thus, on its return journey, first it becomes the ether, the air, the smoke, mist, the cloud in succession, and then as rain, it pours down on earth; after that it grows as grains, herbs, and
1 Here, Nimbarka, like Samkara, RamAnuja and the rest, follows the account given in Chand., 5.3-5.10, and also in Brh., 6.2.
2 V.P.S., 3.1.1.
3 This is proved from the scriptural passage: ^ प्र going out, the prana goes out; and the pran& going out, all the pranas go out”’. (Brh., 4.4.2.)
4 For objections to this view and refutation thereof, vide V.P.S., 3.1.2.
5 Cf. Chand., 5.10.3-4; also Brh., 6.2.16.
6 V.P.S., 3.1.8. There are two kinds of karmas—those which produce fruits to be experienced hereafter in heaven or hell as the case may be, and those which produce fruits to be experienced here, in this world. The soul, after leaving the present body, goes to heaven or hell, to experience the first kind of fruits, and then returns to earth to experience the rest here. Cf. V.K‘S., 3.1.8,
7 Cf. Chand., 5.10.7.
36 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
trees, i.e. as food, then it is eaten by a man and becomes seed, and from this seed is born a new man.1
Of course, ^" becoming”’ the ether, etc. here does not mean actual becoming, but only becoming similar to the ether and the rest?; while ^ growing’’ as rice, etc. also does not mean actual growing, but only becoming connected with them.8 And the descending soul remains in a state of similarity with the ether and the rest for but a short time, while it has to remain connected with rice, herbs and the rest for a comparatively longer time.4
This is the destiny of pious workers, who perform sacrifices, and practise charity and the rest.5
But sinners, who act contrary to sacrificial injunctions, i.e. do what is forbidden and omit to do what is enjoined, are not subject to the same destiny.6 They follow neither the path of Fathers, nor the path of Gods, and go neither to the world of the moon, nor to
1 Nimbarka, as pointed out, follows the process of generation as depicted in the “ Paficagni-vidyé”’ in the Chand. and Brh. thus:—
Chand., 5.4-6.9. Chand., 5.10.5-6. (Five offerings) (The way of return) (a) The 7६088 offer féraddha (i.e. (a) Ether. water, vide V.P.S8., 3.1.5), i.e. the soul ac- companied by the subtle elements—water and the rest, to the ether, and it then becomes the moon. (b) Then the pranas offer this body to (®) Air. the clouds and then it becomes rain. (©) Then the pranas offer the rain to (c) Smoke. the earth, and then it becomes food. (d) Then the pranas offer this food to (d) Mist. man and then it becomes seed. (¢) Finally, the pranas offer the seed to (e) Cloud. woman and it becomes a man.
(f) Rain. (g) Food. (१) Seed. < (४) Man. Cf. Brh., 6.2 for a similar account. Cf. V.K., 3.1.1.
2 V.P.S., 3.1.22.
3 Op. cit., 3.1.24.
4 Op. cit., 3.1.23. :
5 It is to be noted that the performance of sacrifices, etc. may lead to moksa, through generating vidya, if undertaken in a different spirit. See below.
6 V.P.S., 3.1.12-17.
DESTINY OF A KNOWER 37
the world of Brahman, but to a “third place’’.1 Thence they return to earth and their method of returning is different from that of pious workers, i.e. they are not born in the usual way.?
Finally, the destiny of the knower is different from that of both pious workers and sinners. What happens to a knower after death is as follows®: After death, the senses of a knower are merged + in the mind—first speech and then the rest—the mind then is connected with the vital breath, the vital breath with the soul, the soul with the subtle elements. Up to this point, as evident, the cases of a pious worker and a knower are exactly alike. But while the soul of a pious worker leaves the body through the eyes, etc., the soul of a knower— thus accompanied by the senses, the mind, the vital breath and the subtle elements, 1.6. by the subtle body 5—leaves the gross body through the vein which passes out of the crown of the head,® in recog- nising which it has no difficulties, since the Lord Himself, being pleased with a knower, lights up the tip of that particular vein.’ The soul then comes out of the body through that vein which is directly connected with the rays of the sun and ascends up, following
1 V.P.S., 3.1.17.
Nimbarka does not say what precisely this ^^ third place’’ is, nor does Scrip- ture (Chand. or Brh.). According to the followers of Nimbarka, this ‘third place’’ is hell, the soul of a sinner is led to it by the servants of Yama through a path full of scorching sand, etc. and has to suffer innumerable agonies there. Vide $.K., pp. 132, 141-2. See below.
The pirva-paksa, viz. that the soul of a sinner, too, goes to the moon, though not directly like the soul of a pious worker, but after a full retribution of its sins in hell, is rejected on the ground of Scripture. Vide V.P.S., 3.1.12-16.
2 V.P.S., 3.1.18.
Nimbarka does not tell us in what forms exactly the souls which go to a “third place’ are reborn on earth, nor any one of his followers. Evidently he means that they are born as the most primitive forms of life, in accordance with Brh., 6.2.16—which states that those who do not follow either the path of (punya) karmas, or the path of jfiana are born as worms, gnats, etc.
3 V.P.S., 4.2.1-7.
५ Cf. Chand., 6.15.1-2.
Here “‘ merging’? means neither a mere functional absorption (as held by Samkara), nor a complete material absorption, but conjunction (samyoga).
$ 4.2.9, 11. Cf. also V.P.S., 3.3.30.
It is said here that the subtle body of the knower persists, in spite of the fact that all his karmas come to decay, for unless the soul be accompanied by a substratum, it cannot move through the path of Gods.
6 Cf. Chand., 8.6.5.
7 V~.P.S., 4.2.16.
38 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
the rays of the sun and goes through the path of Gods.1_ The succes- sive stages of the path are as follows: light, day, the bright fortnight, the six months of the northern progress of the sun, the year, the air (otherwise called the ‘world of 6०8१०), the moon, the lightning, the world of Varuna, the world of Indra, the world of Prajapati.?
Then it reaches the world of Brahman to return no more.8 This is the destiny of a knower.
It may be supposed that as the soul of a knower is said to follow up the rays of the sun, a knower who dies at night cannot follow the path of Gods and reach Brahman, nor can a knower who dies during the inauspicious period of the sun’s southern progress attain Brahman. But this is really not the case, for the main obstruction to the attainment of Brahman, viz. karma, being removed, there is nothing that can hinder such an attainment on the part of a knower— the time-factor plays no part here.4
Thus, the conclusion arrived at is:—
(2) Knowers go to the world of Brahman through the path of Gods, not to return any more.5
1 V.P.S., 4.2.17. Devayana-pantha.
ॐ This order is arrived at by reconciling the different scriptural accounts, viz. Chand., 4.15.5; 5.10.1-2; Brh., 6.2.15; Kaug., 1.38. Vide V.K., 4.3.35.
Thus, when the soul leaves the body through the vein, it goes to light first, following the rays of the sun. Then the presiding deity of light leads it to day; the presiding deity of day leads it to the bright fortnight and so on. Then, when the soul reaches lightning, the presiding deity of lightning, an immortal Person, leads it to the world of Varuna; this immortal Person of lightning, assisted by Varuna, leads it to the world of Indra; thence the same immortal Person of lightning, assisted by Indra, leads it to the world of Prajapati. Then, assisted by Prajapati, the same immortal Person of lightning leads the soul above the sphere of the material world to the river Virajé where the soul discards its subtle body, and enters the world of Brahman, not to return any more.
8 V.P.S., 4.3.4.5.
The sense is that from light up to the moon, the ascending soul is led from one stage to another by presiding deities of each stage, but from lightning to the world of Brahman, it is the immortal Person of lightning who is the chief conductor, while Varuna and the rest are only assistants,
4 V.P.S., 4.2.18-20. It 18 pointed out that the rays of the sun persist in the night-time.
A question is raised also whether the soul is led to the effected Brahman or to the Supreme Brahman. Vide V.P.S., 4.3.6-15.
8 For the state of knowers in the world of Brahman, see the section on. Salvation.
THREE KINDS OF NON-SENTIENT SUBSTANCES 39
(9) Pious workers go to the world of the moon through the path of Fathers, to return again in accordance with their karmas.
(c) Sinners go to the “third place” (ie. hell) to return to earth again, though not through the ordinary way.
These two famous paths, celebrated in the Upanigads—the path of Fathers (Pitr-yina), followed by the pious workers, and the path of Gods (Deva-yana), followed by the knowers—may appear meaningless from the philosophical point of view. But they are but figurative ways of indicating the essential difference between the destinies of mere workers (Karmin) and real knowers (Jfidnin). ‘The soul of a person,—who spends his time in doing this thing or that in the hope of acquiring merit (punya), and not in the acquisition of knowledge that alone can put an end to all karmas and the consequent rounds of birth and rebirth,—has to traverse a dark path that gets darker and darker as it proceeds, although it finally leads to the world of Fathers and hence to the moon. But the soul of a person, who has acquired knowledge, goes through a bright path that gets brighter and brighter as it proceeds, finally leading to the world of Gods, the moon, higher and higher worlds; and thence to the world of Brahman. The darkness of the one path and the brightness of the other symbolically stand for the ignorance of the karmins and the knowledge of the jiianins respectively.
The return journey of the soul of the karmins is also something very ingenious. The soul of the unborn child must somehow enter the bodies of its future parents and become one with their souls. Hence arises the novel conception of the incoming soul being gradually coming into contact with the food taken by the parents.
III. The acit: the jagat, etc.
The acit is of three different kinds: viz. prakrta, or what is derived from prakrti, the primal matter, aprikrta, or what is not derived from prakrti, and kala, or time.1
Prakrti, or the primal matter—the stuff of the entire universe is real and eternal like the individual souls, and like them, though eternal and unborn, has yet Brahman for its cause.2 It consists of the three gunas, viz. sattva, rajas and tamas.
1 D.S., éloka 3. 2 See below.
40 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Nimbarka distinguishes between the “ aupanisada-pradhana”’ and the “Samkhya-pradhina”’, i.e. matter dependent on and under the control of the Lord, and independent and self-sufficient matter. The former alone is admitted by Scripture and not the latter.1
The process of the origin of the world is as follows®: First, the ether originates from the Lord, from the ether air, from air fire, from fire water and from water earth, although in every case it is the Lord who is the real creator.®
And the process of dissolution is just the reverse of the process of creation 4—viz., first the earth is merged in water, water in fire, fire in air, air in the ether and the ether in the Lord.
Like the elements, the vital breath, the mind and the sense- organs all originate from the Lord.5
Nimbarka, in fact, accepts the usual Samkhya view of creation.® But to say that the elements and the vital breath, etc. arise from the Lord is not wrong on the acceptance of this view, for the Lord really is the material cause of the universe.? He accepts the doctrine of tri-partition (trivrt-karana), and points out that everything is a mixture of all the elements, but is called one particular thing because of the preponderance of one particular element in it.8
Nimbarka does*not tell us what exactly the aprikrta is, nor does he define kala more precisely, beyond noticing, as pointed out above, that the aprakrta and the kala are species of the acit.®
IV. Relation between Brahman, the cit and the acit : Svabhavika-bhedabheda-vada.
Thus, we have seen that, according to Nimbarka, there are three equally real and co-eternal realities, viz. Brahman, the cit and the acit. Brahman is the Controller (Niyantr), the cit the enjoyer (bhoktr) and the acit the object enjoyed (bhogya).19 The next question which confronts us is: What is the exact relation between these three ?
In the first place, there is an essential difference of nature (svariipa- bheda) between Brahman on the one hand, the soul and the world
1 V.PS., 1.4.3. ॐ Op. cit., 2.3.1-13. 8 Op. cit., 2.3.13.
५ Op. cit., 2.3.14. 5 Op. cit., 2.3.15; 2.4,1-4. 6 Op. cit., 2.3.15. V.R.M., pp. 23-29. Vide pp. 144ff. of the thesis, Part 1. 7 See p. 29 of thesis, Part 1. 8 V.P.S., 2.4.19-21; 3.1.2.
9 Cf. V.R.M., pp. 37-40 for details. See below under Purusottamacarya: Kala and Aprakrta. 10 V.P.S., 2.1.18; 3.3.36. D.8.,, éloka 7.
RELATION BEIWEEN BRAHMAN; INDIVIDUAL SOUL AND WORLD 41
on the other. Thus, Brahman is the cause and the soul His effect, and there is evidently a difference between the cause and its effect, as between the sea and its waves, between the sun and its rays.} Also, the Brahman is the whole, and the soul His part, and the part and the whole cannot be identical? Again, Brahman is the object to be worshipped,® the object to be known,‘ the object to be attained,5 while the soul is the-knower, the worshipper and the attainer, and. there is always a difference between the worshipper and the worshipped, the knower and the known, the attainer and the attained.®
Further, Brahman, as the Inner Controller, dwells within the soul and controls it, and the dweller and the place dwelt in, the con- troller and the controlled, must be different.”
Other essential differences between Brahman and the soul are that while the former is never subject to avidya,8 absolutely and always free from sins, capable of realising all His wishes at once, etc.,® all-pervading,!° and possessed of the power of creation, main- tenance and destruction,!! the latter is not.
Even the freed soul, which is similar to Brahman in other points, differs from Him in the last two points.12
Thus, the difference between Brahman and the soul is eternal and natural, and can by no means be denied at any time. Brahman is essentially other than and superior to the soul.18
In the yery same manner, there is an essential difference between Brahman and the universe. Brahman is the cause, the universe the effect, and as such the two cannot be absolutely identical.1¢ Brahman is sentient, non-gross, non-material, ever-pure, the universe is quite the reverse.15 The former is the ruler, the universe the ruled.16 Hence the two must be different.
Thus, the difference between Brahman and the universe is equally eternal, natural and undeniable.
4 V.P.9., 2.1.13. Of. V.K., 2.1.13, p. 159. 2 Op. cit., 2.3.42. Cf. also S.N.K.S., 61018 1, where the Lord is said to be “‘ améin ”’.
3 V.P.S., 1.2.12. 4 Op. cit., 1.2.12; 1.3.5. 5 Op. cit., 1.1.16, 18, 20. 6 Op. cit., 1.2.12; 1.3.5; 1.1.18. 7 Op. cit.,'1.2.5-6; 1.3.44. 8 Op. cit., 1.2.8; 1.3.7; 3.2.13-14.
9 Op. cit., 1.2.8, Although the soul possesses all these qualities really, yet it does not do so during its state of bondage. See above.
10 V.P.S., 2.3.28, 11 Op. cit., 4.4.17. 12 See below.
13 V.P.S., 1.4.18; 2.1.21. 14 Op. cit., 2.1.16.
15 Op, cit., 2.1.4-6; 3.3.33. 16 Op, cit., 1.2.19.
42 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
But if, on the one hand, difference is true, on the other, non- difference is no less true. The souls and the universe—as effects and parts of Brahman, are distinct from Him, the cause and the whole, but as effects and parts, again, they are also non-distinct from Him.! This is proved by the fact that the effect is completely dependent on the cause for its very being and existence—that the effect can exist solely when the cause itself exists and never otherwise.® The fact is that the effect and the cause, the part and the whole are neither absolutely distinct nor absolutely non-distinct, but the relation between them is a relation of both difference and non-difference (bhedaibheda).8 Thus, the relation between Brahman, on the one hand, and the souls and the universe on the other, is a relation of natural difference-non-difference (svabhavika-bhedabheda), 4 just like that between a snake and its coil,5 or between the sun and its rays.® Just as the coil is nothing but the snake, yet different from it, just as the ray is nothing but the sun, yet different from it, just as the different kinds of stones, though nothing but earth, are yet different from it,” so the souls and the universe, though nothing but Brahman (brahmatmaka),® are different from Him because of their own peculiar natures and attributes.
The conclusion arrived at, therefore, is that difference (bheda) and non-difference (abheda) are both equally real, natural and eternal, without contradicting each other. Just as it is true that the souls and the universe exist in Brahman from all eternity (as a tree exists in its seed) and do not become separate from or independent of Him, even when actually produced (or rather manifested), as a pot becomes separate from the potter—being ever permeated, supported and con- trolled by Him, so it is equally true at the same time that they retain their peculiar natures—their own individuality and separateness from Brahman all along.
V. Criticism of other schools of thought. Nimbarka criticises (though not in details) the Simkhya-Yoga, the Nyaya-Vaisesika, the Bauddha, the Jaina, the Saiva and the Sakti schools of thought.®
४
1 V.P.S., 1.4.20; 2.1.14-15. 2 Op. cit., 2.1.5. 3 Op. ctt., 1.1.4; 3.2.27-28. 4 Op. cit., 2.3.42; 3.2.27-28. 5 Op. ५९४. 3.2.27. 6 Op. ctt., 3.2.28. 7 Op. cit., 2.1.22,
8 Op. cit., 1.1.81; 3.3.39. D.S., éloka 7. 9 See translation of V.P.S., Vol. I, 2.2.
SALVATION 43
VI. Mokga.
Mokga or salvation means becoming like the Lord (tad-bhava- patti) 1—i.e. attaining similarity (simya)® with Him in nature and qualities, and it is due to the grace of the Lord.8
Thus, the process of attaining release is as follows:
A man, desirous of salvation,‘ approaches a guru, and follows one or other of the sidhanas as directed by him; this has the effect of pleasing the Lord Who Himself frees him from the shackle of avidya, 1.8. from all karmas, good or bad, which are the causes of bondage. But the man has to wait till he has completely exhausted the effects of works which have already begun to bear fruit (prirabdha karmas) by retributive experience (or bhoga).6 After that, when he is com- pletely freed from them and has no more birth to undergo, his sou] leaves the body through the vein which passes out of the crown of the head, follows the path of Gods and attains the world of Brahman.” Then, through the grace of the Lord, it comes to have a direct vision of the Lord,’ and attains similarity with Him,® i.e. attains the nature and qualities of the Lord—and this is salvation.
But this, viz. the attainment of the nature of Brahman (Brahma- svaripa-labha), is only one element in mokga, and not the whole of it. The other and equally important element is the attainment of one’s own real and essential nature (atma-svariipa-labha) as well.10 Mokga, thus, means no less a full development of one’s own indivi- duality. The difference of the soul from Brahman being natural and eternal persists always—in bondage as well as in release,!! and hence salvation does not imply any identity between the two, or any annihilation of the individuality of the soul. In fact, the word
1 M.B.§., Sloka 14. P.K., éloka 22
2 V.P.S., 3.2.26 3 See below
4 According to the followers of Nimbarka, this very fact that one has an inclination towards salvation (and not towards earthly enjoyment) is due to the grace of the Lord. It is because one particular person has been looked at with favour by the Lord at the time of his birth that he has from the very begin- ning & natural inclination to higher ends, viz. the attainment of Brahman, and a natural aversion to worldly ends. Vide V.R.M., pp. 133-142; S.K., p. 142.
8 1.8., dloka 6. 6 See below. 7 See below.
8 V.P.S., 3.2.22 (though no mention of grace here). But vide V.P.S., 3.2.5—where it is said that the Lord is the cause of salvation—which means that the Lord Himself leads men to a direct realisation of Himself—which is salvation.
® V.P.S., 3.2.26. 10 Op. cit., 4.4.1-2. 11 See above.
44 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
“gamya”’ used often! to describe the state of salvation, means simi- larity and never identity. The freed soul, therefore, is similar to the Lord without losing its own nature and individuality.
This full development of the real nature or individuality of the soul implies the full manifestation of its real nature as consciousness through and through, untainted by matter, and of real qualities of freedom from sins, from decay and death, from hunger and thirst, etc.? This real nature of the self as pure consciousness remains hidden during its state of bondage through its connection with avidya, 1.6. matter, karma, like the rays of a lamp within a pot.3 Similarly, its real qualities remain veiled through avidya, which subjects the soul to all sorts of sins and impurities, to decay and death and endless rebirths. But in salvation, this veil of avidyé being completely lifted up, the true self shines forth in all its brilliance and purity.4
It is clear from the above that since salvation means the attain- ment of the nature of Brahman, as well as that of one’s own nature, the freed soul realises itself as non-distinct from Brahman—which non-distinction is not incompatible with a distinction between itself and Brahman.® That is to say, as everywhere else, the relation be- tween the soul and Brahman is one of natural difference-non-difference (svabhavika-bhedabheda), in salvation, too, there being similarity as well as distinction between the two.
The similarity between the freed soul and Brahman consists in the following facts :—
First, as noted above, the freed soul attains the nature and quali- ties of the Lord, viz. pure and obstructed consciousness, omniscience, freedom from sins, faults and impurities, decay and death.” It, further, comes to have the power of realising all its wishes at once and can meet its forefathers, etc. through a mere wish.2 It comes to possess also the power of moving about everywhere at will and can attain any world without resorting to any means.® It comes to possess, in fact, supreme majesty 10 and becomes a self-ruler, not under the control of any one else 11 (excepting the Lord, of course).}2
1 Vide e.g., ^ paramam simyam upaiti” (Mund., 3.1.3).
2 See above. 3 See above.
4 Cf. Chand., 8.3.4, “‘svena rapena abhinispadyayte’’.
5 $.N.K.S., éloka 13.
6 V.P.S., 4.4.4. Vibhagavirodhina’vibhagena.
? V.P.S., 4.4.7. See above. 8 V.P.S., 4.4.8. ® Op. cit., 3.3.40. 10 Op. cit., 4.4.9, 11 Op. cit., 4.4.9. 12 See below.
SALVATION 45
It shares all the pleasures and enjoyments with Brahman in this world. It may possess a body or not at its own liking? and in the absence of a body created by itself, it enjoys pleasures by means of the body created by the Lord. The sense is that the freed soul, being capable of realising all its wishes, can, of course, create its own body, yet sometimes it voluntarily refrains from doing so and prefers to have a body created by the Lord. And even when it creates its own body, it does so in accordance with the Lord’s wish. That is, the freed soul, though a self-creator, is ever under the control of the Lord and always follows His will.4
On the other hand, the difference between the freed soul and the Lord consists in the following :—
In the first place, the freed soul is atomic in size,5 while the Lord is all-pervading.6 As pointed out above,? atomicity is the very essence of the soul, hence since salvation does not imply the disappearance of the essence or nature of the soul, the essentially atomic soul cannot become all-pervasive in salvation. But this atomicity of the freed soul does not prevent it from enjoying the pleasures, etc. of several bodies simultaneously,® for just as a small lamp pervades several rooms with its rays extending far and wide, so can the freed soul experience the pleasures of several bodies through its all-pervading quality of knowledge.®
In the second place, the freed soul, in spite of possessing supreme powers and majesty, never possesses the power of creating, main- taining and destroying the universe, which power belongs exclusively to the Lord alone.10
Thus, we find, that the state of salvation is a definite acquisition— a positive state of supreme self-development, knowledge and enjoy- ment, and not a negative state of unconsciousness and blankness,1! The freed soul abides with a constant intuition of the Lord and is, thereby, free from all fear and full of bliss.12
1 V.P.S., 4.4.21.
2 Op. cit., 4.4.14. This body, like that of the Lord, is non-material— aprakrta. Vide V.R.M., pp. 31, 39.
8 V.P.S., 4.4.13. 4 Op. cit., 4.4.14, See above.
5 V.P.S., 4.4.15. 6 See above. 7 See above.
8 Cf. Chand., 7.26.2, where it is said that the soul becomes one-fold, three- fold, etc.
® V.P.S., 4.4.15. 10 Op. cit., 4.4.20.
11 Op. cit., 4.4.16. 12 Op, cit., 4.4.19.
46 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Finally, according to Nimbarka, there is no such thing as jivan- mukti, or salvation in this life, here and now. When a man is favoured by the Lord (because of following the paths of knowledge, devotion, etc.), he comes, of course, to be freed from any further karmas, i.e. his past karmas are destroyed and the future ones do not accumulate.! But those karmas which have already begun to bear fruits remain intact, and hence, as we have seen, he must continue his mundane existence until such karmas are completely destroyed by means of retributive experience,? although any further karmas which he may have to do during that period do not cling to him, as pointed out above, and he attains release, i.e. fellowship with the Lord and a full manifestation of his real self—after exhausting all these karmas that have already begun to fructify and discarding the physical body.
VII. Ethics: the sadhanas.
There are five sidhanas or means to emancipation, viz. karma or work, vidyé or knowledge, upaésanaé or meditation, prapatti or self-surrender to the Lord, and guriipasatti or devotion to a guru.8
(1) Karma.
Karmas by themselves do not lead to salvation directly, yet they‘are not useless, because, if performed conscientiously in a proper spirit, in accordance with one’s caste and stage of life, they give rise to vidya or knowledge which is a means to salvation.4 Hence, karmas being indirect means to salvation are to be undertaken as essential duties and not to be avoided or neglected as worthless or as leading away from salvation.
(2) Vidya. (a) Nature of vidya and its relation to karma.
Brahman, the highest goal of men, can be attained through vidyé.5 Vidya is not a subsidiary factor of karma (karmanga),
1 V.P.S., 4.1.13. 2 Op. cit., 3.4.51; 4.1.15.
3 For details, vide V.R.M. See below under Purusottamacarya: Sadhana.
+ This is considered in details immediately in sub-section (2).
$ V.P.S., 3.4.1.
“Vidy&’’ means not mere ‘“ knowledge”, but “meditative knowledge ”’, 1.6. knowledge ending in meditation. According to Nimbarka, knowledge and meditation are interconnected: knowledge ends in meditation, meditation is based on knowledge. Vide infra. .
‘MEANS TO SALVATION : KNOWLEDGE 47
but is an independent means.1 Far from being a subordinate factor of karma, it, on the contrary, destroys karmas which lead to endless rebirths, thereby hindering the attainment of final emancipation.?
But in spite of this, it is not to be supposed that karmas are absolutely useless, or that they have no relation .whatsoever with vidyé. The fact is that karmas help the rise of vidya and are, as such, elements of vidyé (vidyinga).8 The conscientious perform- ance of the religious duties incumbent on particular stages of life (or the asrama-dharmas), viz. the performance of sacrifices, the prac- tice of charity and the rest,* have the effect of purifying the mind and thereby helping the rise of knowledge.5 Of course, the function of karmas ends here, i.e. in giving rise to knowledge, for once knowledge is generated, it does not wait for anything else, but itself leads to salvation.6 Thus, karmas produce knowledge, but are, in their turn, destroyed by that very knowledge which they have produced, It is to be noted, however, that karmas do not always give rise to knowledge and thereby lead to salvation—sometimes they give rise only to merit, and thereby lead to heaven only. The fact is that it is the spirit with which one undertakes a work that determines the end attained. A man, who, desirous of salvation, performs sacrifices, etc. in a disinterested spirit with no desire for heaven, attains knowledge as a result and through it, salvation. But a man not desirous of salvation, who performs his duties in a selfish spirit with a view to attaining heaven, and the rest, accumulates merit as a result, goes to heaven, and is born on earth once more.’
Not only the external performance of sacrifices and the rest, but the internal control of the senses and so on, too, are incumbent on one desirous of knowledge as a means to salvation. In order that there may be a rise of knowledge in him, he must be calm, self- controlled, indifferent to worldly objects, forbearing and collected.’
Further, one wishing to have knowledge of Brahman must have deep learning, childlike simplicity and unostentatiousness and profound
1 For the purva-paksa that vidya is karmanga and the refutation thereof, vide V.P.S., 3.4.1-18.
2 V.P.S., 3.4.16. 3 Op. cit., 3.4.26.
५ Cf. Brh., 4.4.22.
5 W.P.8., 3.4.36.
6 Op. cit., 3.4.27. Cf. V.K., 3.4.27: the analogy of a horse, etc.
7 V.P.S., 3.4.32-34.
8 Op. cit., 3.4.27. Cf. Brh., 4.4.23.
48 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND'HIS FOLLOWERS
thoughtfulness and the gift of silence. All these help the rise of knowledge.}
There are, thus, three sets of auxiliaries to knowledge—first, the disinterested performance of one’s own duties, such as sacrifices, the practice of charity and penance, etc.; secondly, the possession of self-control, forbearance, etc.; and thirdly, the possession of deep learning, simplicity and thoughtfulness.
Of course, each of these auxiliaries (sahakarin) is not universally needed for the rise of knowledge; for example, those who lead a life of chastity are not required to perform sacrifices, etc. for attaining knowledge, but can do so independently of any such things.2
The conclusion is, therefore :—
(a) vidya& is independent of and separate from karmas; hence some, viz. the ascetics, who are not required to work or perform sacrifices, etc., can attain knowledge without the help of karma; 2
(2) while others, again, viz. religious students and house- holders—who are required to work in accordance with their respective castes and stages of life—can attain knowledge only through the proper performance of sacrifices and the reat.
Nimbarka, therefore, १०६३ not regard the giving up of the active life of a householder as the essential pre-requisite to attaining Brahman.
Finally, it is recommended that one desirous of knowledge should take particular care regarding the food he takes, for purity of food, guarantees purity of the heart which quickens the rise of knowledge,‘ and should always avoid wanton conduct.5
(b) Adhikarins of vidyd.
The proper relation between knowledge and work being thus determined, the next question is: Who are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman ?
As seen above, all those who belong to one or other of the stages of life (or the 44ramas)—both householders and ascetics—are entitled
1 V.P\S., 3.4.46; 3.4.48-49, Cf. Brh., 3.5.1. Panditya; balya; mayna.
2 V.P.S., 3.4.25.
3 They attain vidyé through the duties incumbent on their stage of life, viz. Sravana, manana, etc., vide V.K., 3.4.25.
4 V.P.S., 3.4.29-30, 5 Op. cit., 3.4.31.
‘THOSE WHO ABE ENTITLED TO KNOWLEDGE 49
to knowledge through the proper performance of their duties prescribed for the particular stages of life.
Further, even those who do not belong to any particular stage (or the anaéramin), are entitled to knowledge provided that the fact of their not belonging to any particular stage of life is due to mishap and not to actual lapse or wilful negligence on their own parts; for example, a widower, “by misfortune, happens to be outside all stages of life—being neither a religious student nor a householder, nor an ascetic. Such men can gain knowledge through the muttering of prayers (or japa) and the rest (there being no particular asrama- dharmas to be performed by them). It is to be remembered, how- ever, that one should belong to one or other of the stages of life if one can help, for it is far better to do so than to remain outside.2 But persons who voluntarily leave or lapse from their stages of life through misbehaviour, are not entitled to knowledge like widowers and the rest. Such a lapse is a very serious offence. A Naisthika-brahmacarin or @ perpetual religious student, observing the vow of chastity, who lapses from his vow is as good as a murderer of his own self and no penance can atone for his आ.
Generally speaking, one who has studied the Veda with its six parts, and the science of religious duties, who is, as a result, averse to worldly ends and desirous of attaining the Lord, and who accordingly approaches a preceptor and devotes himself to him—is entitled to Brahma-vidya.+
The conclusion, thus, is that the adhikarins of vidya are :—
(a) generally speaking, those who have studied the Vedas and the Pirva-mimaimsi, have approached a preceptor and have been ceremonially purified ;
1 V.P.S., 3.4.37. 2 Op. cit., 3.4.39. 3 Op. cit., 3.4.41.
4 Op. cit., 1.1.1.
(a) The sense is: The study of the Vedas generates a doubt regarding the exact nature of karmas and their fruits, since some Vedic passages teach that the fruits of karmas are eternal, while others teach that they are not.
(९) This leads 8 man to study the Karma-mimamsa.
(c) From his study of the Karma-mimamsa, he comes to see the distinction between the non-eternal karmas and the eternal Brahman.
(d) This generates an aversion in him for the transitory fruits of karmas, 1.6. for ordinary objects of enjoyment—here or hereafter in heaven—and a desire for knowledge of Brahman. ,
(९) This leads him to approach a guru, and learn the Brahma-vidya from him. Vide V.P.S., 1.1.1.
4.
60 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
(8) all who belong to one or other of the stages of life, through their performance of the duties incumbent thereon, and
(c) some who do not belong to any stage of life, like widowers, etc., through muttering of prayers and so on.!
(©) The rise of vidyd. There is no fixed rule when knowledge is going to arise.2 It may arise here or hereafter.8 If there be no obstructions, knowledge arises here in this world, otherwise not.
(3) Updsand or Dhyana.
(a) The mode of meditation.
A man who desires for salvation should meditate on his own self—on his real and essential self, freed from all sins and imperfections.‘ He should meditate on the Lord as his own self.6 He should neither meditate on the self as it is during its stage of bondage,® nor on any symbol.? The best kind of meditation, thus, is the meditation on the self as one with the Lord (abhedopaésana).
(2) Posture of meditation.
Meditation is to be carried on in a sitting posture, meditation being best possible in that posture alone,$ i.e. on the part of one who is motionless.®
(c) Place of meditation.
There is no particular rule regarding the place of meditation the only requisite being that meditation should be practised in a place which helps the concentration of the mind.1°
1 The Sidras, on the other hand, are not entitled to the knowledge of Brahman, The rule is that before any man is fit to receive instruction, he must be initiated with the holy thread as a preparatory purifying rite. But since a Sadra belongs to the fourth caste, he is not entitled to any such purificatory ceremony and as such not entitled to knowledge. V.P.S., 1.3.34-39
According to Purusottama and Sundarabhatta, the Sidras are entitled to the study of the Puranazy, etc., but are not to that of the Veda. Vide V.R.M p. 74; 8.8., p. 8.
४ V.P.S., 3.4.50-51. ॐ Op. cit., 3.4.38, 50. 4 Op. cit., 3.3.52. 5 Op, cit., 4.1.3, © Op. cit., 3.3.51-52. 7 Op. cit., 4.1.4-6. 8 Op. cit., 4.1.7-8. 9 Op. cit., 4.1.9. 10 Op, cit., 4.1.11.
4B
MBANS TO SALVATION : MEDITATION 51
(d) Time of meditation. ॥ Meditation is to be carried on, not off and on, but continuously
as long as life lasts.1 (e) Fruits of meditation.
Meditation, like knowledge, brings about the destruction of all karmas and leads to salvation.”
(f) Kinds of meditation.
The process of meditation depicted above? is a somewhat higher intellectual process, presupposing the consciousness of identity between the individual soul and the Highest Soul. Ordinarily, however, this process is not always resorted to.4 The Lord is taken simply as a supreme object of worship and worshipped as such in Himself without the above preliminary identification of Him with the individual soul. Krsna should be worshipped with steady and wholehearted devotion.6 He alone is to be worshipped and no other deity.6 Everything depends on His grace; hence those who are averse to the Lord, but given to the worship of other deities or to the pursuit of worldly ends—never attain success in anything 7— not even in worldly pursuits. On the contrary, they have to face endless miseries at every step.8 ‘The fact is that it is only through a complete dedication of one’s life to the service and worship of the Lord that human life can have any meaning or worth.®
Whenever the Supreme Brahman is meditated on, He must be meditated on as possessed of tho essential qualities of truth, know- ledge, bliss, being the soul of all, having true desires, non-grossness, non-atomicity and the rest 1°—which pertain to His very nature— whether they be specially mentioned or not in connection with various Brahmopfsanas set forth in various schools of the Vedas, while the inessential qualities of having joy for His head and the rest, need not be included in all meditations.1! That is to say, tho various
1 V.P.S., 4.1.12.
2 Op. cit., 3.2.5; 4.1.13-14. 7 .8., 6०४७ 6.
ॐ Under the sub-section (a).
५ Cf. D.S., and $.N.K.S. See below. 5 $.N.K.8., élokas 1, 8, 7.
6 Op. cit., loka 5. It is said that those who worship other deities are no better than ignorant beasts (pasu). D .8., éloka 6.
7 $.N.K.S., Sloka 16. 8 Op. cit., Sloka 18. ® Op. cit., loka 25.
10 ए.2.8., 3.3.11; 3.3.13; 3.3.34, 11 Op. cét., 3.3.19.
52 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Brahmopisanis, Yepicted in various schools of Scripture, are really one and the same, since they are all connected with the same object, viz. Brahman. Hence the special features mentioned in connection with one are to be extended to all the rest.
But in spite of this fact that the various kinds of meditations designated in various Upanisads, viz. the meditation as taught by Sandilya,2 meditation on the Small,? meditation on the Imperish- able,‘ and the rest, are really one as referring to the same object, viz. Brahman, yet since the method of procedure is different in each case and since different forms are resorted to by different adhikarins,5 they are taken to be different in this sense.6 But since they all lead to the same result, viz. the attainment of Brahman, it is not necessary to resort to each of them, any one being enough to yield the desired result, viz. the salvation.”
The symbolic meditations, on the other hand, do not lead to the attainment of Brahman, but to other limited results only,’ and hence they are to be avoided, as noted above.®
Finally, the Lord is, sometimes, meditated on as the Inner Con- troller of the non-sentient.1°
The conclusion is, thus, there are broadly three kinds of meditation 11:— - .
(2) Meditation on the Lord as one’s own self, i.e. meditation on the Lord as the Inner Controller of the sentient.
(¢) Meditation on the Lord as the Inner Controller of the non-sentient.
(c) Meditation on the Lord Himself, as different from the sentient and the non-sentient.
The various kinds of meditation taught in the Upanigads, etc. may be included under one or other of these three headings.
1 V.P.S., 3.3.1-5.
७ See translation, Sandilya-vidya, V.K., 3.3.1.
3 Op. ctt., Dahara-vidyé.
4 Op. cit., Aksara-vidya, V.K., 3.3.66.
5 The sense is that the followers of different 64khas are evidently entitled only to those forms of meditations recorded in their own particular éakhas respectively, and hence arises the variety of meditations.
6 V.P.8., 3.3.56. 7 Op. cit., 3.3.57-58.
8 Op. ctt., 4.3.16. Cf., e.g., Chand., 7.1.
_ 9 See 3(a) above. 10 V.P.§., 1.1.32. 13 Op, cét., 1.1.32.
MEANS TO SALVATION : DEVOTION 53
(g) Adhikdrins of meditation.
It is clear that meditation, involving as it does scriptural know- ledge, is confined to the upper three classes only.1 That meditation involves knowledge is clear from the following facts :—
(a) The first kind of meditation, viz. meditation on the Lord as the self of the individual, is based on the real know- ledge of the Lord, of the individual soul, and of the identity between them, which knowledge can be obtained from Scripture alone, barred to the fourth caste.?
(6) The second kind of meditation, viz. the meditation on the Lord as the Inner Controller of the non-sentient, too, is based on the real knowledge of the Lord and the non-sentient, obtainable from Scripture.
(c) The third kind of meditation, viz. the meditation on the Lord Himself, too, is based on the knowledge of the essential nature and qualities of the Lord, obtainable from Scripture.3
(h) Updsana and Bhakti.
According to Nimbarka, bhakti is not a synonym for upasana, but consists in a special love for the Lord.4 Meditation and devotion mutually involve each other.5
Devotion is a supreme sadhana. It can be obtained through the grace of the Lord alone. The grace of the Lord generates a feeling of utter humility, which in its turn generates devotion.®
There are two kinds of devotion, para and apara or saidhana- rapika.?
1 Op. cit., 1.3.34-41. See above. 2 See above.
3 According to V’R.M., pp. 74 and 127, Sidras are entitled to meditation enjoined in the Puranas, but not to those enjoined in the Upanisads.
4 D.S., éloka 9. Prema-visesa-laksana.
The followers of Nimbarka, however, use the word exactly in the sense of upésand. Vide V.P.M., ए. 97; §.K., p. 127. See p. 169 of the thesis, Part 1.
5 See below. 6 D.S., 61०1४ 9.
7 Op. cit.
According to the commentators, the distinction between these two kinds of devotion is that the para bhakti is generated through the grace of the Lord. while the sidhana-ripiké bhakti through the performance of the sédhanas, 1.6. through meritorious works, company of the good and so on. Vide V.R.M., pp. 126-128.
54 DOOTRENES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
rn
(4) Prapatti. (a) Its general nature and factors.
Prapatti means a complete resignation or self-surrender to the Lord, and is one of the most effective means to salvation.’ It consists in depending on the Lord in every respect and at every step,2 relinquishing one’s narrow individuality as a separate self-dependent and self-sufficient being, giving up every other sadhana, and throwing one’s self completely on the mercy of the Lord.6 One who wants to attain salvation through this sadhana should, after having received instruction from a preceptor,’ take refuge in the Lord with whole mind and body,’ looking upon Him as Father, Mother, Friend and Master, as knowledge, wealth, and everything,® serving Him as a son serves his father, a friend his friend, a servant his master.?
Self-surrender consists of six factors (or angas):—
(1) bearing good will to all, (2) absence of ill-will, (3) faith that the Lord will protect, (4) acceptance of Him as the Saviour, (5) feeling of helplessness, and (6) self-surrender to the Lord; the last is the main factor (angin) while others aro its elements (angas).10
The Lord is e¥er-gracious to one who has thus taken refuge in Him.1! He protects him at all times from all harms and difficulties,12 regards him as His special ward, as His dear friend and never abandons him,}8 in spite of his faults and failings. And, finally, He, with His own hands, leads him to salvation, to an attainment of Himself.14 a a ee ee
1 p.§., शन 8: “There seems to be no way to salvation except the lotus- feet of the Lord"’. P.K., éloka 22, given-in 8.R., p. 110.
2 Op. cit., Sloka 4, p. 108. 3 Op. cit., Sloka 19, p. 110,
4 Op. cit., 6loka 24,p.110. Cf. Gita 18.66.
5 P.K,, éloka 4, 19, pp. 108, 110, S.R.
० Op. cit., Slokas 4-5, p. 108. 7 Op. cit., sloka 19, p. 110.
$ Op. cit., Slokas 6-8, p. 109. 9 Op. cit., Sloka 9, p. 109.
10 The six factors are: (1) dnukilyasya samkalpah, (2) pratikilyasya varjanam, (3) raksigyati iti viévasah, (4) goptrtva-varanam, (5) karpanyam, (6) &tma-nikgepah. P.K., 8101788 10-11, p. 109, S.R. The above translation is based on the explanation of these factors (not given by Nimbarka himself) in V.R.M., pp. 100 ff.
11 P.K., sloka 12-14, p. 108, 8.R.
12 Op. cit., Sloka 14, p. 108, S.R.
18 Op. cit., loka 15, p. 108, 8.२.
14 Op. od. 6loka 22-23, p. 110, 8.7२.
MEANS TO SALVATION : SELF-SURRENDER ` 66
(8) Adhikadrins of Prapatti.
One who desires for release, who is utterly destitute of any interest other than the Lord, who has no end in view other than the attain- ment of the Lord, who has recourse to no other sadhana than the complete self-surrender to the Lord and who is conscious of his own utter helplessness and insignificance is entitled to self-surronder.?
It is clear that while the other sidhanas like knowledge and meditation are confined to the upper three classes only, self-surrender is open to all—to the high as well as to the low, to the learned as well as to the ignorant, to Brihmanas as well as to Siidras.
Self-surrender does not imply complete inactivity on the part of the person surrendering himself, because he has, to exert himself for doing what is liked by the Lord, and avoid what is not. He must be benevolent, charitable and friendly towards all, striving to help everyone—high and low—and must be free, on the other hand, as we have seen, from violence, anger, malice and haughtiness, refrain- ing from harming any one. Thus, love and devotion to the Lord mean love and service of mankind, and not indifference to fellow beings, just as self-surrender to the Lord means ceaseless effort to follow the right path, and thereby please the Lord, and not mere idleness and apathy.
(5) Guripasatti or Gurv-djiidnuyrtti.2
(a) Its general nature.
Self-surrender is of two kinds: self-surrender to the Lord and self-surrender to a guru or spiritual preceptor. The first has been considered in the previous section, the second is being considered here.
Guripasatti, as the name implies, means complete self-surrender to a preceptor and not directly to the Lord Himself. The guru is the intermediary between the individual soul and the Lord, and leads the former to the latter. ‘ Jiva->Guru->Hari ”—this is the eternal secret of all truth.’
1 P.K., élokas 24-25, p. 110, 8.९.
2 Vide Sundarabhatta’s account for details. See pp. 193 ff. of the thesis, Part 1.
8 M.R.8., élokas 1-2, p. 1.
It is this truth which is contained in both the mysterious Agama- mantra: “Om’’, and in the Bija-mantra: “Klim.’’ In the first case, the
56 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
The soul is, thus, to offer itself to the Lord through the preceptor in the same manner as clarified butter is first poured in a ladle and then offered to the 876; 1 and having thus offered itself, it becomes free from the fetters of the mundane existence and attains similarity with Brahman; £ i.e. salvation.
The sense is that one who has surrendered his own self completely to his preceptor, needs do nothing else,—perform no other duties, follow no other sidhana—except to obey and serve him. The method of taking refuge to and serving him is very similar to that: of serving the Lord. The devotee should dedicate himself heart and soul to the preceptor, as well as everything belonging to himself,5 his wealth,® his youth,? his works.§ He should regard him as his all in all, and serve him as such.? He should give up all sense of egoity and be completely merged in him.1° He must obey implicitly whatever he commands him and learn the sacred Mantra in the way recommended by 10.11 The preceptor, on his part, is to impart the supreme knowledge to him, his disciple alone, and not to anv one else.!2
(6) Adhikadrins of Guripasatti.
One who desires for release, who has no attachment either to his own self ({tman) or to anything belonging to himself (atmiya): and one who is willing to dedicate himself, body and soul, to his preceptor, is entitled to this sidhana.18
It is clear that like self-surrender to the Lord, self-surrender to the preceptor is open to all, and not only to the upper three classes.
ayllable °“ & ° means Hari, the syllable ^^ प ’’ means the preceptor and the syllable ‘¢m’”? means the soul; while in the second case, the syllable ‘‘k’’ means Hari, the syllable “i”? means the preceptor and the syllable “‘m’’ means the soul.
M.LB.S., élokas 3, 5, pp. 1, 2 and op. cit., Slokas 4, 5, pp. 1, 2.
1 M.R.8., éloka 8. Here the clarified butter stands for the soul, the sacri- ficial ladle for the preceptor and the fire for the Lord.
For a full working out of the simile, see Sundarabhatta’s M.R. See below.
3 M.B.S., 81019 9, p. 2, ॐ See above. 4M.BS., dloka 15, p. 4. 5 P.K., éloka 19, p. 110, 8.R. ५ M.R.S., élokas 12, 15, pp. 3, 4. ? Op. cit., loka 12, p. 3.
8 P.K., éloka 19, p. 110, 8.R. 9 M.R.S., slokas 16-16, p.4. P.K., dlokas 5-6, S.R. 10 P.K., élokas 18, 20-21, p. 110, 8.5, Atmasit-krta. 11 M.R.8., sloka 17, p. 4. 19 Op. cit., Sloka 18, p. 4. 13 Op. ct, Sloka 13, p. 3.
AUXILIARY MEANS 57
This means is specially fit for those who cannot perform even the six factors! of self-surrender to the Lord independently of their own unaided efforts, but are required to be led by someoneelse in all respects, their only duty being to obey their preceptor with blind faith as a child obeys his mother.2 And, all that is necessary for their attain- ment of salvation is done by the preceptor himself, just as the mother of a suckling baby herself takes medicine for curing her child’s disease.’
Sahakdarins to the sddhanas.4
There are certain sahakarins or auxiliaries to the above sidhanas, which help the attainment of salvation. These are broadly five in number, viz. Sraddha or reverence, arjava or straightforwardness, vigvasa or faith, sat-saiga or company of the good and viradga or detachment.®
Reverence means reverently accepting as true what is taught by Scripture and the spiritual teacher.6 That is, one who desires to have salvation should have complete faith in Scripture and the spiritual teacher.
Straightforwardness means perfect harmony between mind, speech and body.? That is, one who desires salvation should be truthful and keep his word; he should speak what he thinks, and १० what he says, but should not think one thing, say one, and do another.§
Faith means the belief that the Lord is sure to make the devotee His own.® That is, one who desires for salvation should have un- shaken faith in the Lord and His protection, otherwise there is no sense in resorting to the sadhanas.
Company of the good means associating with and serving the good.10 The good are those who are endowed with knowledge, detachment and devotion, who follow the path indicated by the Swan Incarnation (i.e. belong to the sect of Nimbarka) and are devoted
~ 1 See above. 2 Cf. V.R.M., pp. 97, 122. 3 Op. cit., p. 122.
« This account is based on V.R.M., V.K.V. with its commentary A.8.T., aa is the account (given in the next section) of the obstacles (virodhins) to salva- tion. Nimbarka himself does not consider these points. But it seems best to include them here for facility of reference.
According to V.R.M., p. 140, the various kinds of virodhins have been set forth in the Prapatti-cinté-mani by Nimbarka.
5 V.K.V., 5th taranga, éloka 1, p. 53. 6 Op. cit., Sloka 2, op. cit.
7 Op. cit. 8 A.S.T., p. 53.
9 V.K.V., 5th taranga, élokas 3-4, p. 54. 10 Op. cit., Slokas 5-7, p. 55,
58 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
to their sect, who are untouched by any vices and passions like greed, malice, and the rest and free from all selfish desires for sons or wealth and so on, who are devoted to the Lord alone and ever accompanied by the Lord as a consequence,! 1.6, who regard every end other than the Lord as utterly negligible and who implicitly follow the commands of the Lord.2 The mere sight of such good men, it is said, is enough to bring about salvation, not to speak of associating with them.? And, they are to be served more devotedly, so to speak, than even the Lord.4
Finally, detachment means absence of both attachment (raga) and detachment (dvega) to objects of senses.6 That is, one who desires for emancipation should neither be attracted by beautiful objects, sweet sounds and the rest, nor feel disgusted with non-attrac- tive objects and the rest, but should maintain an attitude of strict indifference.® ।
There are two kinds of detachment 7: sahetuka and nirhetuka. Detachment that is sahetuka or due to some cause is that which arises through the loss of one’s nearest and dearest ones, of health, wealth and power, etc. That is, when a man all of a sudden loses all that he had valued so long, he naturally becomes averse to the world through sheer disappointment. Such a detachment, however, being only temporary, and not based on a proper discrimination between what is eternal and what is not, does not conduce to salvation. The detachment that is nirhetuka or not due to any cause, on the other hand, is that distaste for the world which arises through the grace of the Lord Himself. A man who is looked at with favour by the Lord at the time of his birth, from the beginning, comes to bo averse to the world, and inclined to the Lord, and such a detachment, being based on a proper discrimination between the eternal and the non- eternal, leads to salvation.
Virodhins to the 88112083 and mokga.®
There are many virodhins or obstacles which prevent one from attaining salvatién. They are broadly of two classes: visesa and simanya.°
1 V.K.V., 5th turanga, Slokas 5-8, pp. 55, 57. 2 V.R.M., p. 129.
3 A.S.T., p. 56. * V.R.M., ए. 131. 5 V.K.V., 5th taranga, Sloka 9, p. 58. 6 A.S.T., p. 58. 7 V.R.M., pp. 141-2. 8 See above.
9 V.B.M., p. 134. V.K.V., 6th taranga, loka 1, p. 64.
OBSTACLES TO SALVATION 59
(1) The visesa-virodhins or special obstacles are, again, of four kinds, viz. relating to the knowledge of the self, relating to the know- ledge of Brahman, relating to the means and relating to the fruit, viz. salvation.?
(a) Thus, the first kind of special obstacles consist in having a wrong notion of one’s own self—the individual soul, ie. in taking the not-self, viz. the body, the sense- organs, the mind, etc. as the self; in thinking one’s self self-sufficient and independent of the Lord and the preceptor, or dependent on someone else; in disbelieving that one’s self belongs to the Lord, in disregarding the commands of the Lord as laid down in Scripture and Smrti; in worshipping, praying and bowing down to other deities; and in feeling attracted toward un- worthy texts, 1.6. doctrines which are opposed to the Upanisad doctrine,2. etc. Those who have, thus, a wrong notion about their own selves are no better than “‘stealers of the self”? and the greatest sinners.§
(6) The second kind of special obstacles consists in having a wrong notion of the Supreme Self, i.e. in taking the Lord (Visnu) to be identical with some other deity (Brahma, Siva, etc.), and on the other hand, these deities (Brahma, Siva, etc.) as the Supreme Deity; in taking the incarnation of the Lord as mere ordinary men, and the copper or earthen images (pratima) of the Lord and the sacred stone (silagrama) as mere ordinary copper, earth, stone, etc., and not as God (which they really are); in taking the sacred formulae relating to the Lord as mere ordinary words and the legends, etc., relating to Him as mere ordinary stories; and finally, in supposing the Lord—who is an abode of infinite auspicious qualities,—as devoid of qualitios.4
(c) The third kind of special obstacles consists in having a wrong notion of the means to be followed, i.e. slighting the sddhanas like prapatti or self-surronder and the
1 V.R.M., pp. 134 ff. V.K.M., 6th taranga, éloka 2, p. 64.
2 A.S.T., p. 65.
ॐ V.R.M., p. 134. V.K.V., 6th taranga, élokas 3-5, p. 64.
4 V.R.M., pp. 134-135. V.K.V., 6th taranga, 8101६88 6-8, p. 65.
60 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
like, for fear of entrusting one’s self—so_ full of faults— to the Lord; in having no faith in the object (viz. the Lord) to be reached by the saidhanas; in being attached to sidhanas other than the scriptural ones; in adopting other mantras; in hankering after worldly ends other than service, worship, etc. of the Lord; in regarding the religious duties, and the like—which are to be performed as the Lord’s commands in an altogether disinterested spirit—as means to furthering one’s selfish ends; in taking the preceptor, the incarna- tion of the Lord on earth, as a mere earthly being, etc.1
(d) The fourth kind of special obstacles consist in having a wrong notion about the fruit, viz. salvation, i.e. in taking religious merit, wealth and pleasure as supreme ends and desiring for them (instead of desiring for salvation); in thinking one’s self an independent agent (while really one’s acts are regulated by the Lord 2); in acting wantonly and contrary to Scripture, etc.; in being reluctant to leave the earthly body; in shunning the company of the good and seeking that of the bad, and 80 on.8
(2) The general obstacles consist in not complying with the commands of the Lord, Scripture and Smrti, ie. in giving up the religious duties incumbent on one’s own caste and stage of life, while doing what is incumbent on other stages of life; in making a sale of one’s own power—which is of two kinds: internal and external, consisting in selling one’s knowledge, and so on; in insulting Brah- manas out of pride of knowledge, and defeating them in argumenta- tions, etc.; in partaking of refreshment before worshipping the Lord; in abandoning one’s relatives and friends, not because one has become an ascetic (in which case it would not have been blamable), but out of sheer spite; in thinking ill of others; in scheming how to injure them; in being under thé sway of passions like greed, anger, pride and the rest, ete.4 All these obstacles which hinder the attainment of salva-
1 V.R.M., pp. 136-136. V.K.V., 6th tarafga, élokas 9-12, pp. 66-67. 2 Vide A.S.T., ए. 68.
3 V.R.M., pp. 186-138. V.K.V., 6th taratiga, élokas 13-14, p. 67.
५ V.R.M., pp. 188-140. V.K.V., 6th taratiga, élokas 13-18, p. 70.
FIVE MEANS TO SALVATION 61
tion are to be avoided by one who desires salvation with the greatest care.} Conclusion.
Thus, we see that Nimbarka speaks of five sidhanas or means.
Devotion accompanies each of these. Thus, knowledge generates supreme devotion for the Lord by making us realise His unsurpassed greatness, and infinite kindness, on the one hand, and our own utter worthlessness and helplessness, on the other.
Meditation similarly implies devotion. Constant meditation on the Lord cannot but generate a supreme love for Him, and on the other hand, it is the supreme love for Him that leads us to meditate on Him unceasingly. In this way, meditation and devotion mutually involve each other.
Self-surrender also generates devotion.2 The complete self- surrender to the Lord cannot but give rise to a feeling of devout
‘love for Him, and on the other hand, it is supreme devotion for the Lord which leads us to surrender ourselves to Him. Self-surrender and devotion, too, thus mutually involve each other.
Finally, self-surrender to the preceptor, too, involves devotion first for the preceptor, god on earth, and then for the Lord Himself.
It is clear that these sidhanas are not mutually exclusive, but, on the contrary, mutually involve one another. Nimbarka does not tell us definitely which of these sidhanas he considers to be the best and the most effective, but points out simply in course of treating them separately that each of them leads to salvation in its own way.®
1 V.R.M., p. 141, 2 D.S., dloka 9. 3 Thus:—
(a) In V.P.S., 3.4.1, he says that the attainment of Brahman takes place through vidya.
(9) 111 V.P.S., &2.24-25, he says that the direct vision of Brahman results from meditation. In DS., Sloka 6, he says that the meditation on the Lord removes the darkness of ignorance.
(c) In D.8., éloka 8, he says that there is no other way to salvation except resorting to the lotus-feet of the Lord.
(५) In M.R.§., Sloke 9, he says that those who offer themselves to the Lord
: through 9 guru are delivered from the samsara and attain similarity with Him, i.e. salvation.
(€) In V.P.S., 3.2.24, he quotes a text to the effect that one can have a direct vision of the Lord through devotion. In S.N.K.S., he points out that those who are not devoted to the Lord can attain no end (4loka 13), and that the Lord is obtained through devotion
62 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Hence we may conclude that according to him, any ‘one of these 1 may lead to salvation, either by itself or in conjunction with others, and that they are to be resorted to accordingly by men of different castes, stages of life, inclination, and capacity.2 The first three classes may gain salvation through any one of these, while the fourth class through the last two only. And in the former case, those who are confident of reaching their goal, viz. salvation through their own unaided effort, follow the paths of work, knowledge and meditation, while those who are not—those of self-surrender to the Lord and to the preceptor.
It is to be noted that, according to Nimbarka, the approach to a guru is the essential pre-requisite of all sidhanas,® the difference being that in other cases it is but a preliminary factor, not the onlv factor involved, while as an independent sadhana it is so.
Nimbarka did not develop the theory of grace at length, though his writings furnish evidence of his belief in it. Thus, it is said that the Lord is the cause of bondage and release.4 It is through the wish of the Lord that the real nature and qualities of the souls remain hidden through their state of bondage,® but again it is the Lord Himself who, out of pity for the souls in bondage, manifests Himself before them,® and leads them to salvation. Salvation, thus, is the result of the Lord’s grace. The Lord also infuses the spirit of self-surrender (as noted abovo) in men, which in its turn generates supreme devotion,’ and these two lead to the attainment of the Lord. Thus, without the grace of the Lord, even the sadhanas themselves cannot be availed of.
{ one is to follow all the sadhanas, one may follow the order as given below :—
(1) Karma, which purifies the mind, and makes it fit for knowledge and meditation. (2) Guriipasatti, or approach to a sad-guru.
as “rasa”, “Snanda” (Sloka 17). Cf. also the views of his followers, e.g., V.R.M., p. 94, where five kinds of sédhanas are described.
1 Excepting karma, of course, which as pointed out many times, is but an
indirect means, not a direct one.
2 See below for further confirmation of this view.
3 V.P.S., 1.1.1. See above. Cf. also V.R.M., p. 120.
4 V.P.S., 3.2.26. 8.N.K.S., éloka 1. 5 V.P.S., 3.2.25.
५ §.N.K.S8., sloke 11. 7 D.8., 9.
THEOLOGY 63
(3) Jfiana, or attainment of knowledge from him, which by generating bhakti or love, leads to
(4) Dhyana, or meditation on the object known, viz. Brahman, which leads to
(5) Prapatti, which generates
(6) Bhakti, which induces
(7) the grace of the Lord—and this brings about
(8) Sakeatkara and samyoga—and i.e. moksa.
Finally, it is pointed out that the sidhanas are to be repeated constantly, till the end is reached.!
VIII. Theology.
This has been noticed incidentally in connection with the treatment of other topics. The system of Nimbiarka is philosophico- theological. While Nimbarka tries to give philosophical explanations of the ultimate categories and their inter-relations, and so on, he does not overlook the needs of the human heart, its inborn spirit of religion, its sense of living fellowship with anothe®. In this sense, his system may be said to stand midway between the absolutist system of Samkara—in which there is no place for religion, and the theistic system of Baladeva, which frankly gives up the attempt to reconcile philosophical antitheses, and concerns itself with religion mainly.?
The eternal relation between God and men, according to Nimbarka, is a relation between the worshipped and the worshipper. As we have seen, the soul is never oqual to the Lord, but is always under His control—always His servant, following His will and command under every circumstance, even in release.
But this relation is not a relation of awe, but a most intimate relation of love and spontaneous devotion. The soul does not serve the Lord out of fear, but out of love. To the devotee, the Lord is not a cold and merciless Being, standing aloof in His supremo majesty far beyond his reach, but is an infinitely tender Being, essentially loving towards His devotees, meeting them half-way down, and lifting them above the endless miseries of the world. And it is because the Lord is such an abode of love and kindness that there is any sense in worshipping Him and praying to Him for mercy. Though the devotee is fully conscious of his own insignificance, yet he turns to God with the simple faith of a child in its mother, because he knows
1 V.P.S., 4.1.1-2. 2 See below for Baladeva’s system.
64 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
that however puny he may be, God will never scorn or forsake him, but is ready at hand to guide and help him at every step.
It is this sweet, intimate relation between God and man that has made the doctrine of Nimbarka—which makes such a relation possible—so popular, along with other Vaisnava schools, as against the Advaita theory of the identity of man and God, which may satisfy intellect, but not feeling—the head, but not the heart.
The personal God worshipped by Nimbarka, as we have seen, is Gopala-Krgna—the cowherd Krsna, brought up in the house of Nandagopa, engaged in playful pastimes with the gopis, and attended by Radha. This conception of Krsna brings out clearly the intimate nature of the relation between man and God—a relation of love and hosom friendship, as pointed out above.
The object of worship according to Nimbarka, as we have seen, is Radha-Krsna conjointly. This Radha-Krsna cult, to which Nimbarka gives an exclusive prominence, is‘one of the most popular and influential cults that have ever flourished in India.
FOLLOWERS OF NIMBARKA INTRODUOTION.
The following is-the succession list of the high priests of the sect founded by Nimbarka (Acarya-parampara) 1 :— ५
1. The Swan Incarnation. Mythological. Hence the The four Kumaras, Sanaka|sect of Nimbarka is often
and the rest. known as Hamsa-sampradaya Narada. or Sankadi-sampradaya. Nimbarka.
te
3
4
5
6. Visvacarya.
7. Purusottamacarya. 8. Vilasaicarya.
9. Svaripacarya. 10. Madhavacarya.
1l. Balabhadracarya. 12. Padmiacarya.
13. Syamacarya.
14. Gopalacarya.
15. Krpacarya.
16. Devacarya.
17. Sundarabhatta.
18. Padmanabhabhatta. 19. Upendrabhatta. 20. Ramacandrabhatta. 21. Vamanabhatta.
1 Vide “Sri-guru-nati-vaijayant!”’ (as given in 8.R., pp. 127-136).
“ Acirya-parampara-stotra”’ (as given in L.8.V., pp. 9-11).
“Ac&rya-pranaimavali” (op. cit., pp. 11-13).
These three lists tally exactly. We have a fourth list given in S.N., pp. 6-7, which differs from the above three in two points: (1) Bhadskara is placed imme- diately after Srinivasa. This is, however, not correct, for as we shall see later on Bhiskara represents a different school of thought and cannot be taken to be a disciple of Nimbarka, (2) There is no mention of KeSavabhatta after Gopt!- nathabhatte.
5
66 ` DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
22. Krgnabhatta.
23. Padmakarabhatta. 24. Sravanedabhatta. 25. Bhiribhatta.
26. Madhavabhatta. 27. Syamabhatta.
28. Gopalabhatta.
29. Balabhadrabhatta. 30. Gopinathabhatta. 31. KeSavabhatta.
32. Géangalabhatta.
33. Keéavakasmiribhatta. 34. Sribhatta.
35. Harivydsadeva.
36. Svabhiideva. Parasurémadeva. Karmaharadeva. 1 Harivaméadeva. Syamadeva. Niarayanadeva. Sevadeva. ` -Vrndavanadeva. Naraharideva.
| Dayaramadeva, etc. Govindadeva, etc.
Thus after Harivyasadeva, the school split into two rival groups of teachers.
I. Srinivdsacarya. 1. Lis anp DATE.
Srinivasa was the immediate disciple of Nimbarka. Traditionally, he is supposed f be an incarnation of the P&ficajanya, the Conch- shell of Vigsnu (Sankhavatara),1 and.to have flourished when Vajra-
1 Paficadhati-stotram, p. 126, §.R.; V.R.M., p. 3. Purugottama here quotes a verse from the above, composed by Viévacarya, his preceptor, beginning = vatéra Purugottamasya...”’ and ending: “Tam Srinivésam éaranam prapadye”, S.J., p. 89. Devac&rya also quotes the above verse. 8.8., p. 1; V.K.P., p. 20; A.C., ए. 152; A.S.T., ए. 1; G.M., p. 1.
5B ।
WORKS OF SRINIVASA 67
nama, the great-grandson of Krgna was reigning in Mathuré.! The fact is, however, that he can by no means be assigned to a very ancient date. At least, it is absolutely certain from internal evidence that he could not have flourished before Samkara.?
Srinivasa is said to have born in the hermitage of Nimbarka in the month of Magha 8 on the fifth day of the bright half of the moon. His father’s name -was Acaryapida and his mother’s Lokamati. Both of them were highly learned and pious. Tradition is that once Acaryapada, out on a mission to conquer the whole world with his scholarship, accepted the hospitality of Nimbarka, but refused to take any refreshment as it was nearly sunset. Thereupon, Nimbarka made the setting sun linger over a Nimba tree, in order to enable his guests to finish their meal. Acaryapida was so much struck with this extraordinary feat that he at once became a disciple of Nimbarka and continued to stay in the hermitage.‘
It is said that Srinivasa was taught all the Scriptures by Nimbarka himself. Nimbarka dedicated his ‘‘Vedanta-parijita-saurabha to him, and also composed the Daéa-Sloki 6 for him. Nimbarka, further, taught him eight verses in praise of Radha (Radhastaka) and eight verses in praise of Krsna (Krsnastaka) 7 by reciting which, in accord- ance with his command, Srinivasa, so the tradition goes, was able to have a direct vision of Radha-Krsna.
Srinivasa travelled a good deal accompanied by his disciple Visvacarya, preaching the holy Vaisnava religion and is said to have converted many people.’
2. Works.
He composed the “Vedanta-kaustubha’’ in compliance with the request of Nimbarka himself.® He is said to have composed also commentaries on the Bhagavad-gita and the Upanigads.1° But so far we know only of his Vedanta-kaustubha, which elucidates the Vedanta- parijdita-saurabha of Nimbarka.1
1 2.0. p. 114. 2 866 above. 3 Magha corresponds to January-February.
५ A.C., pp. 968. 5 See above. ® See above. 7 See above. ® AC., p. 143.
9 V.K., p. 2, Kaéted.; 2.0. p. 143. 10 A.O., p. 143. 11 See Preface.
68 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
We know of another work of Srinivisa—which is, however, of no philosophical importance—viz. ‘“Laghu-stavaraja-stotram’”’,’ a collection of forty-one verses in praise of Nimbarka.
A third work by Srinivasa is “Vedanta-karikavali”, a metrical exposition made from the teaching of Nimbarka in seven tarahgas or sections.2 From this work, it is evident that Srinivisa could not have flourished prior to Samkara, for here he criticises the Pratibimba-vada.®
We also find here a strong support of our view that according to Nimbarka, any one of the sddhanas, viz. knowledge, meditation, and the rest—as suited to the capacity of one desirous of salvation, leads to his goal,4 for the author explicitly says that the means to salvation are of various kinds in accordance with the capacities of different adhikarins,5 and then goes on to elucidate them one by one.®
Another work by Srinivasa, preserved in manuscript form, is “Stava-paficaka-mahatmya”’.”
He is said to have composed a commentary on the Veda, too,® and a treatise called Nigada.®
^ 3. Doorrimn.
His doctrine is exactly similar to that of Nimbirka, only it is far more elaborate. Like Nimbarka, Srinivasa is content with elucidating simply his own view, without attempting to criticise the doctrine of Samkara or any other rival Vedanta school, except a single hostile reference to the Pratibimba-vada, as noted above. Like Nimbarka, he
1 Published by ©.8.8., with commentary. See Bibliography. Also given in 8.R., pp. 120-124.
3 Vide B.M.C., Supplementary Catalogue of Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit Books, 1928, p. 1003.
3 See above.
« Bee above.
5 V.K.V., 4th faraiga, éloke 1, p. 40:—
“ Upayah sreyasih prokté adhikiry-anusaratah. Vividhah Srutibhis te vai nirniyante svaripatah”’.
And the commentary says: “Adhikari-vaividhy&t sidhana-vaividhyam”" (p. 40).
५ V.K.V., 4th taranga, élokas 2 ff, pp. 40 ff.
7 Rep. Bh., 1894, p. 76.
ॐ Cat. Cat., p. 671, Part 1.
9 Op. cit.
LIFE AND WORKS OF VISVAOARYA 69
accepts the trinity of reals, viz. Brahman, the cit and the acit,! and a relation of natural difference-non-difference (svabhavika-bhedabheda) between them—a point upon which he insists again and again.2 He takes Brahman to be identical with Krsna,’ but makes no mention of Radha in his commentary. His elucidation of the doctrine of Nimbarka is admirable and lucid, also very useful in view of the fact that Nimbarka was a very succint writer.
II. Viévacarya.
Viévacirya was the immediate disciple of Srinivasa + and second after Nimbarka. We'know nothing about his life and works. We know of only one work by him, viz. ‘“Paficadhati-stotram’’, a collec- tion of seven hymns in praise of his guru Srinivasa,5 but this work contains nothing about his philosophical view.
It is interesting to note that in his copious commentary Vedanta- ratna-mafijugé, Purugottama the immediate disciple of Viévacarya, makes obeisance to Srinivasa in the beginning and in the end,® and not to his immediate guru Viévacarya, in accordance with the usual
custom. And he sometimes refers us back to Srinivasa,” but makes no reference whatsoever to Viévacirya, except only once, and there also he only quotes a verse from Visvacarya in praise of Srinivasa. This” seems to suggest that Visvacirya was not, after all, a very prominent man and did not have any work of great philosophical worth to his credit, otherwise his immediate disciple at least would have referred to his works.
1 V.K., 1.1.1, p. 7, K.8.8.
For a summary’ statement of his view, see V.K., 1.1.1. See translation, vol. I.
3 V.K., 1.1.1, p. 11 (page references are to K.S.8. throughout); 1.1.7, p. 25; 1.2.21, p. 66; 1.4.9, p. 124; 1.4.20, p. 139; 1.4.21, p. 140; 2.1.13, p. 159; 2.1.21, p. 165; 2.1.22, p. 166; 2.2.38, p. 205; 2.3.42, ए. 236; 3.2.28, ए. 291; 4.1.3, p. 386; 4.4.4, p. 425; ete.
3 V.K., 1.1.1, p. 5, ete.
५ Vide A.C., ए. 143.
५ 8.R., pp. 125-126. Also published separately. See Bibliography.
५ V.R.M., pp. 1, 148.
7 Vide e.g., V.R:M., pp. 127, 134, ete.
© Op. cit., p. 3.
70 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
III. Purugottamacarya. 1. Lire AND DATE.
Purugottama was the immediate disciple of Viévacérya, and the third after Nimbarka.
Nothing definite is known of his life and date. He is said to have been born in Telinga,! although his exact birth-place is not known, and to have flourished in the fifth century A.D. as a contemporary of Gaudapada.? But this latter view is not tenable, for it is absolutely clear from internal evidence that he flourished at least after Samkara, as he criticises many full-fledged Advaita doctrines, not found in Gaudapiada’s system.
2. Works.
He wrote a copious commentary called ^ Vedanta-ratna-mafijusa”’ on Nimbarka’s ‘“Daéa-éloki”. Another work, attributed to him,’ viz. the “Acarya-caritam”’ is, however, not really his work, but of a different Purusottama, as already shown. He is claimed to have composed some other treatises, too, such as ‘‘Siddhanta-ksiraérnava”’ which, unfortunately are all lost.5
3. Doorrine.
Purugottama gives a very lucid exposition of the general doctrine of Nimbarka, adding many new details. His main originality consists in the fact that he was the first (so far known) of the sect of Nimbarka to undertake a thorough ciriticism of the Advaita tenets.
He divides his work ® into four sections, the first concerned with the padarthas or the categories, viz. Brahman, the cit and the acit; the second with the reconciliation of apparently contradictory texts, viz. the bheda-vakyas or texts designating difference, and the abheda- vakyas or texts designating non-difference, etc.; the third with the sadhanas or the means to emancipation, viz. work, knowledge, devo- tion, etc. ; and the fourth with the fruit, viz. salvation.
1 Telinga is supposed to be the birth-place of Nimbiarka also. See above.
2 Preface to V.R.M., p. 1.
3 B.M.C., Supplementary Catalogue of Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit Books, 1926, p. 819. ।
५ See above.
5 Preface to V.R.M., p. 1. ५ V.R.M.
NATURE AND QUALITIES OF BRAHMAN 71
Section 1. The Trinity of Reals. (A) Brahman. (i) His nature and qualities.
The Highest Reality is Brahman or Krsna.) He is called “Brahman” because He is great in nature and qualities,? and He is called ‘‘Bhagavan’’ because He is possessed of supreme excellence.8
On the one hand, the Lord is absolutely free from all defects and faults due to beginningless matter, viz. from the five kinds of klegas, such as avidya or tamas (i.e. nescience which veils the real nature of things), asmité or moha (1.6. confounding the body to be the soul), raga or mahé-moha (i.e. hankering after enjoyment), dvesa or tamisra (1.6. malice), and abhinivesa or andha-tamisra (1.6. death); from the six kinds of vikaras, such as janma (birth), astitva (i.e. existence), vrddhi (growth), parindma (transformation), ksaya (decay) and marana (death); from the three gunas of prakrti, viz. sattva, rajas and tamas; from all the numerous effects of connection with prakrti. In this sense alone, Brahman is attributed.
On the other hand, He is an abode of infinite auspicious qualities and powers, like jiiana, Sakti, bala, aiévaryya, tejas, viryya, sausilya, vatealya, arjava, etc. etc. Thus jfiina means the power of directly intuiting all space, time and objects; Sakti means the power of making the impossible possible; bala means the power of supporting the Universe, etc.; aigvaryya means the power of controlling ; tejas means tirelessness or absence of exertion in spite of continued and immense labour; and viryya means the power of defeating all enemies without being ever defeated by them. These six qualities of the Lord lead Him to undertake the creation, maintenance and destruction, etc. of the Universe. Further, sauéIlya means His willingness to associate even with the lowliest and the most unworthy, in spite of His own greatness; vatsalya means overlooking the faults of His servants; mardava means not being able to tolerate the miseries of those who have resorted to Him; arjava means the coincidence of mind and speech; sauhiérddya means the attempt to protect others; sarva-saranyatva or saumya means being the one common resort of all; kérunya means removing the faults of others; sthiratva means remaining steady in wars; dhairyya means keeping promises; dayé means feeling grieved
1 V.R.M., p. 40. 2 Op. ctt., p. 50. 3 Op. ०४४. ए. 112. 4 Op. cit., pp. 43-44.
72 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
at the grief of others and the wish to allay it, and madhuryya means infinite nectar-like sweetness, etc. All these qualities of the Lord lead him to undertake the protection of His devotees.!
Thus, negatively, the Lord is devoid of all the qualities of the soul in bondage, i.e. of the qualities due to avidya or matter and karma; and positively, He is possessed of infinite number of greatest and worthiest qualities—which are majestic on the one hand, sweet ontheother. Hence just as He is called “Brahman” and ‘‘Bhagavat”’ because of His supreme might and majesty, so He is called ‘“Hari”’ also, because of His infinite beauty and sweetness which captivates (harati) the heart of His devotees.?
The Lord is called ‘“Hari’’ also because He removes (harati) all sins of His devotees. He is called Krena for the very same reason.* He is, thus, essentially devoted and solicitous to His devotees, and goes out of His way to help and please them. He removes not only the sins, but the merits (punya) as well of His devotees, 1.6. frees the soul from the bondage of beginningless karmas. In this sense, the Lord is the giver of salvation.5
The Lord is deva, because He plays with the Universe, i.e. the creation, etc. of the Universe is but a mere play to Him; conquers the demons, i.e. is the destroyer of the evil and the protector of the good; controls all beings from within; shines eternally; is worshipped by Brahma and other gods; moves everywhere and finally, because He enjoys.®
The Lord is para, superior to both the perishable and the impéerish- able.? He is the cause of causes, the Lord of lords, the God of gods, the original source of all deities like Brahma, Siva and others, and eternally worshipped by them.® These latter deities, though possessed of great power and lordship, are not yet para or the most supreme. Some Puranas, it is true, speak of Brahma, Siva, etc. as the most supreme deities, but it must be remembered that all Puranas are not equally authoritative. There are, in fact, four classes of Puranas, viz. sittvika, rajesika, timasika and samkirna. The first are con- cerned with saittvika objects, the second are concerned with rajasa
1 V.R.M., pp. 44-47. 2 Op. ot., p. 49. 3 Op. cit., p. 49.
4 Op. off, ए. 52. ‘“‘Pépam kargayati nirmUlayati iti Krgna.”
5 V.R.M., p. 52.
५ Vide B.M., p. 238, Part 2. ‘“Divu krida-vijigisé-vyavahara-dyuti-stuti- moda-mada-svapna-kanti-gatigu.”’
7 Vide Gita 4.8. 8 V.R.M., pp. 103-113.
OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE CAUSALITY OF BRAHMAN 73
objects and had their origin in a rajasa time, and so on. The sattvika Puranas are concerned with Hari, the rijasa ones with Brahmé, the témasa ones with Sarmkara and the samkirna ones with Sarasvati. The sattvika Puranas like the Vignu Purana and the rest are the most authoritative, for they alone lead to salvation, while the other kinds of Puranas lead to the mundane existence! Hence the Lord Visnu alone, and none else, is the most Supreme Deity,— “‘ekamevadvitiyam”’, one without a second.
The Lord is the cause of the Universe, both material and efficient cause.?
Several objections may be raised to this view.
Firstly, it may be argued that He cannot be the material as well as the efficient cause, because we do not find ordinarily that the material and the efficient causes are identical, e.g. the clay, the material cause of a pot, is different from the potter, its efficient cause. To this we reply: we do find instances of the material and the efficient causes being identical; o.g. the soul is both the material and the efficient cause of its own knowledge. Hence we may arguo thus: Brahman is the one identical material and efficient cause of the world,
because He possesses the power of being so just as the soul is of its own knowledge.®
Secondly, it may be objected that if Brahman be the one material and efficient cause of the world, then the nature of the effect, the world, becomes a riddle indeed. Thus, the world cannot be of one form of collection,‘ nor something produced or begun, for Scripture declares the Universe to be beginningless; nor, finally, can it be a transformation of Brahman, for no transformation is possible on the part of an all-pervading Being like Brahman who is devoid of parts. Hence we may argue thus: Brahman cannot be subject to trans- formation, because He is all-pervading (vibhu) and devoid of parts (niravayava), like the ether. Hence the world is not a real trans- formation (parinaéma) of Brahman, but an illusory one (vivarta).5
To this objection, the reply is as follows®: Firstly, there is no rule whatsoever that an all-pervading (vibhu) object can have
1 V.R.M., pp. 55-56. 2 Op. ctt., p. 63. 3 Op. cit., p. 63 « Samhati-riipa. 5 V.R.M., ए. 63. For a full criticism of the vivarta doctrine, see below
6 V.R.M., pp. 63-64
74 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
no transformation; e.g. the ether, which is all-pervading, is declared by Scripture itself to be transformed into air.1
Secondly, even what is devoid of parts (niravayava) can have transformations, provided it is possessed of such a power of having transformations; e.g. in the case of the transformation of milk into curd, it is not the milk really, but the milk-atoms, which are devoid of parts (niravayava), that undergo transformation. The fact is that it is the power (Sakti) inherent in a thing which determines whether a particular thing can be transformed into something else or not, and not the fact of its having parts or not. Hence, water though possessed of parts (sivayava) is never transformed into curd, because it lacks the power of being so transformed, while the milk-atoms, though devoid of parts (niravayava), are transformed into curd, because they possess the power of being so transformed.
Thus, the two reasons cited in the above argument, viz. all- pervasiveness and not having parts, are both logically fallacious; and finally, the parallel instance cited, too, viz. the ether, is not correct, because as shown above, the ether can have transformation. Hence, the above argument that Brahman can have no transformation, because He is all-pervading and without parts, is not a valid one. On the contrary, we may argue as follows:—
Brahman is capable of having transformation, because He is all-pervading, like the ether.
Thirdly, it may be objected that either the entire Brahman must be transformed into the world, or Brahman must have parts, both of which are impossible. Purusottama refutes this objection just like Nimbarka.?
Thus, we conclude that the world is a transformation of Brahman who is its one identical material and efficient cause.
The Lord is the material cause of the Universe in the sense that creation means the manifestation of His subtle powers of the sentient and the non-sentignt into gross effects. That is, during dissolution the entire Universe of the sentient and the non-sentient merges in the Lord and exists in Him in a subtle state as His natural powers. Then, in the beginning of a new creation, the Lord manifests these powers of the sentient and the non-sentient, developing them into
1 Tait., 2.1.1. 2 V.R.M., pp. 64-65. See above under Nimbarka.
FORMS AND MANIFESTATIONS OF BRAHMAN 75
grosser effects and producing, thereby, the Universe of names and forms.!
And the Lord is the efficient cause of the Universe in the sense that He unites individual souls with their respective karmas, their results, and the instruments for experiencing them, i.e., it regulates the destiny of individuals in accordance with strict justice. During dissolution, the beginningless impressions of past karmas 2 get dimmed and confused, and at the time of a new creation, the Lord revives these impressions in particular individuals, thereby making each individual undergo the fruits of his past acts.3
(ii) His forms (vyittha) and manifestations (avatdra).
Like Nimbarka, Purusottama holds that the Lord is possessed of an external and celestial body, the abode of all beauty, grace and auspiciousness.4 This body is made of the luminous stuff, aprakrti.5
The Lord has different forms and manifests Himself in different incarnations.®
A vyiiha is a form which the Lord assumes for the sake of creation, preserving and destroying the Universe, as well as for the sake of being worshipped. There are four kinds of vyihas, viz. Vasudeva, Samkarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha.”? Further, there are twelve vythas, like KeSava and the rest who, as the mantra devatis of the ceremony of putting the white perpendicular line on the forehead (ardhvapiindra), are to be worshipped as such where enjoined.8
An incarnation is the form which the Lord assumes for the sake of establishing religion and destroying sin,® as well as for fulfilling
1 V.R.M., p. 65. 2 Anddi-karma-samskaras.
3 V.R.M., p. 63. Cf. V.K., 1.1.2, p. 13, K.8.8. for an exactly similar definition of the upadantva and nimittatva of the Lord. See Trans., vol. I.
4 V.R.M., pp. 39-40. 5 See below.
५ Hence the Lord is called Anantamirti, V.R.M., p. 47.
7 According to Samkara, Vasudeva denotes the highest self, Samkarsana the individual soul, Pradyumna the mind, and Aniruddha the principle of egoity. Of these four, Vasudeva constitutes the ultimate causal essence, the three others are the effects. Vide 8.B., 2.2.42.
According to Ramanuja, Vasudeva is the highest self, while Samkarsana and the rest are beings ruling over the individual souls, the mind and the principle of egoity respectively. Vide Sri. B., 2.2.42.
8 V.R.M., pp. 47-48. See also under “Ritualistic Doctrine of the School of Nimbarka’’ below.
® Vide Gita, 4.8.
76 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
the desire of His devotees. There are three kinds of incarnation: viz. gundvatara, purusdvatara and lilavatéra. Gundvatdras are the creator, etc. of the Universe through regulating the gunas (viz. sattva, rajas and tamas) of prakrti. Thus the Lord creates the world through Brahma, Kala, Daksa and others; maintains it through Kala, Manu and others; ‘and destroys it through Rudra, Kala and others.1
The purusivataras are of three kinds, in accordance with the difference of limiting adjuncts, viz. first, the Person, lying on the Karanarnava (Karnarnavasayin), the controller of prakrti from which arises the mahat; second, the Person lying on the Garbhoda (Garbhoda- Sayin), the inner controller of the aggregate (samasti); third, the Person lying on the Ksiroda (Ksirodasiyin), the inner controller of individuals (vyasti)
The lilaévataras are of two kinds, viz. iveSaivatiras and svaripaé- vatiras. The former, again, are of two kinds—svaméa-dvesa and Sakty-améa-aveéa. A svaméaivesavatara is a part of the Lord Himself directly embodied in a material form with, however, no distinguishing individuality between him and the Lord, as Narandrayana; while a Sakty-améavesaivatara is but a part of the power of the Lord, embodied as an individual soul and distinguished from Him as such, and carrying out His mission. There are, again, two kinds of éakty- améavesavataras in accordance with greater or lesser degree of the power manifested, viz. vibhava and prabhava, Rsabha, Kapila, the four’ Kumaras, Navada, Vyasa, etc. belonging to the first class, Dhanvantari, Parasurima, etc. to the second.
The svaripavataras are of the form of existence, consciousness and bliss? like the Lord Himself, since they are the manifestations of the Lord’s own essential nature or svaripa. They are non-different from the Lord in nature, quality and power, just as one lamp is from another. There are two kinds of svaripavatdras, viz. améa-riipa and pirna-ripa. The former, though full manifestations of the Lord, manifest few qualities and powers such as the fish, the tortoise, | the boar, the dwarf and the swan incarnations, etc. The latter fully manifest all the qualities and powers such as Nrsimha, Rama, Krgna and the rest.3
1 V.R.M., p. 48. 2 Sac-oid-4nanda-riipa. 3 V.R.M., pp. 47-49.
ORITIOISM OF NIRGUNA-VADA 77
The following is a chart of the various kinds of avataras :—
Avataras _ | = | | eee ee Purugavatara Lilévatara क | [----- ~ (---- 1 त 7० क Karanaérnava- Garbhoda- Ksiroda- (Brahmé, (Manu, (Rudra, sayin Sayin Sayin Dakss, ete.) etc.) etc.) a क Pie yey er ee १ | | tic Sroee ~ ना eG Svaméa Sakty-améa_ - Parna (Narandrayana, (Rama, (Fish. etc.) Kysna, Boar, ete.) ete.) Prabhava Vibhava (Dhanvantart, (Kapila, Narada, eto.) ete.)
But although the Lord manifests Himself in all these various vyuhas and avatiaras, yet the Lord’s own nature and powers remain untransformed and undiminished. The Lord remains ever Full, over One, in spite of appearing as many.!
(iii) Criticism of rival theories regarding Brahman. (a) Criticism of Nirguna-vdda and Nirvisega-vada.
If Brahman be devoid of all attributes (gunas) and specifications (१186888), He will be outside all pramanas or sources of knowledge,? and as such be unreal (or tuccha) like the sky-flower, which also is outside all sources of knowledge. Thus, the attributeless Brahman is not, evidently, an object of perception, since He is beyond the sense- organs; nor is He an object of inference, since He is without any mark (linga) 8 ; nor is He an object of Scripture even, for what is devoid
1 V.R.M., p. 47. 2 See Epistemology below. ॐ That is, in the inference— All men are mortal. John is a man. John is mortal, John possesses the mark of humanity (the middle term), shared by infinite number of other beings—which alone makes the inference possible, But in the case of Brahman, this is not possible, because Brahman does not possess any marks,
78 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
of attributes cannot be expressed by words. Thus, the attributeless and non-specific Brahman cannot be an object of riidhavrtti,! as He is devoid of class, attribute and action, nor an object of yogavrtti, as He can have no root-meaning, nor an object of lakgana, as He is devoid of any connection with anything else, nor lastly, an object of gauna- vrtti, as He is devoid of qualities. Such a Brahman, therefore, incapable of being established by any proof, is but a myth, and not a reality. The real Brahman is essentially possessed of attributes, as shown above.?
(b) Criticism of Aprameyatva-vada.
Brahman is by no means aprameya or unknowable and outside all the pramanas, for in that case He would be tuccha or unreal like the sky-flower—as pointed out above. Texts like “He is known by one who does not know Him, but he who knows Him does not know Him. He is not known to the knower and known to the non- knower” (Kena 11), “From Him speech turns back with the mind, not getting Him” (Tait., 2.4.1), etc. do not prove that Brahman is never an object of knowledge, but they only deny any possible limit to the Lord. Thus, the first text means that those really wise men who never know Him in His real nature, 1.6. absolutely unlimited, while those who, in pride of their little knowledge, know Him as limited, fail to know Him. The fact is that the nature and qualities of the Lord being infinite, are really outside the sphere of ordinary logical thinking, and the wise recognise this fact instead of thinking that they have grasped the Lord fully. But they know the Lord through intuition. Otherwise, how can we explain such texts: “Know- ing Him alone, one surpasses death”? १ (Svet., 3.8). Hence, the con- clusion is that though Brahman surpasses ordinary comprehension, yet He is known through Scripture and direct intuition.?
(B) The cit. di) Its nature, size, number and kind. The soul is essentially of the nature of knowledge (jfiana-svaripa),
1.6. different from whatever is non-sentient, viz. the body, etc. Tho Carvika view that the soul is nothing but the body, and the Naiyayika
1 For the explanation of this and the following terms, see under Epistemology below. 9 V.R.M., pp. 60-63. 3 Op. cit., pp. 58-59.
NATURE OF INDIVIDUAL SOUL 19
view that the intelligence is not the very essence of the self, but only an adventitious quality of tho self, generated through its connection with the internal organ—are both wrong.1
The soul is not only knowledge, but a substratum of knowledge, 1.6. a knower.?
An objection may be raised here 8: The soul cannot be both knowledge and knower, i.e. possess knowledge as its attribute, for here the substratum itself and what inheres in it, the possessor and the quality possessed—both being equally knowledge—are identical, just as one drop of water has no separate existence from water, but is identical with it. Hence the soul is not a knower, but pure knowledge, and only appears to be a knower.4
The answer to this objection is as follows 5: In many cases, the substratum (dharmin) and the attribute (dharma) are very similar, but that does not mean that they are identical; e.g. a gem and its rays are equally luminous, yet they are different and stand in tho relation of substratum and quality. Similarly, though the soul and its quality of knowledge are equally knowledge, yet on account of this very fact that one is the substratum and the other its quality, they belong to different categories (vijatiya) and are hence distinct from each other. The fact is that there does exist a difference between a drop of water and water, for that drop of water, having a distinct form (sévayava), must be different from other drops of water. We can argue thus: A drop of water is distinct from water, because it has a form just like dust thrown into dust, or sesamum-grain in a heap of sesamum-grains.
To say that the soul is a knower is to say that it is an ego—an “T”, for a knower always feels “I know”’, “I 86677, etc.6
An objection may be raised here’: If the “I” were the very essence of the self, it would have always accompanied it. But that is not the case, for in the states of deep sleep, salvation, etc. the “I” no longer exists. Hence the “I’’ is simply an effect of prakrti, 1.6. non-sentient.
To this, we reply §: Even in deep sleep the “I” persists, as is proved from such memory as “So long I slept happily and did not know anything’, which shows that the “I” was present during the
1 V.R.M., pp. 3-4. 2 Op. cit., p. 4. 3 Op. cit. 4 For criticism of this view, see below. 5 V.R.M., p. 5. 6 Op, cit., ए. 7. 7 Op. cit.
8 Op. cit., pp. 7-8. Of. Sri. B., 1.1.1. The arguments are exactly alike.
80 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND ता; FOLLOWERS
state of deep sleep as the substratum of knowledge’ (viz. “I do not know ”’) and the feeling of happiness (viz. ‘I am sleeping happily”). Even the memory—‘“So long I did not know even myself”’—does not prove the absence of the “I” during the same state. For here the first ‘I’? (aham) means the self as it is during that state of sugupti, i.e. the soul, the knower, pure and devoid of all connection with matter, 1.6. the body, the sense-organs, etc., while the second “I” (mam) means the self as it is during the waking state, in union with matter, 1.6. the body, etc. Hence “So long I did not know even myself’? means simply that the real, pure “I” persists in deep sleep, what is absent is the “I’’ as it is during the waking state. Otherwise, on rising from deep sleep, one would have felt to the effect: “So long I did not exist, but now I have come into existence’’, etc.—but such is never the case.
Hence, the ^ must persist even during states of deep sleep, swoon and the rest. During those states, of course, there is no definite well-defined consciousness, as during the waking state, for there are present no well-defined, special objects then. Nevertheless, such a vague and general consciousness during deep sleep, etc., too, requires a substratum, for consciousness implies one who is conscious, and this substratum is the’ “I’’—the real I.
Moreover, there may be some room for doubt whether the “I” persists during the states of deep sleep, etc., but there can be no doubt that it persists in the state of release—for release is not the destruc- tion of the self, but its full development.
The soul is, further, an active agent or a kartaé, and continues to be so during its states of deep sleep and release. Of course, during the state of deep sleep its agency is not manifest as during its state of waking. This is due to the fact that the soul in bondage has to work through its sense-organs, iw. during its state of bondage the kartrtva of the soul has to depend on the function of its sense-organs, and hence, since in the state of deep sleep the sense-organs function no more, the soul does not seem to be an agent at the time. During its state of waking, too, it is not always an agent, but only when its sense-organs function in relation to some or other particular object.!
The soul is an enjoyer or bhoktaé and continues to be so during deep sleep and release. During deep sleep, it enjoys happiness (as
1 V.R.M., p. 11. For objection to the view that the jiva is essentially ॐ kart& and refutation thereof, see below.
NATURE OF INDIVIDUAL SOUL 81
is evident from the memory: “So long I slept happily”) and during release it enjoys supreme bliss arising out of its direct vision of Brahman.1
The soul, though knowledge by nature, knower, doer and enjoyer,? equally like the Lord, is yet never equal to Him, but is essentially under His control. Although the sentient is different from and superior to the non-sentient, yet it, in common with the latter, is dependent on the Lord for its very nature, existence and activity. In one word, the soul is dependent, and not independent like the Lord.8
An objection may be raised here +; If the souls be not responsible for their own acts, but the Lord, then seeing that He induces some to meritorious acts, while others to evil ones, the Lord must be accused of partiality and cruelty. Purugottama refutes this objection just in the same way as Nimbarka 6 does.
It is not to be argued that since the freed soul has no karmas, it is not under the control of the Lord, for the essential nature of the soul is to be controlled, while the essential nature of Brahman is to control,é and one can never change one’s essential nature. Hence the freed souls, too, are dependent on the Lord for its nature, existence and activity.” :
It is not to be supposed, further, that since it is the Lord alone who leads the souls to this or that course of action, there is no use of the study of Scripture, recommending different courses of action, for the study of Scripture is by no means useless, seeing that it arouses the soul to the consciousness of its real nature. The soul, engrossed in the world of matter, thinks itself to be an independent being, but Scripture reveals to it the great truth that far from being an indepen- dent being, its very nature and existence depend on the Lord.8
Because of having Brahman for its very essence (tad-ditmaka), the soul is dependent on Him. This may be proved from the following positive and negative arguments :—
1 V.R.M., ए. 12.
2 Of course, the Lord is not an enjoyer in the sense of experiencing the fruits of work, as the soul in bondage is; He is an enjoyer of celestial pleasures which He shares with the freed.
3 V.RM., p. 13. ५ Op. cit., p. 13. 5 See above.
6 V.R.M., p. 14: ‘ Niyantrtva-niyamyatvayos-tat tvam-padairtha-svari- patvat”’. ,
7 Op, ५५, 8 V.R.M., p. 14. Vide V.K., 1.1.7.
6
82 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
(Positive). Whatever has something else for its very essence, depends on that for its nature, existence and activity, like pots which have the clay for their essence.
The jiva has Brahman for its essence. The jiva depends on Brahman for its nature, etc. ५
(Negative). Whatever has not something else for its essence, does not depend on that for its nature, etc., like the sky-flower.
The soul has Brahman for its nature. The soul depends on Brahman for its nature, ९१९.1
Thus, in nature, the soul is knowledge by nature, knower, doer, enjoyer and dependent.
Next, the size of the soul. In size, it is atomic, although it is able to pervade the whole body and experience its pleasures, pains, etc. through its all-pervading attribute of knowledge.?
An objection may be raised here 8: If the soul be atomic in size, it must be without form, without parts. But in that case, how can the Lord be said to be pervading it and abiding within it? For, to pervade is to pervade something definite with a form of its own, to abide within is to abide within something which occupies space.
The answer to this objection is that, even if the soul be atomic and without parts, still it can be pervaded by the Lord who pervades everything. The fact is that the relation of the controller and the controlled, the pervader and the pervaded does not depend upon the savayavatva or niravayavatva of a thing, but on the power inhering in it. That is, if one thing possesses the power of pervading and controlling something else, it does so, whether that thing is with or without parts, or whether it itself is with or without parts. Con- versely, if a thing possesses the power, i.e. fitness to be pervaded, and controlled by something else, it is done so, irrespective of the fact whether it is with or without parts, or whether that which pervades is with or without parts. Hence, the Lord, possessing as He does, the power of pervading and controlling everything, pervades and con- trols the soul. ,
Next, the number of souls. The souls are many,° while the Lord is one—herein lies one great difference between the soul and Brahman.
1 V.RM., pp. 14-15.
2 Op. ott., pp. 15-16. For objection to this view and refutation thereof, see below.
ॐ V.R.M., ए. 17. 4 Op. cit.
5 For the objection to this view and refutation thereof, see below.
6B
KINDS OF INDIVIDUAL SOUL 83
The souls are, in fact, infinite in number, and hence it is that in spite of the fact that more and more souls are being freed from the world, the course of mundane existence still goes on, and will ever do so.}
Finally, the kinds of souls. The souls are broadly of two kinds— souls in bondage (baddhas) and those that are free.?
The souls in bondage are connected with various kinds of bodies, through the beginningless impressions of past works, and are possessed of a strong sense of egoity, i.e. falsely regard themselves to be inde- pendent of the Lord. They are of two kinds: mumukgus or those who, after having undergone all sorts of pains and miseries in the world, have lost all attachment for it, but wish to get rid of their earthly existence and attain salvation, and bubhukgus, or those who hanker after earthly enjoyment.
Those desirous of salvation, again, are of two kinds, viz. those who desire for salvation which implies attaining the nature of the Lord, and those who desire for salvation which implies attaining their real nature.8 The bubhukgus also are of two kinds, viz. those who hanker after future happiness (1.0. perform sacrifices, etc. for attaining heaven) and those who hanker after ordinary earthly enjoyments only.4
The freed souls are of two kinds: nitya-muktas, or those who are ever-free, 1.6. are never subject to the transmigratory existence and its miseries, are never in contact with matter, but ever abide in supreme bliss, intuiting and worshipping the Lord; and baddha- muktas or those who were in bondage previously, but are now freed. The nitya-muktas are, again, of two kinds: dnantaryya, viz. the crown, the ear-ornaments and the flute of the Lord considered as living beings; and parsada, viz. Garuda, Visvaksena, and the rest. The baddha-muktas, too, are of two kinds, viz. those who have attained supreme bliss consequent on their attaining the very nature of the Lord, and those who are content with the bliss consequent on their attaining their own real nature.5
1 V.R.M., p. 19.
2 Op. cit., p. 22.
8 Of course, salvation always implies the attainment of the nature and qualities of the Lord and the attainment of the real nature of the individual (see above). But some mumukeus desire more for the former, others the latter. Hence the distinction between the two classes of mumukgus.
4 V.R.M., p. 22.
5 Op. cit., pp. 22-23. Vide footnote 3.
84 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
4 The following is a chart of the different kinds of souls:— Jivas
| | Baddha ae
fee ee) | | Mumukeu Bubhuksu = Baddha-muktda
| Anentearyye Parsada
Those who Those who Those who aie ae त See who Those who
wish to wish to hanker after hanker after attain the attain attain the attain their future earthly nature of their real 0 hig real nature. enjoyment. enjoyment. the Lord. nature.
© Lord.
Thus the conclusion is:— In nature, the soul is knowledge by nature, knower, doer, enjoyer and dependent. In size, it is atomic. In number, it is endless. And it is broadly of two kinds with various sub-divisions.
(ii) Critictsm of rival theories regarding the jiva. (a) Criticism of Pratibimba-vdda.
The doctrine that the soul is not really a knower, but it appears to be so through the reflection of consciousness on buddhi, is an absurd one, for a mere reflection cannot behave as if it is really pos- sessed of knowledge—a knower. The reflection of the sun, e.g. can never do what the real sun does, viz. remove darkness and cold. In the very same manner, if the knowing soul were a mere reflection, it could net have acted—as it evidently does—like a real knower. Further, here both the object reflected (the bimba, viz. caitanya) and the limited adjunct (the upadhi, viz. buddhi) are without form and colour, hence no reflection is possible, otherwise we have to admit that there may be reflection of taste on sound, or on time, of time on taste, etc.—which is evidently absurd.
The very same argument applies equally to the doctrine that the soul is but a reflection of Brahman, for here, too, the object reflected (viz. Brahman) and the object on which it is reflected (viz. avidya) are devoid of form and colour.
1 V.R.M., pp. 6-6. See below for further criticism under Keéavakaémiri- bhatta.
ORITIOISM OF UPADHI-VADA 85
If it be argued ‘that the ether, though without form and colour, is seen to have reflection over rivers, etc.—so why not here? We reply, the ether does possess a form and colour, sinco it is an inter- mixture of all the elements (cf. the process of Paficikarana),
(b) Criticism of Avaccheda-vada or Upadhi-vdda.1
According to this doctrine, Brahman, as limited by avidya or antahkarana (internal organ), is called the soul. Just as the ether within a pot (ghataék&sa) is distinct from the universal ether (maha- 1868), but when the pot is broken, it is no longer distinct from the universal ether, so the soul as limited by avidya is distinct from Brah- man, but when free from avidya is no longer distinct from Him.
But this view is absolutely untenable. Thus, whether the limited adjunct be avidyé or antahkarana, the question is: how does it exactly limit Brahman? Does it actually cut off Brahman into separate piece, as an axe cuts a log of wood, or does it limit one portion of Brahman (without actually cutting off that portion from Brahman)? The first alternative is not possible, because what is all-pervading and without parts cannot be actually cut off into pieces, and also because in that case, the soul would cease to be eternal and unborn, as Scripture declares it to be.2 The second alternative, too, is equally untenable. Here the question arises whether the limiting adjunct is all-pervading or limited.. First, it cannot be all-pervading, for then no going out, coming back, etc. of the soul would be possible.8 Also, if the limiting adjunct, too, be all-pervading like Brahman, everything will be veiled, even Brahman, in His entirety. Secondly, it cannot be limited either, for in that case, although the going out, etc. of the soul become possible, some other difficulties arise, viz. just as on the motion of the pot, no motion of the ether within it is possible, the ether being motionless, so, on the motion of the limiting adjunct, no motion’ is possible on the part of Brahman, the all- pervading, who is motionless liko ether. In that case, there will
1 V.R.M., pp. 6-7.
2 The senso is that if the soul be a part of Brahman cut off by avidyaé, then it is something produced in course of time and not eternal, just as a particular piece of log is something which did not exist before as such, but is brought about by the cutting off the log by an axe.
The Advaitins might reply that the eternal avidya limits Brahman from all eternity, hence the eternity of the soul is not joopardised.
3 That is, the soul departs from the body at death, and returns to a new
body. Now, if the upadhi (viz. antahkarana) be all-pervading—this evidently is not possible.
86 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
arise sudden and causeless release and bondage and violation of the law of karman. So the doctrine that the soul is but Brahman, limited by limiting adjunct, does not stand to reason in any way.!
Further, the doctrine that the soul, which is but Brahman, is not really an active agent, but the limiting adjunct (viz. antabkarana) of the soul is the real agent, is also absolutely untenable, for the limiting adjunct, being non-sentient, can never be an agent. If it be said that it is not the limiting adjunct by itself, but the soul in connection with limiting adjunct which is the agent, we point out that the soul (which, according to Advaitins, is not an agent) cannot become so simply through its union with the limiting adjunct, which also is not an agent, otherwise we have to admit that a hermaphrodite can produce children through associating with a woman—which is evidently absurd. Hence the fact is that just though the fire is the sub- strate of the natural power of burning, yet this power is manifested only in connection with fuel, etc., so though the soul is the substratum of natural power of being an agent, yet this power is manifested through the functioning of the sense-organs only. That is, just as there is nothing contradictory in the fact that the fire docs not burn always, though the power of burning is natural (svabhavika) to it, so exactly, there is nothing contradictory in the fact that the soul is not always active (e.g. in deep sleep, etc.), though the power of being an agent is natural to it.2 :
(८) Criticism of Sarva-gatatma-vada.
The doctrine that the soul is really all-pervading (being Brahman itself) but appears to be atomic through its connection with the limiting adjunct (viz. antahkarana), is equally absurd. If the soul be all-pervasive, the question arises whether there is a plurality of souls or one soul only. In the first place, there cannot be a plurality of souls, for in that case, whether the mind be all-pervasive or atomic in either case, the souls being all-pervasive, must be in eternal connec- tion with all objects, therefore with all minds, and hence everyone must be aware Of the thought of everyone else. Hence there will be
1 Cf. Sri. 8., 1.1.4,
9 V.R.M., pp. 11-12. For further criticism see below under Kesavakaémitri- bhatta.
3 Op. ott., pp. 16-17.
* That is, knowledge arises through the connection of the mind with the soul. Now, suppose there is a plurality of souls A, B, ©, etc., all all-pervasive, and a plurality of minds A;, B,, C;, etc. A, being all-pervasive, must be simul-
THE ACIT 87
no special perceptions to the effect “I”, “You”, “He”, etc., all perceptions being universal and identical. And, if every soul were to know everything and every mind, it would become equal to Brahman who is omniscient.
In the second place, to say that there is not a plurality of souls, but one soul only, does not obviate the above difficulty, for the one all-pervasive soul, being connected with all minds, must be omniscient. If not, i.e. if it be said that the soul, though in connection with all minds, feels the pleasures, pains, etc. of only one of them (viz. its own), we are inevitably led to the conclusion that the soul is non- sentient.1 And if the soul be non-sentient, it cannot, evidently, be the knower and hence we have to say that the limiting adjunct of the soul (viz. antahkarana) must be the knower. Now, if the limiting adjunct be atomic, there can be no simultaneous experience of pain, etc. in different parts of the body (which, however, is an undeniable fact), for the limiting adjunct which is atomic cannot be simultaneously connected with different parts of the body. If, again, the limiting adjunct be of the size of the body,? the soul, limited by the upadhi, must also be so, which will go against the view of the Advaitins themselves.
(व) Criticism of Eka-jiva-vada.8
The doctrine that there is only one soul does not stand to reason. If there were only one soul, when one sleeps, faints or dies, everyone else would have been found to be sleeping, fainting and dying simul- taneously—but this is never found. So this doctrine is absurd, and there is really a plurality of souls.
(C) The acit. There are three kinds of acit, viz. prikrta or what is derived from prakrti; kala or time; and aprakrta or what is not derived from prakrti.é
taneously connected with all the minds of Aj, 81, Cj, etc.; similarly, B, too, being all-pervasive, must be equally connected with all the minds Aj, By, Cj, ete. simul- taneously, and so on; and hence the knowledge of A, ए, ©» etc. must all be identical.
1 That is, a jada or non-sentient object is one which though in connection with something, does not feel it. Hence, if to avoid the conclusion that the soul is omniscient (which evidently it is not, seeing that it knows its own states and feelings only, and not those of others) it be said that the soul, though connected with all minds (which it must be, since it is alleged to be all-pervading), yet does not feel, 1.6. know the states and feeling of all of them, the soul must be non-sentient or jada.
2 Madhyama-parimana. $ V.R.M., p. 19. 4 Op. cit., p. 238.
88 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
(i) The prakrta.1
Prakrta or primal matter is also called “‘maya”, ‘‘pradhina”’, “tamas”, “‘avyakta”’, etc. It is the substratum of three gunas, viz. sattva, rajas and tamas. The sattva is the cause of knowledge, etc. As such it is the best means to salvation, and also because it, surpassing the rajas and the tamas, gives rise to self-control, etc. which lead to emancipation. The rajas is the cause of avarice and the rest. As such it is the cause of the soul’s deviation from the path of truth. The tamas is the cause of delusion, etc. As such it is the main cause of the veiling of its own nature, as well as that of others. Prakrti is a state of equilibrium of these three gunas.2. Then, when through the wish of the Lord—who is all along guided by the beginningless karmas of the soul—this equilibrium of the gunas is disturbed, and they enter into a natural relation of subordination and co-ordination, prakrti begins to produce various effects.
The successive stages in the process of creation is as follows:—
The first product of prakrtiis the mahat. The mahat is the cause of perseverance, and is of three kinds, viz. sittvika, rajasika and timasika. From the mahat arises ahamkara, which is the general cause of the sense of egoity in the body of individual souls. The ahamkira, too, is of three kinds, viz. sattvika, etc., and is called then vaikarika, taijasa and bhitddi respectively. From the vaikarika ahamkara arise the presiding deities of the sense-organs and also of the mind or the internal organ—which has four vrttis or mode, viz. manas, buddhi, citta and ahamkaéra. The manas is the cause of thought (manana). It is the cause of bondage when it is connected with, 1.6. engrossed in the ordinary worldly objects, such as sound and the rest, but is a cause of salvation when, discarding worldly objects, it devotes itself wholly to the thought of the Lord. There are two kinds of manas, viz. impure and pure; the former full of worldly desires, the latter devoid of them. The buddhi is the in- strument of discerning or understanding (bodhana). The ahamkara is the cause of the sense of egoity in the body, etc., and citta is the cause of reflection (cintanam). The presiding deities of these four modes are respectively Candra, Brahma, Rudra and Ksetrajfia. According to one description, their presiding deities are the four vyitthas, viz. Vasudeva, Samkarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha,
1 V.R.M., pp. 23-37. 2 Op. cit., pp. 24ff. Cf. the Samkhya doctrine of creation.
PROOESS OF OREATION 89
respectively. But these two different descriptions do not come into conflict by any means, because Candra and the rest are responsible for their functioning, while the four vyiha deities are to be wor- shipped as their inner controller. The location of the manas is in the throat; of buddhi, the mouth; of ahamkara, the heart; and of citta, the navel.
From taijasa ahamkara arise the ten external sense-organs. These are divided into two classes, viz. the organs of knowledge, which are the general causes of the perceptions of sound and the rest, and the organs of action, which are the general causes of actions like speech, etc. There are five organs of knowledge, viz. the ear which can hear sound only, the skin which can feel only, the eyes which can perceive colour, form, etc. only, the tongue which can taste only, and the nose which can smell only. The presiding deities of these five organs of knowledge are respectively Dik, Vayu, Aditya, Varuna, and Aévini, and their objects are sound, touch, colour, taste and smell. Similarly, there are five organs of action, viz. the organ of speech, which is the organ for uttering sound, and is situated in the throat; the hands which are the general instruments for taking, holding, etc. (in the case of elephants, etc., however, these functions are performed by tho tip of the nose), the feet which are the general instruments for moving about (in the case of snakes, birds, etc., however, these functions are performed by the breast, the wings, etc., respectively), the organ of elimination and the organ of generation. The presiding deities of these five organs of sense are respectively Vahni, Indra, Upendra, Mrtyu and Prajapati, and their objects are speech, receiving, moving about, elimination and enjoyment.
From the tamasa ahamkara or bhitadi arise the five tan-matras, viz. the sabda-tan-matra and the rest, and the five great elements like the ether and the rest. Tho tan-matras aro the subtle elements or essences which are called the elements or bhiitas in their grosser forms. Thus from the tamasa ahamkdra or bhitadi arise the sabda- tan-matra and from that the ether; from that tho sparsa-tan-matra and from that the air; from that the riipa-tan-matra and from that the fire; from that the rasa-tan-matra and from that water; from that the gandha-tan-mitra and from that the earth. The qualities of the earth are five, viz. sabda (sound), sparéa (touch), rapa (colour). rasa (taste) and gandha (smell); those of water are four, viz. the first four; those of fire, three, viz. the first three; those of air, two, viz, the first two; and that of the ether, only one, viz. the first.
90 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
The prana or the vital-breath is a special kind of air, which upholds the body.1 It has five different modes, viz. prana or that which goes up through the nose, apana or that which goes down through the organ of elimination, vyaéna or that which moves about everywhere throughout the body, udana or that which is the cause of eructation, and samana or that which is the cause of digestion. According to some, there are five kinds of air, viz. Naga or that which is the cause of eructation, Kirma or that which is the cause of the opening of the eyes, Krkala or that which is the cause of appetite, Devadatta or that which is the cause of yawning, and Dhanajijaya or that which is the cause of nourishment. But these are really included under the five modes mentioned above, and are not inde- pendent ones.
Thus, there are altogether twenty-four principles. Cf. the
following chart :— (1) Prakrti (2) Mahat (3) Ahamkéra
| | Vaikarika Taijasa Bhatadi (8३४८५1१8) (rajasika) (tamasika)
| (4) 1
| | Manas, eee Ahamkara, ites (6)-(14) न~ Organs
| Organs of Knowledge Organs of Action
the ear, eyes, etc. the organ of speech, etc.
(15) Sabda-tan-matra (16) Akaéa (17) Sparéa-tan-matra (18) Vayu
इ (19) Rupa-tan-matra (20) Tejas (21) Rasa-tan-matra (22) Ap (23) Gandha-tan-matra (24) Prthivi
Prakrti, mahat and the five gross elements are the constituting material of the gross body of the soul; while the five subtle elements,
1 Vide Br. Sii., 2.4.9-12. (N.B.).
10607885 OF OREATION 91
and the mind, the ten sense-organs, and the vital-breath are the constituting material of its subtle body. The body is controlled by the soul, and is the instrument of the soul’s enjoyment; it is the substrate of the soul, and non-separate from it. There are two kinds of body, permanent and non-permanent. The Lord and the ever-free souls have permanent bodies.1 There are two kinds of non-permanent bodies, viz. those dué to karma and those not due to karmas. Thus, the forms assumed by the Lord, viz. the forms of Viraj and the rest, as well as the forms assumed by the ever-free souls, are non-permanent, but not due to karmas. - And, the forms which are both non-permanent and due to karma are of various kinds, viz. the sthavaras or the immovable, such as mountains, trees, etc., and the jangama or the movable, viz. gods, men, etc. These latter, again, are born from womb, or from eggs, etc.
Thus, beginning from the mahat down to the body, everything is an effect of prakrti, and as such, non-different from it; for the cause and the effect are always non-different. The distinctions of names, forms, number, use, etc. are due to the distinctions of states only of prakrti.2
The entire prakrti, together with its effects, constitutes the ob- ject of enjoyment, the implement of enjoyment and the place of enjoyment of the soul. Thus, the objects of enjoyment are testes, sounds, colours and the rest, as well as the objects having taste, sound, colour, ete., viz. food, etc. The implements of enjoyment are the body, the sense-organs, the mind, the buddhi, etc. The places of enjoyment are the fourteen worlds included within the Brahmanda. And the entire prakrti, together with its effects, constitutes the object of sport, the instrument of sport and the place of sport of the Lord. That is, while prakrti is an object of enjoyment to the soul, it is but an objoct of sport to the Lord.8
The first two, viz. the objects of enjoyment, sound and the rest, and the instruments of enjoyment, the body and the rest, have al- ready been explained above. Now, only the place of enjoyment, viz. the Brahm&nda, remains to be explained.4 The Brahmanda is of the shape of a kapittha fruit, formed out of the great elements, through the process of Paficikarana,5 and contains fourteen worlds.
1 See below under “ Aprakrta’’. 2 V.R.M., p. 31. 3 Op. ett. ५ Op. cit., pp. 32ff. Here the author follows the description given in Vigsnu- purana, 2.4.
5 See below.
92 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
It is thus a product of matter, and as such, negligible by one who desires for final release. The fourteen worlds are Bhir-loka and the rest, viz.:—
1. Bhir-loka is this world, the abode of men and the rest. It is of the shape of a lotus and occupies a space of fifty koti! yojanas 2. It consists of seven islands, surrounded by seven oceans. The seven islands are Jambu, Plaksa, Salma, Kuéa, Kraufica, Saka and Puskara. And the seven oceans are Ksaérodakarnava or the ocean of salt-water ; Iksurasérnava or the ocean of sugar-cane juice; Surarnava or the ocean of wine; Ghrtarnava or the ocean of clarified butter; Ksirar- nava or the ocean of milk; Madhura-jalarnava or the ocean of fresh water.
Each island is surrounded by an ocean as large as itself, which in its turn is surrounded by another island twice as large and consisting of seven varsas or lands, except the last, viz. Puskara, which consists of two only. Thus, the Jambu-dvipa occupies a space of laksa yojana. In its centre there is a mountain called Meru, of the shape of a karnika or the seed vessel of a lotus. It is surrounded by nine vargas or lands, viz. Bharata and two others in the south, Ramyaka and two others in the north, Bhadregvara in the east, Ketu-mala in the west, and Ilavrta in the middle. This Jambu-dvipa is surrounded by the Ksarodakarnava or the ocean of salt-water, as large as itself.
That ocean is surrounded by the Plaksa-dvipa, twice as large and consisting of seven varsas or lands. This Plaksa-dvipa is sur- rounded by the Iksurasdérnava or the ocean of sugar-cane juice, as large as itself. And so on.
2. Above the Bhir-loka there is the Bhuvar-loka or the space extending from the earth up to the orb of the sun, occupving a laksa yojana, and inhabited by perfected souls, sages and the rest.
3. Above the Bhuvar-loka there are the orbs of the Candra (the moon), Naksatra (the constellation through which the moon passes), Budha (the planet Mercury), Sukra (the planet Venus), Bhauma (the planet Mars) Brhaspati (the planet Jupiter) and Saptarsi (the seven stars in the constellation of the Ursa Major), and above these, there is the Dhruva-cakra (the Polar Star). The Svar-loka, the region of Indra, extends from the orb of the sun up to the Dhruva, i.e. it is
1 One koti = ten millions. 2 A yojana = 4 krogéas or about 9 miles. 3 One laksa = one hundred thousand.
PROCESS OF PANOIKARANA 93
the space between the sun and the Polar Star, occupying fourteen laksa yojanas.
4. Above the Svar-loka there is the Mahar-loka, occupying a koti yojanas, inhabited by Bhrgu and other saints.
5. Above Mahar-loka there is the Jana-loka, twico as large, the abode of Brahman’s sons, Sanatkumara and the rest.
6. Above the Jana-loka there is the Tapo-loka, four times as large, the abode of deified vairigins.
7. Above the Tapo-loka there is the Satya-loka or Brahma- loka, occupying twelve koti yojanas, the abode of Brahma.
These are the seven worlds from the earth upwards. There are seven more worlds from the earth downwards. Thus: The Bhir- loka (with its seven islands and seven seas) is surrounded by the Kaficana-bhiimi, twice as large, and not inhabited by any animals; that, again, is surrounded by the Loké-loka mountain; that, again, by the Andha-tamah (deep darkness); that, again, by the Garbho- daka (the ocean of the womb, 1.6. the fluid in the mundane egg, viz. Brahmanda); and that, again, by the Anda-kataéha (the shell of the mundane egg, viz. the Brahmanda). Below that, there are seven worlds, one below the other and ten times as large, viz. Atala, Patala, Vitala, Sutala, Talatala, Rasaitala and Maha-tala.
In between these seven worlds, the Atala and the rest, there are twenty-one narakas or hells, viz. Raurava and the rest, the abode of sinners. Below that there is the Andha-tamas, below that the Garbhodaka, and below that the Anda-kataha.
Such is the constitution of one Brahmanda. There is an infinite number of such Brahmiandas floating like bubbles in the ocean of pradhana-—which is of the essence of the Lord’s power. Hence the Brahmanda is endless.
The process of Paficikarana, referred to above, consists in the following!: The Lord, first, created the five great elements, earth, water, fire, air and ether. Then He divided each element into two parts. Of these two halves, He kept one half apart, and then divided the other half into four parts, mixed each of these parts with cach of the other four elements, taking just as equal portion in return from each of these four elements and mixing them in return with the eloment with which He has begun. Thus earth, e.g. 4 earth+4 water++}4 fire +} air+} ether. Similar is the case with every other element. The
1 V.R.M., ए. 36.
94 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
earth is called earth (and not any other element), because of the pre- ponderance in it of the element of earth. Similar is the case with every other element.
So far is the process of creation.
Next, the process of dissolution (pralaya-krama)!: The order of dissolution is that each effect is merged into its respective cause and not vice versa, i.e. the cause into its effect; for the effect can have no existence at all apart from its cause. Thus, the successive order of dissolution is as follows: the earth, through the gandha-tan- matra, merges in water; water through the rasa-tan-miatra into fire; fire through the ripa-tan-matra into the air; the air through the sparéa-tan-matra into the ether; the ether through the sabda-tan- mitra into Bhitadi or the tamasa ahamkara. The sense-organs on their parts merge into the raéjasa ahamkara, and the mind and its presiding deities in the vaikarika or the sittvika ahamkaéra. Then these three kinds of ahamkara disappear into the mahat, and the mahat into prakrti, the prakrti into the Imperishable, the Imperishable into Darkness, and the Darkness into the supreme Lord.
(ii) {८.2
The second kind of the acit is kala or time—which is different from the prakrta and the aprikrta. It is eternal, and all-pervasive, and persists even before creation and during dissolution. It is the cause of such conventional distinctions like the past, present and future, the simultaneous, the eternal, the quick,’ etc. It is, further, instrumental in the creation and destruction of the universe, which, evidently, involve time, and the specific instrumont of such measure- ments like paramanu,‘ etc., up to paraérdha.6 Thus, time is the basic principle of the entire cosmic existence. But though the regu- lator and controller of everything, it, itself is entirely under the control of the Lord. Though time is indivisible and ever continuous and ever present in its own nature, yet it is non-permanent in the form of
$$$.
1 V.R.M., p. 37.
2 Op. ctt., pp. 37-38.
8 That is, in practical life, we constantly use such expressions like “This is”, “That will be’’, ‘These are simultaneous”, “That is eternal’, etc., and all these expressions involve time.
५ A paramanu is the time taken by the sun to traverse an atomic sphere. All these measures are evidently based on time alone.
§ Vide V.K., 1.1.1., p. 19, K.8.8.
THE APRAKRTA 95
its effects which are due to the limiting adjunct being the sun’s revolu- tion.!
(iii) The aprakrta.2
Aprakrta is a kind of the non-sentient different from prakrti and kala. It is termed variously as nitya-vibhiti, paramadtma-loka, parama-vyoma, visnu-pada, parama-pada, etc. It is illuminous or refulgent by nature, i.e. does not veil itself or anything else, absolutely unlimited and eternal. It is called ‘‘bliss”’, because it manifests bliss. It is the stuff of the Lord’s nitya-vibhiti or celestial manifestation, e.g. the manifestation of the viévaripa by the Lord Krsna to Arjuna.3 It is also the stuff of the region and forms of the Lord and of the ever- free souls. It constitutes, in short, the objects of enjoyment such as the forms (vigraha), etc., the implements of enjoyment—such as ornaments, weapons, carriages, seats, flower, leaves, fruits, etce.— and the places of enjoyment—such as gateways, courtyards, ramparts, crystal palaces, forests, glens, lakes, etc.—of the Lord and the ever- free souls, just as prakrti (as shown above)‘ constitute the objects, implements and places of enjoyment of the souls.
The body of the Lord and the bodies of the ever-free souls are due to the Lord’s own eternal wish, and are, as such, eternal and natural. The freed souls, too, when they are released from their earthly bodies, 1.6. from all connection with prakrti, are endowed with such eternal and celestial bodies, which are subject to no change or decay. Just as during a festival, the king gives clothes, ornaments, etc. to his servants. So when the freed souls are freed from matter, the Lord endows them with eternal bodies as instruments of His own service.5
The body of the Lord, like His own nature, is the substratum of infinite auspicious qualities, such as beauty, grace, sweetness and the
1 That is, time as a whole is eternal, while particular portions of time are non-eternal, e.g. a minute passes away, so does a day, or a month or a year. And these particular portions are not real divisions of time—which is really indivisible—but only divisions to the limiting adjunct in the sense that time is divided by us for practical convenience only, in accordance with the revolution of the sun. Thus, the sun’s revolution on its own axis once constitutes a day. for us, its revolution round the sun once constitutes a year for us, and 80 on.
2 V.R.M., pp. 89-40. Vide V.K., 1.1.1, p. 10, K.8.8.
3 That is, just as the soul enjoys its body, so the Lord, too, enjoys His.
* See above, p. 91.
5 That is, the muktas worship and serve the Lord through their celestial bodies.
96 DOOTRINES OF NIMBABKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
rest—every one of them immeasurable and infinite. But though the Lord possesses a body, He is not in need of the sense-organs for seeing, etc.—as He can do so without the help of sense-organs. Similar is the cdse with the freed souls, too, who are similar to the Lord. And, they are all beyond influence of time.
(iv) Criticism of rival theories regarding the jagat. (a) Criticism of Vivarta-vdda.
The doctrine that the world is simply a vivarta (illusory, and not real, transformation) of Brahman is absolutely untenable. The Lord is, undoubtedly, one and without a second, but that does not imply by any means the falsity of any and everything besides the Lord. It implies that the Lord is without an equal or a superior. How can the world be falsely superimposed upon Brahman, seeing that there can be no superiniposition of what is unreal? The rule is that a thing existing in one place is superimposed upon another, but a sky-flower is never superimposed on anything.
Tf it be said that the only requisite for making the superimposition of one thing upon another possible is that the thing superimposed must be perceived and not necessarily that it must be real, we reply, that the very percoption of what is asat is not possible.
If it be said that just as there is the perception of a snake in place of a rope, so the perception of the world, too, is a false perception, due to dogas (avidya, etc.) and not a real perception, we reply, the unreal world can never be the cause of the perception of the world, its effect. The fact is that an unreal object can never be the cause of any- thing, for the cause must be possessed of certain powers of producing the particular effect. The unreal snake is not the cause of fear, trembling, etc., but the real knowledge of the snake. And the unreal snake is not also the cause of this knowledge of the snake, but the real dogas—such as distance, absence of proper light, defective eyesight, etc., are the cause of that knowledge. Similarly, the knowledge of past rain is not produced by the non-existing rain, but by the existing effects of the rain, such as muddy road, wet grass, etc., and the know- ledge of future rain, too, is produced by the real science of Astronomy. So, nowhere the asat is a cause. Hence the superimposition of the asat being impossible, the vivarta theory is absolutely untenable.
1 V.R.M., pp. 65-69.
BPISTEMOLOGY 97
If it be said! that the following process of inference proves the falsity of the world, viz. the world is false, because it is perceivable, like the nacre-silver, we reply that in that case, Brahman, too, being perceivable (by the knowers), must be false, on the ground of the inference: Brahman is false, because He is perceivable, like the world. That Brahman is perceivable by knowers is proved from many scrip- tural passages.?
The famous passage “ Vacérambhana-vikara’’( Chand., 6.1.5) by no means proves the vivarta theory. The use of the term “vikara” (transformation) leaves no room for doubt that the effects are real transformations of the cause, otherwise the term “bhranti’’ (error) would have been used. Moreover, the vivarta illustrations, viz. snake-rope, etc., do not fit in with the above text which professedly teaches the doctrine that through the knowledge of one (viz. the cause) there is the knowledge of all (viz. its effects). Now, this fits in very well with the Parinima doctrine, e.g. through the knowledge of clay, there is the knowledge of all the effects of clay; but how can it be said that through the knowledge of rope, there is knowledge of snake १३
Hence the vivarta-vada is supported by neither reason, nor Scripture.4
(v) Epistemology.
There are three sources of valid knowledge (pramana), viz. perception (pratyakga), inference (anumana) and authority (६९१०१8६). Perception is the knowledge arising from the connection of sense- organs with objects, e.g. “I see my teacher,” etc.; inference is the knowledge arising from the knowledge of vyapti, e.g. the mountain is on fire, because it smokes, and whether smoke is on fire, as the oven; and authority is the word or testimony of the wise (apta-vakya). A wise person is one who is free from the four causes of error, viz. weakness of intellect, etc., and speaks the truth.
There are three kinds of the wise—the wisest (Aptatama) is the Veda, and the Vedic texts are the most authoritative. A little less wise are the Smrtis, like the Manu Smrti and the rest, and the Smrti texts are a little less authoritative, while the commentators
1 V.R.M., pp. 68-69.
3 Vide, e.g., Brh., 2.4.5, etc. $ V.R.M., p. 67, * See for further criticisms under Keéavakéémiribhatta.
7
98 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
and expounders of Sruti and Smrti are one degree less wise, since they have to depend on both Sruti and Smrti and their words are one degree less authoritative. ;
Now, among these three sources of knowledge, perception and inference are liable to error, e.g. on seeing a magic head, one may take it to be a real head, or again, simply on seeing smoke issuing from a hill, one may infer that the hill is on fire, although the fire may have been long before extinguished by rain. But sabda is more authoritative and trustworthy than these two.
Upamana and the rest are not to be taken as independent pra- manas, since they really fall under one or other of the above three.
There are two kinds of Sabda-vrttis, viz. mukhya and gauna.? The former is of the form of gakti or the inherent power of a word to express its meaning. It is of three kinds, viz. riidhi, yoga and yoga- ridhi. The first implies the samudaya Sakti of a word, as Hari, Narada, etc. It, again, is of two kinds, viz. paryyaya (synonyms or having one sense), e.g. hasta (hand), etc., and anekartha (having many senses), e.g. hari (which means a variety of things like horse, lion, the sun, etc.). - The second‘implies the avayava Sakti of a word, e.g. Madhava,: Ramakanta, etc. The third is a combination of the first two, e.g. soma, pankaja, etc. .
The second kind of Sabda-vrtti also is of two kinds, viz. laksanai and gauni. The first implies something connected with the actual object (Sakya) implied by the word (and not the actual object itself), It is of three kinds, viz. jahat, e.g. “The village situated on the Ganges’’, does not mean that the village is situated on the river Ganges, but that it is situated on the coast of the Ganges (which is connected with the Ganges); ajahat, e.g. ‘‘Protect the curd from crows’? does not mean that the curd is to be protected from crows alone, but that other pests as well, as dogs, etc., and jahadajahat, e.g. ‘Thou art that’’—here the peculiar attributes of the soul and Brahman are overlooked, while both are regarded in their common features alone. |
The second implies connection with the qualities of the actual object (and not the actual object itself) implied by the word, e.g. ‘‘Devadatta is a lion”. Here, evidently, it is not meant that Deva-
1 Vide the Advaita view which regards these as independent praménas. Cf. Vedanta-paribhasa, chs. 1-6.
2 Vide Vedanta-paribhasa, ch. 4.
78
RELATION BETWEEN BRAHMAN, INDIVIDUAL SOUL AND WORLD 99
datta is actually a lion, but simply that he possesses some qualities of the lion—great strength, fearlessness, etc. This is a chart of the sources of knowledge acknowledged by
Purusottama :—
aie aca | (ie | Pratyakga Anumana ie est ate tae | Aptatama Aptatara Apta (Veda) (Smrti, 6४९.) (Brahma.-sitras, ete.) ऋ | |
a ike ue
|. ol |. [ति ot aa Radhi Yoga Yoga-ridhi Laksana Gauni | 1 | ८२५ |, Paryéya Anekartha Jahat Ajahat Jahadajahat
Section 2. Reconciliation of Abheda and Bheda Vakyas. (i) Relation between Brahman, the cit and the acit.
On the one hand, the cit and the acit are non-different from Brahman, on the following three grounds:—
(a) because they have Brahman for their essence (Brahmat- maka), and whatever has something else for its essence is non-different from it, as e.g. a gold ear-ring from gold;
(®) because they have their existence and activity undor the control of Brahman (tad-ayatta-sthiti-pravrtti) and whatever is under the control of something else for its existence and activity is non-different from it, e.g. the sense-organs are non-different from the prana;
(c) because they are pervaded by Brahman (tad-vyapya), and whatever is pervaded by something is non-different from it.!
On the other hand, the cit and the acit are different from Brahman, for there is an essential difference between the nature of these three: Brahman is the controller (niyantr), the cit the enjoyer (bhoktr) and the acit the enjoyed (bhogya).?
1 V.R.M., pp. 88-89. 2 Op. cit., p. 86.
100 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Hence the truth of things is a natural difference-non-difference (svibhavika-bhedaibheda).
In this way alone can the bheda and abheda texts be reconciled. There are two kinds of existence, sva-tantra (or independent), para- tantra (or dependent). An independent being has his own existence and activity under his own control—the Supreme Brahman alone is such an independent Being. A dependent being has his existence and activity under the control of someone else, the soul and the pradhana are such dependent beings. The soul is kitastha and nitya, i.e. unchangeable and eternal, the pradhina is parinimi and nitya, i.e. changeable, yet eternal. Now, the abheda-texts, designating abheda and denying bheda, refer to the sva-tantra-sattvaé, the Lord. The Lord is self-subsistent and needs nothing besides Himself—hence there can be nothing outside Him, nothing other than Him—and it is in this sense alone that there is Unity—the One, without a second, and no plurality outside, and independent of Him. Hence if we look from the point of view of Brahman, there is abheda. The bheda- texts, affirming bheda between Brahman and the universe, refer to the para-tantra-sattvad, the cit and the acit. The sentient and the non-sentient are not self-subsisting, but point beyond themselves to something else. Hefice if we look from the point of view of the universe there is bheda,—i.e. at least two realities—the universe, the dependent, and Brahman, the substratum. Thus, bheda and abheda are equally true—only due to different view-points.!
(ii) Interpretation of the text "^ Tattvamasi’’.
In the light of the above discussion alone, can the great text “Tat tvam asi’? (Chand. 6.8.7, etc.) be properly interpreted. Here the term ‘“‘tat’’ refers to the Lord, “tvam’’ to the soul, and “‘asi’’ the relation between them; and this relation is that the soul is non- different from the Lord, which non-difference is compatible with a difference between them.2
Section 3. The Sddhanas. (i) The five sddhanas.
There is a variety of sidhanas—viz. Karma, Jiiana, Bhakti, Prapatti and Gurv-ajfidnuvrtti.3
1 V.R.M., pp. 89-90. 2 Op. cit., p. 91. 3 Op. cit., p. 94.
MEANS TO SALVATION: WORK AND KNOWLEDGE 101
1. Karma-yoga.1 There are three kinds of karmas—viz.: Nitya, Naimittika and Kamya. The nitya karmas are those which are to be performed always, such as, evening-prayer, ablution, mutter- ing of sacred formulae, etc. Of these, the performance of sacrifices, the practice of charity, and Vedic study are obligatory to the upper three classes, while conducting and assisting sacrifices, receiving gifts and teaching the Vedas are special duties of the Brahmanas alone. Thus, the Brihmanas have six obligatory duties,2 while the Kgatriyas and the Vaigyas only three. And, sense-control, visiting holy places, fasting, fruit-diet, distribution of food, etc. are obligatory to everyone equally. As to the different results achieved through these duties performed in different spirits, Pursottama holds the same view as Nimbarka.3
The naimittika karmas are those which are to be performed on special occasions only such as the ceremony in honour of the dead.4
The kamya-karmas are those which are undertaken with worldly ends in view, e.g. the performance of sacrifices with a view to attaining heaven, etc. Such karmas lead one to endless births and rebirths, and are, hence, to be avoided by one who desires for final release. But the other two classes of karmas—viz. the nitya and the naimittika, are to bo performed by those as entitled in accordance with their respective castes and stages of life. The upper three classes are to perform those which are enjoined in the Vedas, while the Siidras are to satiate gods and deceased persons by libations of water, distribution of food,® etc.eas laid down in the Puranas.
2. Jiiana-yoga. कक्षा is a special kind of direct intuition (anubhava-visesa) regarding the nature, attributes, power and majesty, etc. of the Lord. It is generated through the repeated and continuous practice of the sidhanas, éravana, etc. (hearing of Vedic texts, ctc.) by one desirous of salvation, who, having his mind purified by the disinterested performance of the daily and occasional duties, as befitting his caste and stage of life, has come to be entitled to the study of Scripture.®
Thus, having ascertained the fact that the Vedanta-texts are concerned with establishing the nature and attributes of the Lord, one desiring for salvation approaches a preceptor, and hears and learns the real meaning of the Vedanta-texts from him. This is Sravana.
1 V.R.M., pp. 94-96. 3 Nitya-karmas. 3 See above. 4 Sraddha. 5 Tarpana; anna-dana. 5 V.R.M., ए. 97.
102 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Next, wishing to realise and see for himself the truth of what he has heard, i.e. been taught by the preceptor, he reflects on it, discusses and tests it by means of ratiocinative argumentations, etc., in accord- ance with Scripture. This is manana. Finally, being himself con- vinced that what he has been taught is the true doctrine, and wishing to have a direct vision of the Lord,—the object of Sravana and manana, —he devotes himself to a continuous meditation on the Lord. This is nididhyasana.1
3. Bhakti-yoga. Bhakti is a special kind of direct intuition (anubhiti-visega) consisting in an unceasing meditation on the Lord, continuous and uninterrupted like the flow of a river, increasing day by day so long as life 18808.
The Lord is to be worshipped by men of all castes alike, the only distinction being that the higher three classes are entitled to the meditations recommended in the Vedas, while the fourth class to the upasands laid down in the Puranas only.8
There are two kinds of bhakti, viz.: sidhana-ripika and phala- ripé. The sédhana-ripika bhakti is so called because it is generated through the continuous performance of sadhanas, i.e. through the accumulated mass of punyas or meritorious deeds, like penance charity, self-control, étc.
Sidhana-ripika bhakti is, again, of two kinds—Vaidika and Pauranika. The former consists in practising the meditations laid down in the Upanisads—e.g. the Madhu-Vidyé* and the rest, and only the first three classes are entitled to them. The latter cogsists in worshipping the Lord as laid down in the Puranas. Sadhana-ripika bhakti is so called also because it is conducive to phala-ripa bhakti, considered below.®
Phala-riipé bhakti is that which is generated through the grace of the Lord Himself. A man who conscientiously performs his duties as best as he can, pleases the Lord, and gains thereby a true knowledge of his own self, and then, through the grace of the Lord, again, this knowledge of his self—by convincing him of the utter worthlessness of his own self and of the absolute greatness of the Lord, naturally generates a supreme bhakti for the Lord. Phala-ripa bhakti is also
1 V.R.M,, ए. 43.
2 Op. cit., p. 97. Note that the author uses the term “bhakti” in the sense of “upésana”’ exactly after Ramanuja.. Contrast Nimbarka’s interpreta- tion of the word.
$ Op. ctt., p. 74. + Chénd., 3.1 ff. ५ V.R.M., p. 127
MBANS TO SALVATION : SELF-SURRENDER 103
called “para bhakti”, ‘‘prema-laksana bhakti”, “dhruva smrti”, etc. It is a kind of mental mode continuous and lasting so long as the self does—regarding the nature and attributes of the Lord, just like the modes of sense-organs regarding particular objects, lasting so long as those objects do. It leads to a direct intuition of the Lord. The attainment of this kind of bhakti is facilitated by keeping company with the good and hence those who wish to attain it, must always seek the company of the good,—or those whose sole end of life is the realisation of the Lord and who have consequently given up all worldly pursuits, and who never act contrary to the Lord’s command.!
4. Prapatti-yoga or Sarandgati. Prapatti is the complete entrusting of one’s own self to the infinitely merciful Lord through the means recommended by the good, when one is convinced of one’s incapacity for resorting to other sédhanas like knowledge and the rest.2 It has six parts:—
(a) The resolve to treat everyone with good-will and friendli- ness, being convinced of the great truth that everyone and evorything, down to a tuft of grass, is the body of the Lord and as such deserves respect.
(©) Discarding what is contrary to the above solemn deter- mination, i.e. refraining from all violence, malice, back- biting, falsehood, etc.
(c) Strong faith in the protection of the Lord.
(d) Praying to the Lord for protection, being aware of the fact that the Lord, though all-merciful, does not release any one who does not pray to Him, but is, on the contrary averse to Him (otherwise there would have resulted universal release).
(e) Discarding all false pride and sense of egoity, i.e. assuming an attitude of utter humility.
(f) Complete éntrusting of one’s own self and whatever belongs to one’s self to the Lord, being convinced that such a complete resignation of the “I” and the “mine”’ to the Lord alone induce the mercy and grace of the Lord.®
As to the qualifications of a person entitled to the prapatti-yoga, Purusottama holds the same view as Nimbarka.4 “2 V.B.M,, p. 127. See under Nimbarka ‘Sahakdrins to the Sédhanas १.
2 Op. cit., ए. 97, Nimbarka simply mentions these factors but does not,
as is natural with him, explain them. 3 Op. cit., pp. 100-102. ५ Op. cit., p. 102. See under Nimbarka.
104 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
The object of prapatti, ic. He to whom a man is to surrender himself is the Lord Krgna alone, and not any other deity like Brahma, Siva and the rest, who are all subordinate to the Lord.1
It is not to be apprehended that the soul, poor and puny as it is, can have no access to the Supreme Lord, the abode of infinite might and majesty, and worshipped by great deities like Brahma and the rest, for the Supreme Lord is not only all-powerful, but all-merciful as well and essentially devoted to His bhaktas.2 Hence although the Supreme Lord is not easily attainable even by great deities like Brahmi and the rest, He is, nevertheless, easily attainable by those who have had recourse to Him. And no reason can be assigned why the Lord, in spite of His unsurpassed greatness, should stoop low to please His devotees, for the motives and doings of the Lord are beyond all explanation and are not to be judged by ordinary standards.*
The peculiar efficacy or virtue of prapatti consists in the fol- lowing: Through the grace of the Lord all the sins of the devotee are washed off at once. He immediately attains the fruits of all meritorious deeds, as if he has practised every penance immediately, performed every sacrifice, visited every holy place and practised every charity. What others attain through one or other of the sadhanas, after a long period of continuous éffort, he attains at once without any direct effort on his own part. He becomes entirely free from all fears and all embarrassment, and is ever protected by the Lord Him- self. Through the grace of the Lord he obtains the supreme sphere, whence there is no return. In this way, prapatti leads to salvation.®
6. Guripasatti or Gurv-ajfidnuvrtti. As to the nature and adhikaérins of this means, Purugottama holds the same view as Nimbarka.®
He points out that every one is not to be a preceptor or a disciple. Both must be endowed with certain qualities.”
He, who has resorted to a guru, has everything looked after by the guru, who helps him in all matters, relation to this world or to the next. This wilh be made clear from the following analogy of a mother and her child ® :
1 V.R.M., pp. 102-103. ’ 2 See above, under Purusottamacarya.
3 V.R.M., pp. 113-115. ५ Op, oft., ए. 115. 5 Op. ०४४. p. 117. ® For details, see the account given by Sundarabhatta.
7 V.RM., pp. 121-122. For details, see Sundarabhatte’s account.
8 V.R.M., p. 123. 9 Op. cié., p. 122.
MEANS TO SALVATION: LORD’S GRAOB 105
(a) A child does not know what is good or what is bad for himself. (8) Hence he follows his mother in all respects and does what she tells, being convinced, whether by instinct or by knowledge, that whatever she does and orders is always for his own good. (c) His mother, on her side, protects him from all danger and (d) ensures safety, peace and happiness for him; also (e) she herself takes medicine, etc. for curing her (suckling) child’s disease.
In the very same manner, (a) one who desires salvation, finding himself incapable of following any of the sédhanas by his unaided effort, gives up thinking for himself of what is good and what is bad for him, but (b) resorts to a guru following him in all respects and obeying his commands. (c) The guru, in his turn, protects him and (d) leads him to salvation, and (e) does whatever is necessary for his emancipation.
(ii) The theory of grace.
It remains to consider the part played by grace of the Lord as a means to release. It is emphasized again and again that it is the grace of the Lord which is the ultimate and the most immediate cause of salvation in every case without distinction. Whatever path a man may follow—knowledge, meditation, or self-surrender, etc., in every case, he must somehow or other invoke the grace of the Lord, otherwise all his efforts will be in vain, all his time and energy wasted. Salvation means attaining one’s own real nature as well as attaining similarity with the Lord, and unless the Lord is pleased to free the soul from the fetters of beginningless karmas, thereby enabling it to realise its real nature fully and to have a direct vision of Himself, no amount of unaided effort on its own part, however great and earnest, will be of any avail in bringing about the desired end. ॥
The successive stages in the attainment of salvation (mokga- prapti-karma) are as follows!: A man who is looked at with favour by the Lord at the time of his birth becomes sattvika from the very beginning,? i.e. has a tendency to a life of purity and knowledge. This inborn sattvika tendency in him leads him to give up all worldly pursuits and hanker after mukti alone. This leads him to devote
1 V.R.M., p. 133.
9 It is said that if a man is looked at by Madhusidana at the time of his birth, he becomes sattvika, if by Brahma, rajasika, and if by Rudra, tamasika. V.R.M., p. 133.
106 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
himself whole-heartedly to the sidhanas, which has the effect of pleas- ing the Lord, who manifests Himself before him, and thereby he becomes free.
It is clear from the above that right from the very beginning, down to the very end, a man has to depend upon the Lord at every single step. It is the grace of the Lord which makes him desire for salvation! in the beginning, it is the grace of the Lord which makes him a successful pursuer of the means in the intervening period, and it is the grace of the Lord which makes him free in the end. Thus, the grace of the Lord is the most essential pre-requisite to salvation. .
An objection may be raised here2: The grace of the Lord must be either limited or all-pervasive. But it cannot be limited, because then it must be dependent on some initiating cause (as the favour shown by a soul) ® and not of much worth as such. Neither can it be all-pervasive, because then there will result universal emancipation and the scriptural injunctions regarding the sadhanas will become useless simply.*
To this objection, we reply 5: The Lord’s favour is undoubtedly ` all-pervading, yet it is manifested not to any and every one indis- criminately, but only to those who having approached a preceptor have had recourse to the sidhanas. A thing may be universal, yet its actual manifestations may depend on certain conditions, e.g. according to the Nyaya view the universal (simanya) ‘“gotva’’ (cow- ness) is all-pervading (all universals are all-pervading according to this view), yet all things are not found to be pervaded by it (a pot, e.g. has no “gotva’’ in it, nor a horse), but only a certain species of animals having dew-lap, etc. (1.6. cows which alone possess ‘‘gotva’’). Again, according to the Advaita view, Brahman is all-pervading, yet
1 Vide 8.8., 1.1.1, Mumuksutva is taken to be one of the four sidhanas which entitle one to Brahma-jijiiasa.
& V.R.M., p. 18.
ॐ That is, a man favours his fellowmen sometimes, and sometimes not, such favour being dependent on some reason or other; e.g. he favours them whom he likes and not others, etc. Now, if the Lord’s favour too be limited like the jiva’s favours, it too, like that of the jiva, must be dependent on and conditioned by alien and external factors, and cannot, therefore, like human favour amount to much.
4 That is, if the Lord favours any and every one at all times, evidently the sidhanas, which are for this very purpose of invoking His favour, become useless.
5 V.RM., p. 18.
DEVAOARYA 107
any and every one cannot perceive it, but only those who are fit for knowing it. Such is the case with the universal grace of the Lord.
Another objection may be raised!: If it be said that the grace of the Lord, though all-pervading, depends on certain conditions— (viz. the sidhanas) the view that the Lord’s grace is the chief cause of salvation can no longer be held. There will arise also the logical fallacy of mutual dependence: grace depends on the sadhanas, the latter on the former.
To this we reply 2: The Lord is without an equal or a superior, thence the grace of the Lord does not really depend on any other condition besides Himself, but in order that He may not be accused of wantonness,—of partiality, cruelty, etc. in His bestowal of favour and also in order that Scripture, dealing with the sadhanas, may not be useless,—the Lord depends on those sidhanas apparently only in His bestowal of favours, and this dependence being but a mere semblance (and not a reality), in no way disproves His absolute independence,
Section 4. Moksa.8
Here Purusottama brings forward no new points, except that he gives a detailed account of the obstacles which prevent the attain- ment of salvation—which have already been noticed above.4 The attainment moksa implies, thus, the performance of the sidhanas on the one hand, and the rejection of the virodhins on the other.
IV. Devacarya. (1) [नए AND DATE.
Devacarya was twelfth after Nimbarka. Of the previous teachers who flourished between Purugottama and Devacirya, we know nothing. Deviacarya was supposed to be an incarnation of the lotus of Visnu (padmiavatara) 5 and to have flourished in Tailanga in the Vaikrama Yuga-rudrendu 1112,6 1.6. 1112 Samvat or 1056-57 A.D. But this view is untenable, since it is clear from internal evidences that he could not have flourished prior at least to Rama&nuja and Madhva,
1 V.R.M., p. 21. : 2 Op, cit.
3 Op. cit., pp. 1328.
4 See under Nimbarka: ‘ Virodhins to the Saédhanas ’.
5 8.8., p. 2, Intro. to S.J., p. 2. 6 Intro. ४० S.J., ए, 2.
108 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
1.6. not prior to the thirteenth century A.D., as he criticises the views of these latter philosophers.1
(2) Works.
Deviacirya composed a commentary on the Brahma-sitras, styled “Siddhanta-jahnavi’’. Unfortunately, the whole of this commentary has not yet been found, but it has been published only up to the first pada of the first chapter (sitras 1.1.1-1.1.31).
(3) Doorrina,
He accepts the usual doctrines of the sect—viz. the trinity of reals; Brahman, the cit and the acit, and a relation of svabhavika- bhedaibheda between them. His arguments are in many places exactly similar to those of Purusottama, whom he often cites as authority.2
(a) Brahman.
Brahman is Purusottama, the husband of Rama (or Laksmi), | possessed of infinite auspicious qualities and free from material qualities.8
Brahman is the creator of the Universe, both its material and efficient causes. He alone can be the universal cause, (1) neither the soul, since in that case, the souls being infinite in number, there will be an infinite number of creators; (2) nor the four-faced Brahma or Hiranyagarbha, since he, not being eternal, but a created being, did not exist prior to creation; (3) nor Siva, since he too is a temporal being and not eternal; (4) nor time itself, since this view is set aside by Scripture as false; (5) nor accident (svabhava), since on this view an effect has no fixed cause, but arises somehow by itself and hence how can it be said that accident is the cause of the effect (viz. the world) without contradiction? Thus, this view leads to the horns of a dilemma: If the effect has a cause, it cannot be said that it is
1 Vide S.J., 1.1, pp. 43-44, No. 94. Here he criticises the Visistadvaita- vada of Ramanuja. And vide S.J., 1.1.1, pp. 36-37, 42, No. 94, where he criticises the Atyanta-bheda-vada of Madhva. Vide also 8.8., p. 34, “Anye Madhvah prahuh”’.
2 Vide e.g., 8.J., 1.1.1, pp. 51, 56; 1.1.2, ए. 121, etc. (No. 94).
$ S.J., 1.1.1, pp. 27-28 (No. 94). Also vide 1.1.1, ए. 54 (No. 94).
4 3.व., 1.1.2, p. 121, No. 94. In defining the updddnatva and the nimitiatva of Brahman, the author quotes verbatim from V.R.M., p. 65. See above under Purugottama for explanation.
BRAHMAN 109
accidental, but if it has not a cause, it cannot be said that it has accident as its cause; (6) nor, finally, non-existence (abhava), since non- existence can never give rise to existence, the sky-flower to scent.}
Like Nimbfrka, he points out that the Universe of souls and matter is a parindma or actual transformation of Brahman—who in spite of being without parts and all-pervading can have transformation,? and in spite of having transformation remains Himself untransformed.’
Brahman is satya or ever-true or eternal, jfidna or knowledge and ananta or infinite. It is the last characteristic which distinguishes Him from the non-sentient—which is eternal and devoid of knowledge and from the sentient—which is eternal.*
Brahman is éastra-yoni, 1.6. can Be known through Scripture alone, and not through any other source. Thus, He cannot be known through perception, since in spite of the fact that the all- pervading Brahman pervades the sense-organs, these latter fail to grasp and manifest Him, as the tongue fails to see colour, the fire-fly to manifest the sun. Secondly, Brahman cannot be known through inference also, since inference is not an independent source of know- ledge, but is based on perception. It cannot be said that the following inference establishes Brahman :—
Whatever is an effect has a cause, like pots, etc., and whatever is not an effect has not a cause, like time, etc. The great elements like the earth and the rest are effects. Therefore they have a cause (viz. Brahman),®
since, by this process of inference we can arrive at best only at a particular kind of soul, like potters, etc. Further, the ether is not admitted to be an entity by the logicians and hence it cannot be an effect, and hence the reason cited here ‘“‘Whatever is an effect’? does not apply to the case in hand. Thirdly, Brahman cannot be known through comparison or similarity (upamana), for there is nothing similar to Brahman on the analogy of which He can be known,
1 §J., 1.1.2, pp. 95-98, No. 94.
2 Op. cit., 1.1.2, pp. 109-110, 116, No. 99. The author repeats the argu- ments given in V.R.M., pp. 63-64. See above.
ॐ Op. cit., 1.1.2, p. 116, No. 99. This is a point accepted by all others, Nimbarka and the rest. See above.
4 Op. cit., 1.1.2, ए. 122, No. 99.
5 That is, we infer that a hill is on fire, when we first see smoke issuing from it, ete,
6 Cf. V.K., 1.1.3, pp. 25-26, K.S.8.
110 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
possessed as He is of omniscience, omnipotence, etc. Ifit be urged that not only similarity, but dissimilarity too is a source of knowledge, e.g. we say “The elephant is dissimilar to the camel’’, etc.—and hence although there may be nothing similar to Brahman, yet we can know Him from His dissimilarity to the sentient and the non-sentient thus: “Brahman is one who is dissimilar to the sentient and the non- sentient’’—, then we reply: the knowledge of dissimilarity between objects is based on the knowledgo of the dissimilar objects themselves, e.g. we cannot know that an elephant is dissimilar to a camel, unless we first know what an elephant 18, anda camelis. Similarly, we cannot know that Brahman is dissimilar to the sentient and the non-sentient, unless we first know what Brahman Himself is,—to do which we must first resort to Scripture. Fourthly, Brahman cannot be known through postulation (arthapatti), since it is but a mode of inference which has already been disposed of. Finally, Brahman cannot be known through non-perception (anupalabdhi), since it is included under perception, which has already been disposed of. Hence the conclusion is that Brahman can be known through Scripture alone.1 ।
(9) The cit.
Devacarya points out, exactly like other followers of the sect, that the soul is of the nature of knowledge, etc. He does not elucidate these points, but refers us back to Purugottama’s ^ Vedinta-ratna- mafijiisa”’.2
(¢) The acit.
Like others, he holds that there are three kinds of the acit : prakrta, aprakrta and kala, and describes them exactly after Purugottama.4
(d) Relation between Brahman, the cit and the acit.
Devacarya criticises four different schools—viz. Aupadhika- bhedabheda-vada, Advaita-vada,5 Dvaita-vada and Visistadvaita-
1 §.J., 1.1.3, pp 126ff., No. 99.
2 Op. cit., 1.1.1, p. 56, No. 94. See above.
3 Op. cit. 1.1.1, p. 77, No. 94. }
4 Except that he does not speak of them in such great detail. Vide S.J., 1.1.1, pp. 77-78, No. 94, for the prakrta; op. cit., p. 84, for the aprakrta; and op. cit., pp. 86-87, for kala. Vide supra.
5 The point of distinction between the Aupadhika-bheddbheda-vada and Pure Advaita-vada is not clear, for both seem to represent the identical doctrine. Of course, Devéoairya himself does not use these terms, Aupadhika-bhedabheda-
RELATION BETWEEN BRAHMAN, SOUL AND WORLD 11
vada, and establishes the doctrine of Svabhavika-bhedabheda- vada.1
1. According to the first doctrine, Brahman is by nature One,— ४ pure identity, while the differences are due to beginningless adjuncts, which cease on the rise of the knowledge of identity through texts like “ Thou art that’’, etc. (Chind., 6.8.7, etc.). But this view is untenable, for each of the following five possible alternatives leads to absurdities. Thus:—
(a) It cannot be said that the soul is a portion of Brahman actually cut off from Him by the limiting adjunct, since first, Brahman cannot be cut off thus, and secondly, the soul becomes non-eternal on this view.?
() It cannot be said that the soul is a part of Brahman (not actually cut off from Him but) connected with the atomic upadhi,3 since first, in that case all the faults of the upadhi will pertain to Brahman, and secondly, motion of Brahman being not possible on the motion of the upadhi, there will arise sudden bondage and release on the part of the souls.*
(c) It cannot bo said that the soul is Brahman Himself, con- nected with the limiting adjunct, for if Brahman becomes the soul in His own nature, there will remain no transcendent Brahman, unconnected with upadhis.
(d) It cannot be said that the soul, a conscious being and connected with upadhis, is different from and other than Brahman (who is a conscious being, but not con- nected with upadhis), for if a second reality besides
vada, etc., but he evidently makes a distinction between the first view (called Aupadhika-bhedabheda.vada by Sundarabhatta in S.8., p. 30) and the second view (called Mayé-vada in 8.S., p. 30), while no distinction is discernible between them. Sundarabhatta (S.S., p. 30) makes Bhaskara the representative of the first view, but it does not represent the doctrine of Bhaskara, but rather the ordinary Advaita theory.
1 8.ष., pp. 30ff., No. 94.
2 Cf. V.R.M.,—exactly similar. See above.
3 “Anuripopadhisamyukta-Brahma-pradega-visegah.”’ S.J., 1.1.1, p. 31, No, 94.
4 Cf. V.R.M.,—exactly similar. See p. 140 of the thesis, op. cit.
5 “Upadhi-samyuktam Brahma-svaripam eva jivah.” S.J., 1.1.1, p. 31, No. 94.
112 DOOTRINES OF NIMBABKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Brahman be admitted, the view that all difference is due to upadhis only (and is not real) falls to the ground.
(e) Finally, it cannot be said that the limiting adjunct itself is the soul, for that will lead to the Carvaka view which identifies the soul with the body.
2. According to the second doctrine Brahman is pure conscious- ness, free from all specifications and all differences, sajatiya, vijitiya or svagata,! and absolutely non-different from the entire universe of soul and matter. But this view is not tenable, because there are hundreds of scriptural texts which teach the difference between Brahman and the universe.
3. According to the third view, the opposite extreme, there is an absolute difference between Brahman and the universe. According to this view, the so-called abheda-texts cannot refer to Brahman, for according to the abheda-view, Brahman is absolutely devoid of specifications and qualities and as such cannot be designated by words which indicate always objects possessing particular qualities. Hence the abheda-texts designate only the similarity between Brahman and the soul, but the real fact is that Brahman is absolutely different from the sentient.and the non-sentient as depicted by bheda-texts. But this view too is equally untenable, for the abheda-texts cannot be set aside summarily in this-fashion.
4. According to the fourth view, the sentient and the non-sentient are the attributes or adjectives of Brahman, and Brahman, thus qualified by the sentient and the non-sentient, is a unity, omniscient and omnipotent. But though the sentient and the non-sentient are attributes of Brahman, they are different fron Him, and do not corrupt Him with their own faults and defects. But this view is not tenable for the following reason. The very task of an attribute or an adjective is to differentiate the particular object which possesses that particular attribute from other objects which do not possess it,? e.g. the red colour of a red ball differentiates it from a blue ball and the rest. Now, in the very same manner, if the sentient and the non-sentient be attributes of Brahman, the question at once arises: from whom or
1 Sajaitiya-bheda is the difference of a tree from other trees, vijatiya-bheda is the difference of a tree from 8 stone or an animal, while svagata-bheda is internal difference, viz. difference of fruits, leaves, branches, etc. in the same tree. Vide Pajicadadi, 2.14, p. 67.
2 “Vyavarttakatvam téavad-viseganatvam iti sarva-paksa-simainyam.” 8.J., 1.1.1, p. 48, No. 94.
SALVATION 113
from what object do they differentiate Brahman? It cannot be said that they differentiate Brahman from themselves (1.6. the sentient and the non-sentient), for that which differentiates can never be itself the object from which the original object (i.e. the object of which it is an attribute) is differentiated, e.g. it is absurd to say that the red colour of a red ball differentiates the ball from red colour. But nor can it be said that the sentient and the non-sentient differen- tiate Brahman from any other object, because there are no other objects or realities besides these three: Brahman, the sentient and the non-sentient. Hence the sentient and the non-sentient cannot be attributes of Brahman. Moreover, the Visistaédvaita view also admits of a svabhavika bheda between Brahman on the one hand and the sentient and the non-sentient on the other, and between the sentient and the non-sentient themselves. Hence instead of admitting difference-non-difference in this round-about fashion, it is far better and reasonable to admit svabhavika-bhedabheda all at once.
This criticism of Visistadvaita-vada is an original contribution by Devacarya, not made by any of the previous teachers of the sect (so far known), and brings out the subtle point of distinction between the Visistadvaita-vida and the Svabhavika-bhedabheda-vada, which are so very alike in most other points.
Hence, Deviacarya continues, the right conclusion is that the sentient and the non-sentient are both different and non-different from Brahman.1}
(¢) Moksa,
Salvation implies attaining the Lord, consequent on being free from Matter. “Attaining” means giving up the sense of puny and selfish egoity—the ideals of “I” and “mine” (sva-mamatva-bhavana) and abiding in pure unceasing intuition of the Lord.2 Therefore, salvation does not imply the destruction of the real individuality of the soul, but only of its narrow egoity.
The freed soul, too, is under the control of the Lord, like the soul in bondage, but the great difference between the two is that while the soul in bondage is subject to fear, the freed soul is not, for fear arises only from one’s separation from the Lord and the freed soul being ever in the presence of the Lord, has no cause to fear anything.®
18.J., 1.1.1, pp. 44-45, No. 94. Here the author follows V.R.M. See above.
2 8.J., 1.1.1, pp. 164-165, No. 99. 8 Op. cit., 1.1.21, p. 22, No. 358,
8
114 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
The freed soul is possessed of a non-material body, by means of which it enjoys all sorts of pleasures and worships the Lord.1
Like others, he holds that there is no such thing as jivanmukti. The soul is finally released only when it is freed from the body.?
(f) The sddhanas.
Dhyana or meditation is the most direct and immediate (anta- ranga) cause of salvation. Mere knowledge of scriptural texts is of no avail here. Just as the mere knowledge of a medicine does not cure a patient unless he actually takes it, so the mere dry textual knowledge of Brahman does not free a man from the fetters of the world, unless he actually feels or realises Brahman by meditation. Hence Sravana (or hearing of texts) must: lead to manana (or pondering over them), and manana must lead to nididhyasana (or meditation).§
If it be objected here that meditation is a kind of mental activity, and if salvation be something brought about through it, salvation becomes something produced—an effect and as such non-eternal—- then, we reply: Salvation is not something generated by meditation, but the task of meditation is simply that it removes the veil which so long hid the Lord from the soul and enables it to have a direct vision of Him.
Both the substratum and the object of salvation are eternal, being free from four kinds of operation,—viz. origination, modi- fication, attainment and purification. Thus, the substratum of salvation, viz. the soul, has no origin like pots and the rest, no modi- fication like curd and the like, is not something to be obtained, since its own nature is ever-obtained and is not something to be purified, being eternal knowledge. And, that the object, viz. Brahman is beyond ali these four kinds of operation, needs no elucidation. Hence salvation too is eternal.5
The fact is that when the eternal knowledge of the soul becomes contracted through its connection with the beginningless ajfiana, i.e. matter and karmé, it is called “bound”, but when through the grace of the Lord, its connection with matter and karma ceases, and its original knowledge becomes manifest, it is called “freed”. Hence
1 8.J., 1.1.4, p. 189, No. 99. ॐ ctt., 3 Op. cit., 1.1.4, ए. 175. ५ Op. ott., 5 Utpatti, vikéra, prapti and samskrti.
8.J., 1.1.4, pp. 181-182, No. 99. 88
„> ए. 196. 1.1.4, pp. 177-178, No. 99.
SUNDERABHATTA 115
bondage does not imply the destruction of the essential purity of the soul, but only a temporary contraction of its attribute of knowledge.1 Thus, Devacérya too admits the grace of the Lord to be an essential prerequisite of salvation.2 He also holds that approach to a guru (guripasatti) and devotion to him (guru-bhakti) are essential prerequisites of it. Thus: Guripasatti— Sravana ~> Manana > Nididhyasana -> Bhagavat-prasida—Saksatkara or Moksa.
V. Sundarabhatta. (1) Lirz aND DATE.
He was the immediate disciple of Devacdrya and thirteenth after Nimbarka. We know nothing (so far) of his life and date. But from internal evidence, it can be asserted that he flourished after Bhaskara, Ramanuja and Madhva.38
(2) Works.
He wrote a super-commentary, styled ‘“‘Dvaitadvaita-siddhanta- setuké’’, on his guru Devacarya’s commentary on the Brahma- sitras. He also wrote an extensive commentary, styled “Mantrartha- rahasya”’, on “Mantra-rahasya-godaéi” of Nimbarka. The first work, viz. Siddhanta-setuka, has not yet been found as a whole, but only up to the Catuh-sitri.
(3) Doorrins.
His doctrine is exactly similar to that of Purugottama and Devacarya. In many places, specially while criticising the Advaita view, he quotes Purusottama verbatim.‘
1 §.J., 1.1.4, pp. 182-183, No. 99. 2 Op. cit. Vide also 8.J., p. 3, No. 94. $ Vide §.8., pp. 30, 34 and 42, No. 94. See above. ५ Vide 8.8., 1.1.1, pp. 3ff., No. 94. Thus the following are some of the examples where he quotes from V.R.M. verbatim :— (a) The distinction between the two kinds of virdgas, sahetuka and nirhetuka, p. 21, V.R.M., pp. 141-42. Bee above. (४) The distinction between the different kinds of dubhkhas, p. 23, V.R.M., p. 144. (c) The distinction between svatantra and paratantra sattvas, p. 48, V.R.M., pp. 89-90. See above.
116 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
(4) Tam sApHana “GuROPasarri’’, |
In his “Mantrartha-rahasya”, Sundarabhatta gives a most elaborate and detailed account of the method and procedure involved in the sidhana ‘“‘Guripasatti”—which is really an original contri- bution to the sect, furnishing a guide to those who want to resort to this means,
(i) Mokga or the end.
Moksa involves two factors, viz.: (1) freedom from the fetters of the world and (2) attaining the nature of Brahman.! (1) The first means freedom from the beginningless avidya (or karma), which is due to the connection of the soul with prakrti or matter and consists in a narrow sense of ‘I’ and “‘mine’’.2 (2) The second means abiding in a constant intuition of the Lord, consequent on a direct vision of the Lord, due to his grace.8 Thus: Freedom from egoity—direct vision of the Lord» abiding in eternal intuition of the Lord.
. (ii) Guriipasatti or the means.
A. Its general nature. Guripasatti—which is a direct means to salvation—means renouncing or offering one’s own self (atma-nyasa), i.e. of one’s narrow
(व) Arguments how the soul can be both knowledge and the substratum of knowledge, pp. 60-61. V.R.M., pp. 4-5. See above.
(e) Criticism of Pratibimba-vada, pp. 61-62. V.R.M., pp. 5-6. See above.
(f) Criticism of Avaccheda-vada, pp. 62-63. V.R.M.,pp. 6-7. See above.
(g) Criticism of the view that the “I’’ does not pertain to the essence of the self, but is something unreal, pp. 63-64. V.R.M., pp. 7-8. See above.
(h) Arguments that the soul is a karté, pp. 66-67. V.R.M., pp. 11-12. See above.
(४) Arguments that the soul is Anu, pp. 69-72. V.R.M., pp. 16-17. See above.
(j) Criticiam of Adhyasa-viada, pp. 78-80. V.R.M., pp. 66-67. See above.
1 M.R., p. 28.
ॐ Op. cit. Vide also p. 18 where it is said that the two syllables “mine” (mama) mean death and bondage, while the three syllables “not mine” (na mama) mean eternity and salvation.
ॐ M.R., pp. 30-81.
APPROAOH TO A GURU 117
individuality, together with whatever belongs to one’s self (atmiya) to the Lord, through the guru.1 This may be made clear by the following two examples :—
Just as in a sacrifice, clarified butter (havis) is poured into the fire (agni) by means of a ladle (sruva), so the soul is to throw itself into the Lord through the preceptor. Here the clarified butter stands for the soul, the fire for the Lord, and the preceptor for the ladle. Just as the clarified butter, when poured into the fire, is burnt off completely, so the narrow egoity (or karmas) of the soul disappear completely when it gives itself up to the Lord. Secondly, just as the clarified butter cannot be poured into the fire all at once, but has to be poured into the ladle first and then into the fire, so the soul is to dedicate itself first to the preceptor, and through him to the Lord. Thirdly, just as the fire alone can consume the clarified butter, and nothing else, so the Lord alone can burn off the karmas of the soul and none else.2
Or, to take another illustration: Just as a fond fathor at first ignores the faults of his son and lets him keep the object which he has stolen from him, but after a time sends an intermediary, a mutual friend, to his son to bring him (son) back, so the Lord at first overlooks the faults of the soul which has stolen itself (atman), His property, from Him, and lets it enjoy the world, but after a time sends a pre- ceptor to it to bring it back to Him. And just as in exchange for the few stolen objects, the son becomes heir to the whole property of his father, so exactly the soul in exchange for its narrow and puny egoity comes to attain the nature and qualities of the Lord.8
This essential truth that the soul is to offer itself to Brahman through the guru is contained in the pranava-mantra ‘“‘Om”’ and the bija-mantra ‘‘klim’’.4
Guripasatti is the best of all the sadhanas, involving, as it does, every other means,—work, knowledge and devotion. Thus, obeying the commands of the preceptor is following the path of action (karma-
1 M.R., pp. 14-15. 2 Op. cit., pp. 14-17. Here: Havig+Sruva->Agni. Jiva-» Guru Bhagavat. $ M.R., pp. 18-25. Here: Putra+Madhyastha— Pitr. Jiva+Guru->Bhagavat. ५ M.R., pp. 9-10. See above.
118 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
yoga); knowing one’s self as having the guru for his essence (tad- atmaka) is following the path of knowledge (jfiina-yoga); and being devoted to the guru is following the path of devotion (bhakti-yoga).}
Guripasatti, further, involves the eight-fold yogas (astanga-yoga) which are regarded as means to a direct vision of the Lord, viz.: yama, or forbearance, niyama or religious observance, 28898 or posture, pranayama or regulation of breath, pratyahara or restraint of the senses, dhyana or contemplation, dharana or steadying of the mind and samadhi or profound meditation. Thus:—
(a) The soul’s distaste for its narrow individuality (aétman) and what belongs to itself (atmiya) is yama.
(b) Intense love for the Lord and the preceptor is niyama.
(c) The steadfast idea that all things, sentient or non-sentient, belong to the Lord, accompanied by a complete indif- ference to them is dsana
(d) Assigning the different modes of the vital-breath (prana, apana, etc.) to the Lord, is pranayama
(e) Directing the mind to the Lord alone 18 pratyahara.
(f) The uninterrupted intuition, viz. “Brahman is my self or 68861168 ** is dhyana.
(g) The steadfastness of the above belief is dharana.
(h) The continuous and uninterrupted meditation of the Lord 18 samadhi.®
Thus, as every sadhana is included under this sadhana, the latter does not wait for any other sadhana, but by itself leads to salvation straight. Here Sundarabhatta holds the same view as Purusottama.®
B. Qualifications of the guru and the sisya.
It is evident that any and every one is not fit to be a guru or preceptor, since the preceptor is entrusted with a great task—that of leading the erring and strayed off soul back to its proper resort viz. the Lord. The preceptor thus must belong to one or other of the upper three classes; be versed in the Vedas; devoted to the Lord devoted to the Sacred Mantra; devoted to his guru; engaged in the proper performances of the nitya and the naimittika karmas, as well
1 M.R.,, p. 26. * Op. cit., pp. 26-27, 3 Op. cit., pp. 27-28, See above.
APPROACH TO A GURU 119
as in the constant worship of the Lord; impartial, pure and free from malice; and an abode of kindness, parental love, forgiveness, honesty, tenderness, etc.
A man who wants salvation should resort to a preceptor who is endowed with the above qualifications, and not to any one else, for just as one cannot cross the ocean and reach the shore in a holed boat, so one cannot ¢ross the ocean of life and attain salvation through a preceptor who is not worthy and learned.!
On the other hand any and every one cannot be a Sisya or disciple. First and foremost, the disciple must be devoted to his preceptor heart and soul. He must regard his very self and everything he possesses,—his body and mind, wealth and youth, merit and demerits, relatives and friends, as but instruments for serving his preceptor, He must regard the preceptor as his all in all2; be wholly indifferent to his own self and to whatever belongs to his self and renounce them to his preceptor; have complete faith in the words of the preceptor and Scripture; have right discrimination of what is permanent and what is not and what belongs to himself and what not. That is, he must realise that his own self and what belongs to himself really belong to the Lord and must be returned to Him as soon as possible, through the preceptor. Further, he must be honest and truthful; must not resort to any other means except self-surrender to the Lord and to the preceptor; be humble and not over-confident, 1.6. must not think himself capable of resorting to other sidhanas without the help of the preceptor and 80 on.4
The preceptor should instruct only such a disciple and none else.®
C. Successive stages of Guriipasatti.
The sddhana (Quripasatti involves the following successive stages 6:--
1. First, 8 man who desires for salvation approaches a pre- ceptor,—who is endowed with the stated qualities,—with fuel in hand, lies prostrate before him and prays for his emancipation. He chooses him as his only saviour from mundane existence, from three kinds of pain (viz. physical, mental and elemental), six kinds of changes (birth,
1 MLR., p. 48. 3 Op. ctt., pp. 57-58. 3 Op. cit., p. 15. * Op. ctt., pp. 49-50.
5 The guru must teach the “most intimate” disciple alone. See below. 6 MR, pp. ६18.
120 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
growth, etc.), five kinds of miseries (ignorance, etc.)1 and the three gunas of prakrti (sattva, etc.), as his sole master, father, husband and friend, asking him to make his own self and whatever belongs to him as his (i.e. the preceptor’s) own.2 This is the process of choosing the saviour or preceptor by the disciple.®
2. Prayed thus the preceptor then proceeds to examine the fitness of the candidate, allowing him to stay with him as a probationer for a whole year, or for six months, or two months—or at least for one month, as the case may require.
3. When the preceptor is satisfied of the candidate’s fitness, he brings him before him, takes hold of his (the candidate’s) hand, places them on his (the guru’s) own feet and asks the candidate thrice whether he is really willing to give up the world and become his servant. Each time the candidate answers in the affirmative. Then the preceptor accepts the candidate finally as his servant, son, wife and friend, makes him his own and assures him that he has become his Saviour. This is the process of accepting and making the disciple . his (the preceptor’s) own.4
4. Then, reciting suitable mantras, the preceptor puts the caste-mark or the tilaka on the disciple’s forehead with his own hands.
5. After that, with the utterance of prescribed formulae, the preceptor stamps the marks of Vignu’s conch-shell and disc on the two arms of the disciple.
6. Now the preceptor once more consecrates the body and the soul of the disciple by reciting the name and the holy mantra of the Lord.
7. After that, he puts the disciple’s right arm around his (the preceptor’s) own neck and teaches him the succession of the spiritual teachers of the 86९४. Thenceforward, the disciple is to be known as belonging to that sect of teachers.
8. Next, the preceptor proceeds to inaugurate the disciple to supreme lordship with the words: “‘ You are a king. The lap of your preceptor is your fhrone, his right hand is your royal umbrella, his left hand is your royal fan, the knowledge that you gain through worshipping him is your army, association with the Lord is your capital, attaining the Lord is your victory, the destruction of desires
1 Tapa, vikira, kleéa. 2 Atmasitkarana. 8 Goptrtva-varana-vidhi. ५ Atmasit-karana-vidhi.
5 Guru-paramparé.
APPROAOH TO A GURU 121
and the connection with matter is your universal conquest”. Then the preceptor blesses the disciple, assuring him that he will teach him the knowledge of Brahman. This is the process of inaugurating to the kingdom of the Lord.1
9. Next, the preceptor, after uttering auspicious mantras, whispers the Sacred Mantra of the sect in the right ear of the disciple and recites the “ Mantra-rahasya-sodasi”? (composed by Nimbarka) to him.
10. Then the disciple comes down from the lap of the preceptor and makes obeisance to him by lying prostrate before him. The preceptor now places water in the disciple’s palms, puts the Sacred Stone (Salagrima) before him, repeats the disciple’s resolution to renounce his own self and what belongs to him, as well as makes the disciple repeat it himself. Then, the preceptor takes the right hand of the disciple in his own hand and prays to the Lord to accept the disciple and make him His own (&tmasat) through His infinite mercy and grace. Afterwards the preceptor makes the disciple take up the Sacred Stone in his hand and thereby makes the Lord accept the disciple and make him His own. The preceptor next makes the disciple eat some food first tasted by himself (by the preceptor) and drink some water touched by his (the preceptor’s) feet,2 embraces him and says to him thrice that he (the disciple) is now made his own (atmasat-krta) entirely, 80 he must serve his preceptor as a servant, son, wife and friend. Thrice the disciple consents to do so. The preceptor now proceeds to teach the disciple as befits his intelligence, place and time.
11. Next the preceptor worships the Sacred Stone as fitting, places It over the head of the disciple, commanding him to love and serve It as a servant serves his Master, a son his Father and so on; teaches him how to worship It, making him repeat the method lest he should forget and finally delivers the Sacred Stone to him.
12. Lastly, the disciple makes obeisance to the preceptor thrice by lying flat before him, accepts the Sacred Mantra and the Sacred Stone from him as eagerly as a penniless beggar accepts riches and offers remuneration to his preceptor as proper and enjoined.® Henceforward, the disciple must daily perform a three-fold worship, viz. the worship of the Sacred Mantra, that of the preceptor (who has imparted it to him) and that of the Lord (who is its object) and these
Svarajyabhiseka. 2 Prasida and padodaka. 3 M.LR., p. 63.
122 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
three kinds of worship are really identical. The worship of the Mantra consists in reciting it, every word distinctly and understanding its meaning, the worship of the preceptor has been already indicated and the worship of the Lord consists in five duties.1
The Brahma-vidya or the Sacred Mantra is to be imparted by the preceptor only to his most intimate and trusted disciple, who is the well-beloved of the Lord and to none else. There are four kinds of disciples, viz. an ordinary disciple (Sisyamatra), an intimate disciple {antaranhga), a more intimate disciple (antarangatara) and a most intimate disciple (antarangatama). It is only this last one who is entitled to the Sacred Mantra.2
The disciple, on his part, must learn the Mantra from his preceptor directly and from no one else, e.g. not from another favoured disciple who has learnt it directly from the preceptor himself.8 If, however, the preceptor is in a far-off country, or dead, one wishing to know should approach a learned person who has been taught the knowledge directly by the preceptor and learn what he desires from him.4
VI. KeSavakaSmiribhatta. 3 (1) Lire anp 247.
Kegavakaémiribhatta was the twenty-ninth pontifical head after Nimbarka. He was the immediate disciple of Gangalabhatta.5 In his Vedanta-kaustubha-prabhaé, however, he makes obeisance, not to Gangalabhatta, but to Mukunda as his guru.6 Perhaps, he had two gurus, or else they were identical. He is supposed to have flourished in the 14th century A.D.? But in conformity with our view that Nimbarka did not flourish before the 13th century A.D., we are led to think that he must have flourished later.§
Tradition is that he thrice conquered all learned men of his time. Hence the epithet “dig-vijayi” is often prefixed before his name.®
1 M.R., p. 66. The five duties are: abhigamana, upadina, ijyé, yoga, svadhyaya. See below under the ritualistic doctrine of Nimbarka.
2 M.LR., p. 6. 3 Op. cit., pp. 67-68
« Op. cit., pp. 68-69.
५ Mangala-patha in T.P., verse 5, pp. 1-2.
6 Mangala-pitha in V.K.P., and colophons therein. See under Madhava Mukunda below.
7 Preface to T.P., ए. 1. 8 See above.
® Vide, e.g., colophon to V.K.P., p. 73, ete.
WORKS OF KESAVAKASMIRIBHATTA 123
He got the epithet “kasmiri’’, so the tradition goes, after he had van- quished the Saivas of Kaémira and lived there for some time.1
From his works it is evident that he was a great logician, an adept in the art of very subtle and hair-splitting reasoning.
(2) Works.
He composed an elaborate commentary on the Brahma-siitras, styled ‘“ Vedinta-kaustubha-prabha”’, in elucidation of Srinivasa’s “Vedinta-kaustubha”’. He wrote a commentary on the Bhagavad- gita, too, styled “Tattva-prakaéika”’, and further composed an ela- borate treatise on ritual styled ‘‘Krama-dipiki’’. Besides these, we know of certain stotras or hymns by him, viz. ^“ Sri-govinda-sarana- gati-stotram’’2—a collection of twelve hymns in praise of the Lord, Whom he describes as Govinda, Gopala, Gopinatha, etc., and “ Yamuna- stotram”’,3 a collection of twenty-one stotras or hymns in praise of the river Yamuna, the banks of which were the scene of Kygna’s sports with the Gopis.
Other works by him, preserved in manuscript forms, are ‘‘Tattva- prakaéiké’’, a commentary on Veda-stuti, a part of the Bhagavata- purana, tenth skandha,‘ ‘“‘ Brahmopanisat-tika’’,§ and “ Vignu-sahasra- nama-tika’’.6
He composed a commentary on the Taittariya-upanigad, called “Taittiriya-prakasika”’,7 not yet found. It is alleged that he wrote
1 His first conquest consisted in vanquishing Vidyadharacarya, the head of the Saiva sect in Kaémira, After vanquishing Vidyddhardcairya, Kedava deputed him to preach the Vaignava religion in Kaésmira. Formerly Keéava was called “ Keéavabharati”’, but after his conquest, he lived in Kaémira for a time and thenceforward came to be known as “ Keéavakaémiribhatta’”. His second conquest consisted in driving away the Yavanas from Mathuré. After his second conquest, Kefavakéémirin set out on his third conquest, vanquishing the SAkta sect in Bengal, defeated all learned men in Navadvipa and himself settled in Kaémira.
According to the Caitanya-caritamrta of Krsnadasa, chap. XVI, 28-108, one Kefava Kasmiri was defeated by Nimai Pandita, later on universally known as Sricaitanya. It is, however, not definitely known whether these two Kefava Kaémiris are identical.
2 Given in S.R., pp. 70-71. 3 Op. cit., pp. 73-76.
« Cat. Cat., p. 127, Part 1; Oudh MSS., 1878, p. 42.
5 Op. cit., p. 28, Part 3.
6 Op. cit. Vide also the preface to T.P., pp. 3-4.
7 Op, cit., p. 127, Part 1.
124 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
commentaries on twelve Upanigads as well, and many Bhagavata- stotras.1 (3) Doorris.
He accepts the usual doctrines of the sect—the trinity of reals— and a relation of svibhavika-bhedabheda between them. His chief merit consists in his elaborate and scholarly criticism of the Advaita- vada. Often he refers to Sundarabhatta? and to “previous teachers” who have criticised the Advaita view.8 We shall notice below some original and striking ones of such criticisms.
CRITICISM OF THE ADVAITAVADA. (i) Criticism of the Advaita views of Brahman. A. Oriticism of Nirvigesa-vdda.
Brahman cannot be absolutely devoid of all qualities and speci- fications. In the first place, such a Brahman cannot be an object of. enquiry by Scripture. According to the Advaita view three alter- natives are possible here—viz. the object of enquiry is either the pure Brahman, or Brahman as limited by maya, or Iévara, superimposed through ajfiana. Now, the first alternative is not possible, because according to the Advaitins, the pure Brahman is not an object (avigsaya), otherwise we might argue very well: The pure Brahman is mithya, because it is an object of enquiry, like pots and the rest, The second alternative, too, is not possible, because in that case we shall attain a knowledge of the maya-limited Brahman alone and not of the pure and real Brahman, and hence no salvation will follow. The third alternative, too, is not possible, because it is this very adhyasa (or false superimposition) which, according to the Advaitins, is set aside by Scripture. Hence the Brahman of the Advaitins cannot be an object established by Scripture, i.e. must be wholly unacceptable.4
In the second place, the Brahman of the Advaitins cannot be the creator of the world. Here too three alternatives are possible— viz. the creator of the world is pure or Suddha Brahman, i.e. pure con-
1 Preface to T.P., pp. 3-4.
2 Vide, og., V.K.P., 1.1.1, p. 29; 2.1.16, p. 480; 4.4.7, ए. 1822. That he had a great reverence for Sundarabhatta is evident from the fact that he makes obeisance to him in the Matgala-patha, V.K.P., verse 4, p. 19.
3 Vide, 6.६, V.K.P., 1.1.1, p. 80; 2.1.14, p. 405, ७४९.
4 V.K.P., 1.1.1, pp. 22-23.
ORITIOISM OF NIRVISESA-VADA 125
sciousness; or méaya-limited or upahita Brahman; méay4a-super- imposed or adhyasta Brahman. Now the first alternative is not possible, because one who is devoid of all distinctions cannot possibly think and resolve to be many, as the creator of the world does in the beginning according to Scripture. In fact, an object, free from all distinction, being beyond every proof, is but a non-entity.2 The second alternative, too, is not possible. Here the question is whether the maya-limited creator 18 of the form of the object reflected (bimba- riipa) or of the form of the reflection (pratibimba-ripa). Not the first, for in that case just as the face reflected on a mirror is outside the mirror and does not pervade it, so Brahman will be outside tho individual soul and non-pervasive of it, and thereby cease to be the inner controller of all. Not the second, because in that case, since the qualities of the upaidhi belong to tho reflection (e.g. when the mirror—which is the upadhi—is dirty, any reflection on it is also so, and so on)—Brahman must be subject to all the faults, etc. due to avidya (which is the upadhi here). The third alternative, too, is not possible, because the superimposition of avidya on Brahman— which is by nature knowledge, is absurd, just as it is absurd to hold there is darkness in the sun.3
The Advaitins themselves describe Brahman as truth, know- ledge and bliss. Now, they must either hold that these constitute the nature of Brahman, or the attributes of Brahman. Now if these be the nature of Brahman, then Brahman will have a threé-fold nature, which will go against the Advaita view itself, and if these be the qualities of Brahman, that too will go against the Advaita view. Moreover, if it be said that they denote the nature of Brahman, then Brahman becomes an object (visaya) of words,—which is against the Advaita view. If it be said Brahman cannot be denoted by words, then Brahman becomes anirvacaniya and as such mithya in accordance with the inferences: Brahman is mithya, because it is anirvacaniya, for whatever is anirvacaniya, is mithya, like maya. Brahman is mithya, because it is asat, for whatever is asat is mithya, like the snake-rope.4 Hence Nirguna-vada and nirvisega-vada are full of self-contradiction and as such absolutely untenable.
1 Vide Chand., 6.2.2. 2 See above.
8 V.K.P., 1.1.2, p. 48. See below under Purugottamaprasida Vaisnava for further criticisms on this point.
4 V.K.P., 1.1.2, pp. 49-50.
126 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS (ii) Criticism of the Advaita view of the jiva. A. Criticism of Pratibimba-vdda.
The individual soul cannot be a reflection of Brahman, because Brahman being formless and colourless, can have no reflection.1 Further, the connection of the individual soul with the upadhi or the limiting adjunct (viz.. avidyé on which Brahman is reflected), can neither be natural or svabhavika, since that will make salvation impossible—nor be due to upadhi or aupadhika, since that will lead to an infinite regress, for an upadhi will require another upadhi to be connected with the soul, that still another and so on. Further, we find in ordinary experience that the object reflected (bimba) and on which it is reflected (upaidhi) belong to the same category. For example, the real sun is reflected on real water only, but never on the mirage. Hence Brahman and avidyaé must belong to the same category, 1.6. avidyé must be as real as Brahman. Also, an object can. be reflected on something else, only when it is outside that some- thing else. For example, an aquatic animal, plunged in a river, can never be reflected on the river. But avidya is not admitted to be outside Brahman, who is all-pervading and hence there can be no reflection of Brahman on avidyaé.2 `
B. COriticiam of Avaccheda-vada or Upddhi-vada.
It is absurd to say that Brahman, who is by nature eternal and infinite knowledge, an abode of bliss and power, can ever come to be connected with avidya and upaidhi. Now, the upaédhi must be either all-pervading, or atomic or of the middle size (1.8. of the size of the body). But it cannot be all-pervasive, because in that case, the entire Brahman will be veiled up. Nor can it be atomic, for then there being no motion of the all-pervading Brahman on the motion of the upadhi, there will result sudden bondage and release.8 Nor can it, finally, be of the middle size, for that will go against the Advaita viow that the individual soul is atomic owing to its connection with an atomic पहता. Moreover, if the upadhi be real, then the doctrine of Non-dualism will fall to the ground—there being at least two
1 Cf. V.R.M. See above.
2 V.K.P., 1.1.1, p. 28. See below under Purugottamaprasada for further criticisms.
3 Cf. V.R.M. See above.
-
ORITIOISM OF VIVARTA-VADA 127
realities—Brahman and upadhi, and also no salvation will be possible, since knowledge cannot set at naught what is real. If, on the other hand, the upadhi be unreal, then to say that the upadhi binds the soul would be just as absurd as to say that a dream-fetter binds a man who 18 awake.!
C. Criticism of Eka-jtva-vada.
If there be only one individual soul, then evidently, there will be an unwarrantable intermixture of the respective experiences of different individuals. It cannot be said that though there is no real difference between different individuals, yet there is the difference which is due to upadhis and as such there is no intermixture of experiences,—for, we point out that the difference, which is due to upadhis only, does not guarantee non-intermixture, for in spite of the differences of hands, feet, etc. (which are due to upadhi), the sensations in hands or feet, ete. are alike felt by the soul.?
D. Criticism of Akartrtva-vada.
The view that the soul is not really a karta or an active agent, but only appears to be so through the false superimposition or adhyasa of the kartrtva of the antahkarana on the soul, just as white crystal appears to be red through the superimposition of the redness of a red flower—is not tenable. In the case of the crystal and red flower, redness is perceived separately in the crystal and in the flower: ‘The crystal is red’. ‘The flower is red.’ But in the case in hand we never have perceptions to the effect ‘The mind is a karta’, ‘The soul is a karta’ separately, but we always feel ‘I am karta’ (and not my mind).8
(iii) Criticism of the Advaita view of the jagat. A. Criticism of Vivarta-vada.
To say that the world is but an illusory transformation of Brahman and not.a real one is absurd. The Advaitins too admit Brahman to be the efficient and the material cause of the world. But if the world be false, then Brahman cannot be its efficient cause, for nobody can be the creator of what is false, e.g. nobody—neither the mistaken person himself nor others—can ever create a nacre-silver. It cannot
५ V.K.P., 1.2.6, pp. 102-108. 9 Op. cit., 1.1.1, ए. 24. 8 Op. oit., 2.3.32, pp. 675ff.
128 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
be said that Brahman is the creator here in the sense as a magician is,—for the latter shows tricks to delude an audience, but there is none whom Brahman can delude by creating a false world.
Again, Brahman, the real, cannot be the material cause of the unreal world, for the cause and the effect must be of the same nature. If it be said that Brahman is the material cause in the sense of being the substratum of error,1 then we point out that this definition is both too narrow, since clay, etc. which are not substrata of error are still the material causes of pots, etc., and too wide, since the nacre, e.g. which is the substratum of the silver-nacre illusion, is not the material cause of the illusory silver. If it be said that the world is the vivarta or illusory transformation of Brahman and the parinéma or real transformation of ajfiana, and hence not Brahman alone, but Brahman and ajiiana both are the material cause of the world,—then we reply: if a real object assumes the form of an unreal something, then it must have certain specific features which enables it to appear in that unreal form, e.g. any and every object does not appear to be a piece of silver, but only nacre, which possesses certain features (lustre, etc.) which appears in the form of silver to the unwary. But Brahman,— which according to the Advaitins is absolutely devoid of attributes, etc.,—can have no such qualities of appearing as the false world. If it be said that the nmiaterial cause of an object is that which is not seen to be separate from the object itself, then we point out that in that case, Brahman (which according to the Advaitins is not separate from the individual soul) becomes the material cause of the individual soul and the individual soul as a result becomes real; the milk be- comes the material cause of water, because it is never separated from water; and the calf becomes the material cause of “cowness’’, because it is never separated from ‘“‘cowness”’. If it be said that maya is the material cause, [évara the instrumental cause, and the pure Brahman the substratum or the adhigthana, then we point out that this goes against the view that the material cause and the efficient cause of the universe are identical. The fact is that to say that Brahman is the substratum of the cosmic illusion is to give up practically the doctrine that Brahman is the material cause of the world, as held by the Advaitins themselves,—for the nacre, the substratum of the silver- nacre illusion, is never the material cause of the illusory silver. Thus, the Advaita view is full of self-contradictions, and fails to prove how
1 Bhramadhisthana.
ORITIOISM OF VIVARTA-VADA 129
Brahman can be the material and efficient cause of an illusory world although it holds Brahman to be such.1
Moreover, as already hinted above, a substratum of an illusion must possess certain qualities. A nacre e.g. must have certain qualities in common with the silver, such as lustre, etc.—which bring about the illusion. And it must also have certain qualities of its own, as distinct from those of the silver, which when known bring about the end of theillusion. But the attributeless Brahman of the Advaitins can have no such qualities, and hence cannot be the substratum of the cosmic illusion. Hence no substratum of superimposition being possible, the superimposition itself is not possible and hence the world cannot be a vivarta or illusory superimposition of Brahman.?
Further to say that the world is neither real—for then it could not have been set aside by knowledge,—nor unreal—for then it could not have been perceived,—but 18 anirvacaniya and mithya, does not stand to reason. For in the first place no definition and no proof of mithyatva and anirvacaniyatva are possible. Further, it is not a fact that it is an unreal thing only which can be set aside; e.g. the real anterior ignorance‘ regarding an object by the knowledge of that object ; the real knowledge of a pot by that of a piece of cloth; real past impressions by recognition; real affection, etc. for a person by his faults ; the real sin of murdering a Brahmana by a visit to the Setubandha,§ etc.
Moreover, it is found in the world that the denial of an object and the object denied (nivarttya) belong to the same category, and hence ajiiina, too, must be real like the denial of ajfiana; knowledge and the object known, the dosa and tho adhisthina belong to the same category, and hence ajfiana, too, must be real like Brahman.®
According to the Advaitins, the world is false, but the question arises here—whether this falsity itself is 8156 or not. If it be false, then evidently the world becomes real, if it is not false, then the doctrine of Non-dualism falls to the ground—there being at least two realities—Brahman and falsity.”
1 V.K.P., 1.4.23, pp. 350ff. See below under Purusottamaprasida Vaisnava
for further criticisms. 'V.K.P., 1.1.1, p. 30.
3 Here the author refers back to “former teachers”, p. 405. But he himself also elaborately discusses the definition, etc. of mithyatva on pp. 412ff. For these, see below under Purusottamaprasada Vaisnava.
4 Pragabhava, 5 V.K.P., 2.1.14, pp. 4068.
6 Op. cit., ए. 407. 7 Op. cit., p. 412; 2.1.19, ए. 446.
9
130 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
It may be urged that the notion of difference is not a logical category and does not stand toreason. Isit the very nature of a thing, or its attribute? It cannot be the nature of a thing, for in that case it becomes the synonym for that thing (which evidently it is not), just as the word “hasta” is a synonym of the word “kara”. It cannot be also the attribute of a thing, for in that case, it must be different from the nature of the thing, that difference again must be different and so on to infinity. Moreover—there can be the appre- hension of different objects only on the apprehension of the difference between them, and the apprehension of difference only on the appre- hension of different objects,—this will lead to the logical fallacy of mutual dependence.
To this we reply that the same difficulties confront the notion of non-difference too. Thus, is non-difference the nature of an object or its attribute? It cannot be the nature of an object, because in that case such perceptions as “This is a pot’’, “This is a piece of cloth’’ (instead of ‘‘This is non-different’’) come to be false. Also, if every perception had pure, non-differenced consciousness as its object, then a mere perception of a pot would have brought about the knowledge of identity (non-difference being the very nature of the pot must be perceived when the pot is perceived), and in that case, the Vedanta-discussions would be futile. Nor can non-difference be the quality of an object,—for that too will lead to the same difficulties as above,—to dualism and _ self-contradiction. The fact is that like class, non-difference is a special quality of an object, and is appre- hended as soon as the object itself is.2
Thus, the Advaita view is wholly untenable.
(iv) Criticism of the Advaita view of mokga. A. General criticism.
The Advaita view that the one Iévara is reflected on many limiting adjungts or internal organs, just as the one face is reflected on many mirrors around it, and that when the limiting adjunct is no more, the individual soul becomes Iévara, just as when a mirror is broken or removed, the face reflected on it is no more, is not tenable.
1 That is, to know a cow, we must know it to be different from a horse, etc., all perception being assimilation and discrimination, yet to know the difference of the cow from the horse, we must know the cow first.
2 V.K.P., 2.3.42, pp. 302-3. Cf. Sri. B., 1.1.1.
08
ORITICISM OF JIVAN-MUKTI-VADA 131
Here two alternatives are possible: either the individual soul be- comes Iévara in nature or comes to possess Iévara’s attributes like omniscience and the rest. On the first alternative, the question is whether becoming Iévara in nature means becoming non-separate from it (without losing one’s individuality), or losing one’s own nature. If the first, then there is nothing to object, this being our own view,— but it will go against the Advaita view itself. Ifthe second, then mukti will imply the very destruction of the nature of the soul, while the fact is that Scripture explicitly states that the freed soul is mani- fested in its own form.1 Further, the question is whether Iévara, the object reflected, and the soul, the reflection, are real entities, or mithya and anirvacaniya or tuccha like the hare’s horn. They cannot evidently be real entities, for that will be giving up the Advaita view; nor can they be mithya, etc., for then the very question of bondage and release will be meaningless, seeing that the non- differenced Reality is never subject to bondage and the bound soul is but an unreality. For that very reason, they cannot be tuccha.
On the second alternative also the question is—Do the souls come to possess qualities similar to omniscience, etc., 1.6. become similar to Iévara, or do they come to possess those very qualities, i.e. become equal to Iévara? The first goes against the Advaita view itself, and the second is impossible and has no proof, and will lead to the view that there are many Iévaras.2
B. Criticism of Jivan-mukti-vdda.
The rule is that on the destruction of the cause, the effect must be invariably destroyed, e.g. when the threads are destroyed, the cloth is also destroyed simultaneously. But the Advaita view is that even when the pure and intuitive knowledge of Brahman arises, the works which have already begun to bear fruit continue to function, i.e. in spite of the destruction of avidya (which is the cause), by know- ledge, the mundane existence (which is the effect) continues.- The question is whether knowledge destroys avidyaé or not. If it does not, then it will lose its essential nature, the very nature of knowledge being to remove ignorance, and no salvation will ever be .possible; and if it does, there can be no jivan-mukti. It cannot be said that just as the strong smell of garlic persists, even when the garlic-pot
1 Vide Chand., 8.3.4. “‘Svena ripena abhinispadyate.” 2 V.K.P., 4.4.7, pp. 1322ff.
132 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
has been thoroughly washed, so even when avidya is destroyed by vidya, the impressions or samskaras of avidya still persist and cause the continuance of mundane oxistence,—for this too is open to the same objection as before. None but a fool will say that when the sun arises there can still be some trace of darkness. In the very same manner, there cannot be even the faintest trace of avidya when vidya arises. Nor can it be said that the jivan-mukta is like a piece of burnt cloth (the texture of which is destroyed, but the shape persists),—for the burnt cloth crumbles off to ashes, at the slightest touch, and serves no practical purposes of covering, etc. as a real piece of cloth does, but a jivan-mukta acts like any other man, and just as he himself did before. Further, what exactly is this cessation of avidyé or avidya-nivrtti which, according to the Advaitins, is salvation? Is it the very nature of the self or something else? If the first, then the self being eternal, the cessation of avidya too must be so, and in that case knowledge (which has to bring it about) be- comes futile. If the second, then the question is: Is it real, or unreal, or both or anirvacaniya? Not the first, for then the doctrine of Non-dualism falls to the ground; nor the second, for then it cannot be set aside by knowledge (what is not, cannot be set at naught, only an existent object can be set aside), and in that case knowledge would become futile like a lamp during the day; nor the third, reality and unreality being mutually opposed, a thing cannot be both real and unreal; nor finally, the fourth, for what is anirvacaniya is set aside by knowledge. Thus, we conclude that the Advaita doctrine of Jivan-mukti does not stand to reason in any way, and to say that an embodied being, still under the control of (prérabdha) karmas and subject, as a consequence, to all the human frailties and passions, is freed, is just as absurd as to call a man born blind “lotus-eyed”’, or & street beggar the “lord of the goddess of fortune”’.1
VII. Sribhatta.
He was the immediate disciple of KeSavakaémirin, and the thirtieth teacher after Nimbarka. We know of only one work by him, not of any philosophical interest, viz. “§ri-Krsna-saranapatti- stotram”’,2—a collection of twenty-five hymns in praise of Krsna, where he describes the Lord, the Moon of Vrndavana, of the clan of .
1 V.K.P., 4.4.7, pp. 1328-1330. 2 Given in 8.R., pp. 69-70.
HARIVYASADEVA 133
Brajas and of the Radhé-lotus (Sloka 2), the Lord of the young cow- herdesses, beautiful like thousand cupids, enjoying sports with Radha (Sloka 3), the delighter of the world, with eyes like lotus and dark blue in colour (Sloka 4), dressed in yellow robes (Sloka 5) and playing on the flute (Sloka 6), etc.,—as his sole resort.
VIII. Harivyasadeva.
(1) [फफ AND DATE.
Harivyasadeva was the immediate disciple of Sribhatta and thirty-first after Nimbarka. Nothing is known about his life or date. He was a great Vaisnava and a staunch supporter of the doctrine of
non-violence. (2) Works.
He wrote a commentary, styled “Siddhanta-kusumaijali”’, on Nimbarka’s ‘“Daéa-sloki”, and a commentary, styled ‘“‘Prema- bhakti-vivardhini’”’, on Sadanandabhatta’s “Sri-Nimbarka-sata-nima- stotram’’. Other works by him, preserved in manuscript forms, are “Artha-paficaka’’,2 and “Vedanta-siddhanta-ratnafijali’’.8
(3) Doorrine.
Harivydsadeva’s doctrine has much in common with that of Baladeva.4 It is probable that he was influenced by the school of Baladeva. In any case, in his doctrine we find many points of departure from the usually accepted tenets of the school of Nimbarka.
Like Baladeva, he admits five categories or tattvas, viz. Iévara or the Lord; Jiva or the individual soul; Prakrti or matter; Kala or time; and Karma or work.5 Of these, the first two are sentient,— different from each other by the fact that the former is all-pervasive, whilo the latter is atomic, and similar to each other by the possession of the eight-fold qualities, freedom from sins, etc.6—tho last three are
1 B.M.G., pp. 310-311. The tradition is that he was so very pained at seeing the Goddess Mahamayé accept animal-sacrifice, that he induced the Goddess herself to be initiated in the Vaignava-mantra and to discourage animal- sacrifice among her devotees.
2 Rep. Bh., 1894, p. 76. Vide also Rep. Katha., p. 29, where the name given 18 “Tattvartha-paficaka”’.
3 Rep. Bh., 1894, p. 76.
4 For Baladeva’s doctrine see below in loco. 5 इ. pp. 4, 22.
6 Vide Chand., 8.7.1.
134 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
non-sentient. Again, the first four are eternal,—without beginning a8 well as without end, while the last, viz. karma, is without beginning, but has an end.1
Iévara is the Controller, while the last four, viz. the soul, eto., are the controlled. Among these latter again, the soul is the enjoyer, matter is the object enjoyed, time is the efficient cause of enjoyment (since the soul enjoys material objects in time).2
It is strange that Harivyadsadeva, though belonging to the school of Nimbarka, does not speak of the aprdakrta as the fifth category, as done by all the followers of Nimbarka, but substitutes karma in its place exactly after Baladeva.
(a) BRAHMAN.
The Highest Reality or Brahman is, as usual, Lord Krsna or Hari. He is called Hari because a mere remembrance of Him is enough to wash off all sins.4 :
The Lord is the abode of all auspicious qualities and free from the qualities of matter. But though the Lord appears to be both the attribute (guna) and the substratum of attributes (gunin)—i.e. as both knowledge and knower, bliss and blissful, etc.—yet really there is no difference between the substratum, the Lord and His attributes. Similarly, though He appears to have a body, yet there is really no difference between the soul, the Lord (dehin) and His body (deha). Thus, the Lord is one whole with no differences in Him, identical with His attributes and identical with His body. But although there is no real difference between the Lord and His attributes and between the Lord and His body, yet there is a conventional or natural one (visesa). The sense is that statements like ‘‘ Be-ness exists”’ (Sata sati), “Distinction is difference” (Bhedo bhinnah), “Time exists always’’ (Kalo sarvada asti) are not useless tautologous statements,
but they are natural and conventional, conveying a very good sense ea
1 §,K., p.2. Cf. Baladeva, below. 2 Op. cit., p. 22.
$ In éloka 3 of D.S. Nimbarka speaks of the ‘“‘aprakrta”’ which is taken by all, except Harivyaésadeva, to mean “‘ what is not derived from prakrti”’, but from @ luminous stuff, different from prakrti. Harivyasadeva takes it to mean the mila-prakrti, with the attributes of sattva and the rest non-manifest, as contrasted from prakrti (“‘prikrta-ripam’’) with the attributes of sattva, etc. manifest. §.K., pp. 14-15.
५ 8.K., p. 19. See above.
THE SOUL 135
just like the statements “A jar exists’’, etc. Here the distinction between "^ Be-ness’’ and “‘existence’’, ‘Distinction’”’ and ‘‘difference’’, etc. is due to “visesa”’ or conventional distinction and not to “bheda” or real distinction. In the very same manner, statements like ‘“Know- ledge (Brahman) is knower’’, etc. are very natural and yield a perfect sense and the difference between the Lord and His attributes, or between the Lord and His body, is a case of convention (visesa) and not of real difference (bheda). Visesa is not bheda, but rather a representative of bheda, so to speak, accomplishing the task of bheda, viz. differentiation, without bringing about real difference.1
This is a new point, not brought out by the previous writers of the sect, so far known. Here also Harivyasadeva is in perfect concordance with Baladeva.?
Like Baladeva again, Harivyasadeva emphasises the inconceivable powers (acintya-Sakti) of the Lord. He points out that the Lord, though all-pervading, can yet abide within the heart of men, etc. through His inconceivable powers.®
(©) THe (व. (i) Its nature, etc.
The soul, he points out like others, is of the nature of knowledge and a knower, an Ego, an active agent, an enjoyer, a slave of the Lord, i.e. ever under His control, eternal, subject to bondage and release, atomic in size, and infinite in number.*
Unlike Baladeva, Harivyasadeva extends his above doctrine of visesa to the case of the soul as well, in order to show that there is no distinction betweon the soul and its qualities, as in the case of the Lord and His qualities. The distinction between the soul and its qualities is due to conventional difference or viéesa and not to real difference or bheda. Hence it is that the soul is both knowledge and a knower.5
Like others, he holds that there are broadly two kinds of souls— those in bondage and those that are free—with various sub-divisions.®
1 8.K., pp. 9, 20 and 21. =“ VisesaSa bhedopratinidhih na bhedah”’, etc.
2 Cf. Baladeva’s doctrine of Viésega and his consequent doctrine of the identity of the Lord and His attributes and body. Seo below.
3 $.K., p. 7. Vide Baladeva, below.
4 Op. cit., pp. 5-8. 5 Op. cit., p. ).
6 Op. cit., p. 14. Cf. V.R.M. See above.
136 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
(ii) Criticism of the Advaita doctrine of the jiva. A. Criticism of Pratibimba-vada.
He criticises the Pratibimba-vida exactly after Purusottama. He points out that the statement that the soul is a reflection of Brahman is to be understood as denoting figuratively that it is dependent on Brahman just as the reflection is dependent on the object reflected.1 ~
B. Criticism of Avaccheda-vdda.
He here follows Devacarya exactly.2
(c) THE ^+. (i) Its nature, ete.
The acit, as pointed out above, is of three kinds, prakrti or matter, kala or time and karma or action.2 He accepts the usual Simkhya theory of creation.4
(ii) Criticism of the Advaita view of the jagat. A. Criticism of Adhydsa-vada.
The doctrine that the world ‘of plurality is falsely superimposed ‘on Pure Consciousness or Brahman, just as blue colour is falsely superimposed on the sky and is set aside by knowledge—is not tenable. Nothing can be superimposed on what is not an object of knowledge. The blue colour can be attributed to the sky because the sky is an object of knowledge—but Brahman is never so, according to the Advaitins. Further, what kind of knowledge effects the negation here—pure knowledge (suddha) or knowledge of particular objects (vrtti-riipa)? Not the first, because it being eternal, there will be an eternal negation of adhy4sa, i.e. there will be no cosmic illusion at all. Not the second, because if it be real, then Dualism must be admitted ; if it be‘unreal, then it cannot effect the negation. More- over, it can by no means be said that the cosmic illusion is due to ajfiana. Does this ajfiana inhere in Brahman or in the individual soul? Brahman, who is pure .and eternal consciousness, cannot evidently be the substratum of ajfiana. Nor can the soul be the
1 §.K,, pp. 6-6. Cf. V.R.M. See above. 2 See above. > ¢.K,, p. 221. 4 Op. cit., pp. 144ff.
RELATION BETWEEN BRAHMAN, SOUL, AND WORLD 137
substratum of ajfiana, since it itself is due to the ajfiana.1 Further, is ajfiana real or unreal? It cannot be real, for then it cannot be set aside, and it cannot be unreal, because that will contradict such feelings “I am ignorant”’, etc., which prove the existence of ajfiana. If it be said that ajfiina is neither real nor unreal, then we point out that there is no proof of such an object which is neither real nor unreal. A pot is real, a sky-flower is unreal, but we never know something which is both. Further, on the doctrine of strict dualism, there can be no teacher of that doctrine, for the teacher must either be aware of this truth or not. If ho is aware of the truth that everything is Brahman, then evidently he cannot instruct his disciple who is identical with himself, and if he is not aware of this truth, he cannot evidently be a teacher.?
(d) RELATION BETWEEN BRAHMAN, THE CIT AND THE ACIT.
Harivyasadeva criticises, firstly, the Advaita view, as shown above. Secondly, he criticises also the Visistadvaita view, viz. that the sentient and the non-sentient constitute the attributes and the body of the Lord, yet are different from Him, otherwise the defects of the latter will pertain to the former. He points out against this view that there can be no real difference between the Lord and His qualities and body—as shown above—and that it is after all un- necessary to take the sentient and the non-sentient to be the body of the Lord, since everything, being under His control and pervaded by Him, is of the form of Him.8 Thirdly, he criticises the view that the Lord and the sentient and the non-sentient are non-different, yet different. He points out that if there be non-difference between Brahman and the universe, the former will be contaminated by all the faults and defects of the latter, and the latter will be endowed with all the supreme excellences of the former.4 He concludes, therefore, that the real fact is that there is an essential difference between them, and takes Nimbarka as the representative of pure Dualism.5 This, of course, is a strange assertion on the part
1 Cf. Sri. B., 1.1.1. Seo below under Purugottamaprasida Vaignava for further details. 2 §.K., pp. 248. 8 Op. cit., p. 27. 4 Op. cit., pp. 27ff. 5 Op. cit., pp. 22ff. ‘“‘Nimb&rkasya éuddham dvaitam evaébhimatam”’, p. 22. Vide also Santi-patha at the end of §.K., p. 39:— “Brahma satyam jagat satyam satyam bhedam api bruvan. Nimbarko Bhagavan vidbhih satyavadi nigadyate.”
138 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
of a follower of Nimbarka, seeing that Nimbarka himself never supported
pure Dualism, but a doctrine of natural difference-non-difference.1 This goes to show that Harivydsadeva was deeply influenced
by the Madhva and Caitanya schools of thought, as noted above also.
(¢) Moxsa.
Bondage consists in turning one’s face away from the Lord (Bhagavad-bahir-mukha), while release consists in turning one’s face towards the Lord (Bhagavat-sanmukha).2 So long as the soul is averse to the Lord, it remains connected with matter, i.e. with two kinds of bodies—subtle and gross. The subtle body accompanies the soul from birth to birth, while the gross body is created anew at the beginning of each creation and destroyed again. But when the soul comes to have a real devotion for the Lord, it gets rid of both these kinds of bodies.8
There are two kinds of salvation—aisvaryyananda-pradhana& and sevananda-pradhanaé. The former consists in enjoying the lordship, etc. given to the freed by the Lord, the latter consists in abiding in eternal bliss by serving the Lord alone. The former is desired by the devotees who desire to enjoy objects given by the Lord, the latter by those who desire the Lord and the Lord alone. To them the service of the Lord is the source of the most supreme bliss and not a source of pain, etc. as ordinary servitude is.4
Salvation may be, again, either gradual (krama-mukti) or imme- diate (sadyomukti). This also is a new point brought out. Hari- vyasadeva points out that some devotees who perform actions in a pure and unselfish spirit, first attain heaven, the Svarga-loka, and suc- cessively higher and higher regions, till they reach the highest, viz. the Satya-loka, the world of Brahma. There, when their fetters are completely broken, they, on the dissolution of that world, attain the Brahma-loka. This is krama-mukti. Some devotees, on the other hand, have their fetters broken at once through devotion, and the practice of hearing and the rest, and their subtle bodies are at once destroyed as a result and they go straight to the world of Brahman. This is sadyomukti. Both these kinds of devotees have to travel through the path of gods (Deva-yina-pantha) 5 to reach the region of Brahman.®
1 See above. 2 $.K., pp. 7, 11. 3 Op. cit., p. 7. 4 Op. cit., ए. 13. 5 See pp. 60-61 of the thesis, Part 1. 6 §.K., p. 12. Cf. Baladeva, below.
MEANS TO SALVATION 139
(f) THe sipHanas.
1. The first essential prerequisite of salvation is sat-sanga or company of the good. By resorting to good and holy men, one desirous of salvation comes to realise the real nature of the human body and the soul.
2. This knowledge gives rise to a feeling of humbleness (dainya) in him and destroys his pride of knowledge, riches, etc.
3. Then there arises in him an intense reverence (Sraddha) for the Lord Krsna, and he desires to dedicate himself completely to Him (prapatti).
4. This reverence for the Lord leads him to the gravana, manana, etc.
5. Thereupon, the Lord being pleased with his humbleness and reverence, takes pity on him and generates the spirit of self-surrender in him.
6. Finally, the grace of the Lord generates a supreme devotion in him (bhakti), consisting in a special love for the Lord! and it leads to salvation.
Thus: Sat-sanga—>Dainya and Garva-hani+Sraddha and Pra- patti-pravrtti+Sravana, etc.—> Bhagavad-anugraha-> Prapatti> Bhakti->-Mukti2
Self-surrender has six parts.3 Devotion, too, is of two kinds— viz, prema-visesa-laksana,—which, as pointed out above, arises from the grace of the Lord, and is the best kind of devotion and the best means, and sidhana-rapika, which arises through resorting to the Good and the Holy, and through the practice of Sravana and the rest. This second kind of devotion leads to the first and is of two kinds— viz. vidhi-bhakti and ruci-bhakti.4 The first kind of devotion (viz. prema-visesa-laksana) has five different modes, viz. Santa, dasya, sakhya, vatsalya and aujjvalya or madhuryya, typical examples of which are, respectively, the devotions of Vamadeva and others; Uddhava and others; Sridima, Sudama and Arjuna, etc.; Devaki, Vasudeva, etc.; Radha and others.5 This conception of the five-fold 78888 or sentiments is a new point brought out, and distinctly borrowed from the Caitanya school of thought.
1 Cf. the meaning of the word “bhakti” in Nimbarka and Purugottama. See above.
9 §.K., p. 37. 3 Cf. V.R.M. See above.
५ Cf. Baladeva. See below. 5 $.K., p. 37.
140 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
There are cortain things which prevent the attainment of the Lord, viz. the ten kinds of sins against the Name (némaparddha) and the thirty-two kinds of sins of Service (sevaparidha),! and all these are to be avoided with care by one who desires salvation.”
We conclude, therefore, Harivyasadeva was deeply influenced by the Caitanya movement? and introduced many new ideas to his sect from that school of thought.
IX. Purugottamaprasada Vaignava I. (1) LirE AND DATE.
Purusottamaprasada Vaisnava is reputed to be Svabhidevacirya, the immediate disciple of Harivyasadeva and thirty-second after Nimbarka.4 This seems to be supported by one of the opening verses in his work, where he says that he is making a collection of all scriptural truths in that work by means of the knowledge which he has gained through the grace of Harivyadsadeva.5 This suggests that he was the immediate disciple of Harivyasadeva and directly instructed by him.
Nothing, unfortunately, is known of his life and date. His work supplies evidence of his great scholarship.
(2) Works.
He wrote a copious commentary, styled “ Sruty-anta-kalpa-valli ४ on Nimbarka’s “‘ Saviéesa-nirvisesa-Sri-Krsna-stava-raj a’,
(3) Doorring.
The chief merit of Purusottamaprasada is his very elaborate and scholarly criticism of the Advaita view, with which he seems to be concerned chiefly. One cannot but be amazed at his wonderful power of subtle argumentation. As regards his general doctrine, he
1 Cf. Baladeva. See below. 2 §.K., p. 39. 3 In our list of preceptors, Harivyaésadeva is second after Keéavakaémirin and hence must have flourished after Caitanya.” 4 Preface to 8.K., p. 6. ८ §.K., Mangala-patha, Sloka 5, p. 1:— ५4 Sri-Harivyasadevacérya-karuna-labdha-buddhina प Vidugim kautukartham vai kriyate éastra-samgrahah.”
THREE REALITIES 141
accepts the usual tenets of the sect and often refers us back to Purusottama,! Devacarya,? and Sundarabhatta.8
(a) Brahman.
The Highest Reality—Brahman, Krsna and Hari—is an abode of all auspicious qualities and free from all inauspicious and material ones.4 The attributes‘and powers of the Lord are natural—parts and parcels of His very nature, and their denial, therefore, amounts to a denial of the very nature of the Lord. Qualities and powers may be of two kinds, natural and adventitious, e.g. the natural qualities of fire and water are heat and cold respectively, while their adventitious qualities are smoke and foam respectively. Now, we can say that fire is without smoke, or that water is without foam, but we can never say that fire is not hot, or water is not cold. The same is the case here.5
As for the rest of the characteristics of the Lord, Purusottama follows others exactly. He points out, exactly like Purusottama and others, that the Lord embodies Himself as various incarnations, yet Himself remains full.6 The birth, work, quality, form and youth of the Lord are non-earthly.? His birth means His voluntary appearance on earth as the various incarnations throughout the various ages— viz. as Rama, Krsna, Nrsimha, etc. His works consist in His creation, maintenance and destruction of the Universe, the protection of the good and the annihilation of the bad—the killing of Ravana, Sisupala, etc., the playful devices in Vrndavana, the stealing of cream, etc. His qualities are knowledge, etc. on the ono hand and affection, etc. on the other. His forms are the various forms assumed by Him and His youth is His beauty, grace and charm.®
(b) The cit and the acit.
There is no special section regarding the nature, etc. of the soul and the universe in “Sruty-anta-kalpa-valli”. The main topic being the Lord—the soul and the universe are discussed here and there only in connection with the discussions of the Lord’s nature, qualities, etc. He brings out no new point here, but exactly follows Purusottama.®
1 Exg., 8.K., pp. 4, 16, 34, 128. 2 E.g., op. cit., p. 44. 3 E.g., op. cit., pp. 32, 42. ५ §.K., pp. 13-14. 5 Op. cit., p. 15. 6 Op. cit., p. 4. 7 Vide Gita, 4.9; 11.5. 8 §.K,, p. 34.
9 Op. cit., pp. 31, 37-38, 41, etc. Cf. V.R.M. See above.
142 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
(c) Relation between Brahman, the cit and the acit.
Here, also, he follows Purusottama exactly.1
(d) Mokega.
Here, also, no new point is brought out.
(e) The sddhanas.
Like Purusottama he speaks of five sidhanas, work, knowledge, etc. and defines them exactly after him.2 Like others he emphasises the grace of the Lord as the direct cause of salvation.8 He points out that the manifestation of the Lord’s grace is of two kinds—viz. sopadhika and nirupadhika. The first is the grace which descends on those who pray to the Lord for the sake of attaining relief from pain, etc. Itis due to particular sidhanas resorted to by particular devotees wishing for particular ends, e.g. the manifestation of the Lord’s grace to Draupadi, Dhruva, etc. The second kind of manifestation happens in the case of those devotees who do not pray to the Lord for any particular end. It is due to the will of the Lord, as in the case of Prahlada, Uddhava.and the rest. Hence it is that although a great many people see the Lord when He descends on earth as an incarnation, yet all of them do not become free, since they are not favoured by Him.‘
(f) The destiny of man. Here Purusottama follows Nimbarka exactly, viz. :—
1. The knowers go to the world of Brahman through the path of Gods, not to return.
2. The pious workers go to heaven, the world of the moon, through the path of Fathers, to return once more.
3. The sinners go to hell to suffer terrible sufferings.5
(9) Epistemology.
Here, also, he follows Purusottama exactly.®
1 $.K., pp. 27, 30-32, ete. Vide V.R.M. See above.
2 Op. cit., ए. 119. Cf. V.R.M. See above.
3 Op. cit., p. 142. * Op. cit., p. 38. 5 Op. cit., pp. 132, 141ff. See above.
6 Op. cit., pp. 91-94 Vide V.R.M. See above.
CRITICISM OF NIRVISESA-VADA 143 (h) Criticism of rival theories. (i) Criticism of rival theories regarding Brahman.
(A) Criticism of Nirvisega-vdda.
Brahman cannot be pure distinctionless knowledge, for there are numerous passages in Scripture which designate Brahman as possessed of attributes. It cannot be said that the texts which designate Him as attributes are of a greater force than those which do not, for then we have to admit that the text “Non-existence alone was in the beginning” (Tait., 2.7) is of a greater force than the text “Existence alone was in the beginning” (Chand., 6.2.1). Moreover, the nirguna-texts do not conduce to salvation, e.g. the text “When the scer sees the Golden Person”’, etc. (Mund., 3.1.3) shows that the saguna-texts lead to salvation. The text “Sakgi ceta kevala nirguna”’ (Svet., 6.11) does not deny any and overy quality to the Lord, but particular qualities only, viz. material and earthly qualities. If it be objected that the abovo text denies all qualities in general and not particular qualities only, then we point out that general statements are often modified by particular statements, e.g. the general statement “One should sacrifice animals’ really means “One should sacrifice goats”. So 18 the case here. And, if tho text doos really deny any and every quality to tho Lord, then how are you to explain the term ‘‘siksi’’, for ‘‘siksi’? means one who sees, i.e. one who is the substratum of the quality of knowledge and according to the Advaitins, Brahman is not 80.1
Also why should Scripture first ascribe various qualities to Brahman with great care, and then deny any and every quality to Him, thereby contradicting itself and behaving like a mad man? Further, if Brahman be absolutely free from distinctions, He cannot be the object of Vedantic discussions even, and this being so, Scripture becomes meaningless.?
Also, if the qualities of the not-self are to be falsely superimposed on the self, then the latter must of necessity be possessed of some qualities which leads it to bo mistaken for the non-self, and some again which leads it to be recognised in its real character.®
18K, pp. 53-54. 2 Op. cit., p. 54. See above for further details. 3 Op. cit., p. 55. See KeSavakasmirin above.
144 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Finally, what is the proof of such a Brahman, devoid of all distinctions? Neither perception, nor inference, nor even word which expresses a quality or an action or a universal. So we conclude that Brahman cannot be devoid of distinctions.1
(B) Criticism of Aprameya-vdda.
Here he repeats the argument of Purusottama, viz. :— Whatever is outside the sphere of all knowledge is‘ tuccha, like the sky-flower, Brahman is outside the sphere of all knowledge, Therefore Brahman is tuccha.?
(C) Criticism of Adhydsa-vdda.
The view that ajfidna is illusorily superimposed on Brahman is absolutely untenable, for the very existence of ajiiina is untenable.
Thus, first, what is the aéraya or substratum of ajfidna,—pure consciousness, ic. Brahman; the omniscient, 1.6. Iévara; or the individual soul? .It cannot be said that pure consciousness is the substratum of ajfiina, because just as light and darkness cannot co-exist, so knowledge and nescience, being mutually exclusive, cannot co-exist. Ajfidna is that which is put to an end by knowledge, but if the two may co-exist, then it cannot be said that knowledge contradicts ajfiana and this amounts to a denial of the very nature of knowledge. This difficulty is not removed if it be pointed out that ajfidna, though not contradicted by pure knowledge, is negatived by vrtti-jfiana or knowledge of particular objects,—for according to the Advaitins, vrtti- jfiana, because of being due to the antahkarana, or the internal organ, is not real knowledge, but figurative, and what is aupacarika can never accomplish what the real object does, e.g. if we say “The sacrificial post is the sun’’, then evidently the sacrificial post, the figurative sun, can never remowe darkness as the real sun cando. Also, if knowledge be not opposed to ajfidna, then it must cease to be jiiina and be non- sentient like pots, etc. The fact is that jfiina and ajiidna are mutually opposed and hence the latter can never inhere in the former.’
1 $.K., p. 55. See under Purusottama above for details. 2 Op. cit., p. 55. See V.R.M. See above. 3 Op. cit., p. 111.
CRITICISM OF ADHYASA-VADA 145
It may be urged here that just as the owl is in complete darkness in spite of the sun’s bright rays all around, there being no opposition between the sunlight which is real and the darkness experienced by the owl, which is unreal, so there is no opposition between the real jfiana and the unreal ajfiina so that the one may be the substratum of the other. To this we reply: Although the sunlight is not opposed to unreal darkness, yet there is real darkness too besides this unreal darkness and it is opposed to this real darkness. Hence although the sunlight may be the substratum of one kind of darkness, viz. unreal darkness, yet it is actually opposed to real darkness, and so its being the substratum of unreal darkness does not contradict its real nature as opposed to darkness. But in the case under hand there is no other rea] ajiiina, opposed to jfidna, and hence if jfiina be not opposed to this ajfidéna, we have to say that jfidna is not opposed to ajfiadna at all. Further, the Advaitins cannot say that ajfidna is unreal, for in that case the individual soul, which is really of the form of bliss, must be said to be subject to unreal miseries only, while the fact is that pains, miseries, otc. of the soul are very real, so long as its bondage continues. Further, perceptions like “I am ignorant’’—which prove the existence of real ajfiana—must be regarded as false on this view. If it be urged that no harm is done if the perception “I am ignorant” be taken as false, since this perception, like other perceptions: “I am fat’’, etc. is after all nothing but a false perception, brought about by the false superimposition of the body on the soul or of the ahamkara on the consciousness, the substratum of ajfiana,—then we point out that the very allegation of the falsity of the perception “I am ignorant” presupposes consciousness as the substratum of ajfidna,—the point we are disputing about. Also the perception “I am ignorant”’ cannot be false, being not due to dogas (as any illusory perception 18).1
Finally, is the ajfiina of the pure consciousness natural or due to limiting adjuncts? Ifthe former, then like its other natural qualities of bliss, etc. it can never be negated. If the latter, then what is the limiting adjunct here? If the ajfiana be such an adjunct, then there will arise a logical fallacy, since ajfiana cannot itself be its own adjunct. If, again, something else be the limiting adjunct, then there will arise another logical fallacy or arguing in a circle, for this something else is due to ajfidna (all duality being due to ajfiins) and ajfiina itself is due to that something else (which is its limiting adjunct).?
1 8.K., p. 112. 2 Op. cit., p. 114. 70
146 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Hence, the view that pure consciousness is the substratum of ajfiana cannot be maintained in any way.
The omniscient Iévara too cannot be the substratum of ajiiana. To say that the omniscient is the substratum of ajfiina is just as absurd as to say that the sun is the substratum of darkness. It may be argued that omniscience itself is due to avidyaé, whether it means being a knower (pramatrtva), since the self is never a knower, but pure knowledge; or it means knowing one’s own nature (svaripa-jiiapti), since the real nature of the self which is absolutely unassociated can become an object of knowledge, only through avidyaé. In answer, we point out that to say that the Omniscient Being is a product of ajiiana is to talk like a.man without sense, since only one who is devoid of all avidya can ever be an Omniscient Being. Also, the qualities of being a knower (pramatrtva) and self-knowledge (savripa-jfiapti) are never based on avidyaé. To say that the self is unassociated simply means that it is not touched by any faults and not that it is never an object of knowledge.!
If it be said that even if there can be no connection of Iévara with avidyé, yet there may very well be connection between Iévara and Maya, the latter being the lilopakarana or an implement of sport of the former,—then we ask: What exactly is meant by the term ‘maya’ here? Does it mean a particular kind of ajfiana, or a particular kind of power belonging to gods and the rest of creating fire, water and other real objects, without the aid of external implements, or the power of a magician to show non-existing objects? Not the first, because as ajfidna in general is not possible in Isvara—as shown above,—no particular kind of ajiiana can be possible in Him, and ajfiana is never seen to be an implement of sport. Nor the second, for that goes against the Advaita view and supports ours. Nor the third, because there being no souls to be deluded, no deluding is possible. Further, if this power be true, then there will be no Non-dualism; if imagined by the soul, then it will cease to delude it; if imagined by Iévara, then Iévara will be subject to ajfiina.?
Finally, the soul cannot be the substratum of ajfidna, because it itself is due to ajfiaina.®
Hence, ajiiana has no aéraya or substratum.
1 $.K., p. 144. 2 Op. cit., p. 114. 3 Op. cit. IoB
ORITICISM OF ADHYASA-VADA 147
Secondly, there is no vigaya or object of ajfidna. It may be said that pure consciousness alone can be the object of ajfidna, since every- thing else is itself due to ajfiana and is non-sentient and as such non- manifest, so that it cannot again be veiled up by ajfiana, i.e. be its object. Here we ask: What exactly is meant by this veiling up of the pure consciousness? Does it mean the disappearance or lopa of the self-manifested naturé of Brahman, or its non-origin or anutpatti ? Neither,—because what is ever-existent can never have lopa or anut- patti. Also, if there be no manifestation of Brahman, there can be no manifestation of anything else. It cannot be said that this veiling up of Brahman means that Brahman, though having manifestation, is not connected with any object, for (according to the Advaitins) pure consciousness does not refer to any object. It cannot be said that this veiling up of Brahman means any hindrance to the act of manifestation, because (according to the Advaitins) there is nothing besides pure consciousness, so that there can be no obstacle. It cannot be said that the veiling up of Brahman means having such perceptions like ‘“‘Brahman is not”, “Brahman does not manifest Himself’’, because whether such perceptions be recognitions or mere affirmations, in either case, such percepts are the result of the veiling up of Brahman and cannot, therefore, be the cause of the veiling up of Brahman. On this view, since there is no perceptions, etc. during deep sleep, there must be absence of veiling during that period. It cannot be said that the veiling up of Brahman means the absence of such perceptions: ‘‘Brahman is’’, ‘““Brahman manifests itself’’, etc., for if such perceptions be recognitions, then at present the individual soul has the recognition of its own nature and therefore the recognition of Brahman (the soul being identical with Brahman), and as such there can be no veiling up of Brahman during tho state of mundane existence. On the other hand, thero is no recognition of Brahman during the state of salvation (the soul being not a perceiver during salvation according to the Advaitins), and no withdrawal of the veil. If, again, such perceptions be simple affirmations, then also, the freed soul not being a perceiver, Brahman must continue to be veiled during salvation as well. It cannot be said that the veiling up of Brahman means such perceptions like “Brahman exists’ and absence of such perceptions like “Brahman does not exist’’, for these perceptions themselves are the result of the veiling up of Brahman (since according to the Advaitins the soul is not really a perceiver, but appears to be so through illusory superimposition). It cannot be said that the manifestation of
148 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Brahman is real, while His non-manifestation is non-real, being brought about by ajfiana which is mithya& and hence both manifestation and non-manifestation of Brahman are possible, there being no opposition between the true manifestation and the false non-manifestation,—for evidently the two are opposed, or the one (viz. manifestation) cannot negate the other (viz. non-manifestation). It cannot be said also that the self-manifested Being is one who, though not knowable, is yet perceived to be free from all contradictions, and that the veiling up of this self-manifested being means the pragabhava! of that fréedom from contradiction,—for Brahman is free from all contradictions right from the very beginning and cannot therefore become so after the removal of any veil or ajfiana. Also, during the state of mundane existence there is only pragabhava of this manifestation or perception of Brahman as free from all contradictions, but during the state of salvation, there is an absolute destruction of it, since the freed soul is never a per- ceiver according to the Advaitins. But is it not absolutely absurd to say that there is no non-veiling of Brahman during salvation even ? Also, the pot, inside which a lamp has been put, does not really destroy the light of the lamp, but simply covers it up from some one else. Similarly, the Advaita doctrine is that ajiiéna does not really destroy the manifestation of Brahman, but simply veils it up for the time being. But to veil it up means to veil it up from some one else, and who is that some one from whom शक्या veils Brahman? It cannot be the individual soul, for it itself is due to the veiling up of Brahman by ajfiana.
Thus we conclude that the notion of the veiling up of Brahman by ajfiina cannot be logically defined and hence that pure consciousness cannot be the object or vigaya of ajfidna.2
Nor can the soul’s distinction from the body, etc., the soul’s not being an enjoyer, etc., and non-distinction of Brahman, absence of a second, or the soul which is one without a second, can be the visaya or object of ajfiana,—for if these be merely of the nature of the soul, then, 98 shown above, they can never be the object of ajfiana; if they be different from the soul, then there will be no Non-dualism, as held by the Advaitins; and if they be due to ajfidna, then there will arise the logical fallacy of mutual dependence. It cannot be said that although they are identical with the soul, the self-manifested, yet they
2 The pragabhava of an object is its non-existence prior to its actual existence, ॐ 8.K., pp. 116-118,
CRITICISM OF ADHYASA-VADA 149
can remain veiled, due to their imaginary difference from it,—for as shown above, this imaginary difference itself is not possible without the prior veiling up of Brahman.
Hence we conclude that ajiidna has no visaya or object.
Thirdly, it cannot be said that ajfiina is something imagined, for there is no one to imagine it. Thus, Brahman cannot be the imaginer here, because Brahman, according to the Advaitins, is inactive and therefore cannot do anything. Further, in that case, Brahman, the imaginer, being permanent, the imagination itself must be so, i.e. ajfiana must be permanent, so that no salvation would be ever possible. Nor can ajfiana itself be the imaginer here, for one cannot imagine one’s own self. Further, ajfiana too is inactive like Brahman and therefore cannot be an imaginer. Nor can Brahman and ajfidna together be the imaginer here, because that will lead to the logical fallacy of mutual dependence. Nor can someone else be the imaginer here, for there is nothing else, according to the Advaitins, besides these two. And, if the existence of another ajfiina be admitted as the imaginer of ajfidna, then that ajiiina will need another ajfiana as its imaginer, and that another and so on to infinity. Thus, there can be no imagination of ajfiéna and hence no existence of ajiiina.?
Fourthly, ajfiéna cannot be said to be mithya, for no logical definition of ‘mithyatva’ is possible. It cannot be said that the mithya is what is separated from the real or the sat,—for a real object itself is separated from a different real object and must become mithya on this definition. It cannot be said that the mithyatis what is not the locus of the quality of existence or sattva»—for‘then, Brahman who, according to the Advaitins, is not the substratum of any quality, must become mithyd. It cannot be said that mithya is what is not the object of any pramana, or means of knowledge, for the mithyad silver is an object of knowledge, viz. ‘“‘This is a nacre and not a silver’’. It cannot be said that the mithya is what is never the direct object of any positive knowledge (and not of the negative roundabout knowledge as quoted above),—for the world, which is mithya according to the Advaitins, is the object of positive knowledge. It cannot be said the mithya is what is without existence, for what is without existence can never be perceived, as the mithy& world is. It cannot be said that the mithya is what is an object of error, for Brahman, as the locus of error, is the object of error. It cannot be said that the mithya is what is the
1 §.K., p. 118. 2 Op. cit., pp. 55-56.
150 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
object of that knowledge which corrects an illusion (baédhaka-jfiana, viz. ‘This is a nacre and not a silver”),—for Brahman is the object of such a knowledge. It cannot be said that the mithyé is what is capable of being negated by knowledge,—for a prior piece of knowledge may very well be set aside by a later piece of knowledge, but that does not mean that the former is mithyaé. It cannot be said that the mithya is what is absolutely absent from the substratum to which it is (falsely) attributed,—for the absolute absence of an attributed, 1.6. unreal, connection is different from that of a non-attributed, i.e. real one. Finally, it cannot be said that the mithya is avidya or an effect of avidya, for the distinction between Brahman and the individual soul, for example, 18 mithya, according to the Advaitins, yet is not an offect of avidya, being beginningless or anadi.
Hence we conclude that no definition of mithyatva is possible.1
Also, what is the proof of mithyatva? Not perception, for one can perceive only what is present and near at hand and not what is negated in the past, present and future (as avidya is according to the Advaitins). Nor inference, because inference is based on perception; nor, finally, Scripture, because none would admit that Scripture is concerned with establishing ajfidna.2.
Thus, there is neither any definition nor any proof of mithyatva. Hence, ajfidna cannot be said to be mithya.
Fifthly, what exactly is meant by the term ‘‘ajfiina”’?? What is the meaning of the prefix “nafi’’ here? There are six possible meanings of the prefix “nafi”’,—viz. tat-sidréya or similarity; tad- abhava or absence; tadanyatva or otherness; tad-alpata or littleness; apraéastya or worthlessness; and virodha or contradiction. Now, it cannot be said that ajfiana is what is similar to knowledge. Two things are said to be similar, when though different, they possess many similar qualities, e.g. ‘‘Abrahmana Kgatriya”’ means a Ksatriya who is similar to a Brihmana in many qualities. But ajfiana does not possess any quality or property of jfiana. It cannot be said that ajfiana is the absence of jitana, for if ajfidana be something non-existence then evidently, it cannot be a cause. It cannot be said that ajfiina is other than 10818, for that implies difference, just as the expression “ Abrahmana Sudra”’ implies a Sudra who is different from a Bréhmana, and in that case there will be two realities—jfidna and ajfiina and no Non-dualism. It cannot be said that ajfiana is little knowledge, for
1 8.7, p. 56. 2 Op. ctt., p. 56.
ORITICISM OF ADHYASA-VADA 161
then it will fall under the category of jiiana, a little knowledge being knowledge all the same, just as the word “Anudari kanya&”’ means a girl who has a belly, though a small one. It cannot be said that ajfiana means worthless knowledge, for then too it will fall under the category of jfiana, just as the word “apandita’’ means one who is a pandita, though not a good one. Finally, it cannot be said that ajfiina is opposed to jfiana, for just as the word “asura’’ means one who is opposed to the Suras (or gods), so here too, jfiana and ajfidna must be on a par with each other and co-exist,—which is not admitted.
Thus we conclude that no etymological meaning of the term “ajfiana”’ is possible.1
Thus we find that no substratum, object, imaginer and etymo- logical meaning of ajfiina are possible. Hence the very existence of ajfiana is not tenable.2
And if there can be an ajfiana, there can be no adhyasa or super- imposition of ajfiina on Brahman.
Further, is that on which ajiiéna is superimposed (1.6. the adhisthaéna) of the nature of knowledge and opposed to ajiiaéna and not opposed to it? It cannot be opposed to ajfiina, for there can be no mutual superimposition or adhyasa between two opposed things, e.g. & silver is falsely superimposed on a nacre, to which it is similar, and not on a rope to which it is opposed.4 It also cannot be non- opposed to ajfidina, for then there can evidently be no cessation of ajfidna. Also to say that jfiana is not opposed to ajiiina is, as pointed out above, simply ridiculous. It cannot be said that although svaripa- 1808 or knowledge of the self, is not opposed to ajiiina, yet pramana- janyajiiana, i.e, vrtti-jfiana or knowledge gained through perception, etc., is opposed to ajfidna and negates it, for then jfiana and ajfiina will come to be concerned with different objects. Thus, what is the object of this vrtti-jfidna? Is it pure Brahman or qualified Brahman ? Not the first, for the Advaitins do not admit that Brahman is ever the object of vrtti-jfiana. Nor the second, for then, as pointed out above, jfiana and ajfiana will be concerned with different objects, and there- fore the former will not be able to negate the latter. Thus, the ajfidna regarding a pillar cannot be removed by jiiana regarding a pot,
1 §.K., pp. 4-5.
2 See below “Criticism of Pratibimba-vada” for further. criticiams, viz. that no definition and proof of ajfidna too are possible.
8 §.K., p. 56. « See above.
162 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
but only by jiiana regarding the pillar. Similarly, the jiana regarding qualified Brahman cannot negate the ajfiéna regarding pure Brahman. Thus we conclude that Brahman cannot be the substratum of the superimposition.1
Further, if ajfiana be superimposed on Brahman, then does it veil the very nature of Brahman or His qualities? Not the first, for then the entire universe will be dark; nor the second, because Brahman has no qualities according to the Advaitins. It cannot be said that although Brahman is devoid of qualities, yet ajfiina may very well veil the bliss-portion of Brahman, while the knowledge- and the existence-portions remain unveiled so that the world does not become dark,—for the Advaitins do not admit of any qualities, like bliss, etc. Nor can it be said that bliss, etc. are not qualities of Brahman, but portions of His very nature,—for Brahman, the form. less, can have no parts. If He does, then He will be mithya like pots and the rest who possess parts. Thus we conclude that there can be no superimposition of ajfiana on Brahman, i.e. Brahman cannot be the substratum of adhyasa.2
Further, Brahman being absolutely devoid of qualities and distinctions cannot be the substratum of adhydsa, for such a sub- stratum, as shown above,® must have certain qualities which leads, on the one hand, to the superimposition and on the other, negates it and Brahman, according to the Advaitins, is absolutely devoid of qualities.‘
Further, is the nature of pure Brahman veiled by ajiiana or not? Not the first, for then Brahman cannot be the substratum; nor the second, for then there being the manifestation of the very nature of Brahman, there can be no adhyasa.®
Thus we conclude that Brahman cannot be the substratum of adhyasa. And hence there can be no substratum of adhyasa at all, because, according to the Advaitins, there is nothing besides Brahman Hence, there being no substratum of adhyasa, the adhyasa itself is not possible.
Finally, there is no one who can superimpose or falsely attribute ajfiana on Brahman. Attribution always implies one who attributes, but neither Brahman, nor ajfiana, nor someone else can do so. Hence there being no one to effect the adhyasa, adhyasa itself 18 not possible.6
18.K., p. 57. 3 Op. cit., p. 57. $ See above. ५ 8.K., pp. 57-58. 5 Op. cit., p. 58 6 Op. cit., ए. 57.
ORITICISM OF THE DOCTRINE OF CAUSALITY 153
Thus, we find that there can be no adhyaésa—or superimposition— of ajfiina on Brahman, because the very existence of ajfidna, which is superimposed, is not possible, because no substratum of the super- imposition is possible, and because no effector of the superimposition is possible.
` (2) Criticism of the Advaita view that Brahman is the Upddana-karana of the world.
Our view is of course that Brahman is both the material and nimitta, efficient, cause of the world. But consistently with their views, the Advaitins cannot hold that Brahman is the material cause of the world,—for what exactly do they mean when they call Brahman the material cause? It may be said that just as two threads, twisted together, are the cause of a rope, so Brahman is the material cause of the world as qualified by maya, or as possessed of the power of maya, or as the substratum of maya! On the first view, just as two threads are the cause of the rope, so Brahman and maya together aro the material cause of the world, while Brahman Himself, not associated with maya, is changeless. On the second view, Brahman is the cause through the contamination of maya, while Brahman, not so con- taminated, is changeless. On the third view, just as the fibre is the material cause of a piece of cloth through the thread, so Brahman is the material cause of the world through maya, while Brahman without maya is changeless.
To this we reply: The first view is untenable, for just as both the threads have to undergo transformation in order to produce the rope, so both Brahman and maya must be transformed into the form of the world, so that Brahman cannot be said to be changeless. Also, if Brahman, the real, be the material cause of the world, the world too must bo real, just as‘a piece of cloth, made of white and not white threads, is white. It cannot be said that the world may be argued to be real, only if its material cause is solely real, and not a mixture of the real (Brahman) and the unreal (maya),—for in that case, the world which is anirvacaniya, according to the Advaitins, must have a solely anirvacaniya cause, but there is no such thing as an anirvacaniya material cause. `
The second view also is untenable. If Brahman be the cause, when in contact with maya, then He must be like clay, etc., which
1 Maya-vidistha, or maya-Sakti-vat, or mayaéraya.
154 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
are also causes. Also, if it be held that Brahman, as contaminated by maya, undergées a real transformation, then evidently the world can- not be said to be a vivarta or illusory transformation. If it be said that the world is a real transformation of Brahman, contaminated by maya, while it is an illusory transformation of the pure Brahman, then we point out that in that case there must be attributed changes in the pure Brahman, and what is really changeless can have no attributed changes even. ,
The third view also is untenable. We find that the fibre is the material cause of the thread and the thread again is the material cause of the cloth, and in this way alone the fibre is the material cause of the cloth through the thread. But this does not evidently hold good in the case of Brahman and maya, for Brahman is not the material cause of maya, as the fibre is of the thread, so that it cannot be said that Brahman is the material cause of the world through maya. It cannot be said that Brahman is the material cause of maya in the sense of being the substratum of the cosmic illusion, for that Brahman cannot be such a substratum has already been shown,! and further, it is not possible to define a material cause as being the substratum of error, for clay, etc., which are material causes, are not so, while nacré, etc., which are so, are not material causes.2
The same arguments go to refute the view that vivarta means assuming another unreal form, parinaéma means assuming another real form, while upidanatva (or being the material cause) means assuming another form (real or unreal) and hence Brahman can be the material cause in the sense of having illusory transformation, while ajfiana too is the material cause as having real transformation. The Advaitins themselves hold that what is mithyé must have a mithya material cause, for if the cause be real, the effect must also be so, and hence the Advaitins themselves deny that the real can have any unreal form, since this would imply the discarding of the very nature of the real. Hence the conclusion cannot but be that the real Brahman can have no vivarta, or unreal form. Also, if Brahman were to assume an unreal form, then Brahman, as pointed out many times before,’ must possess certain qualities which leads Him to assume (i.e. be mistaken as) that particular unreal form, instead of any other. But Brahman has no qualities according to the Advaitins. Hence the world cannot be an illusory transformation of Brahman. Nor is the world a real
1 See above. 2 8.K., pp. 58-59. 3 See above.
CRITICISM OF THE DOCTRINE OF ISVARA 155
transformation of ajfidna. Parinaéma means a real transformation into a real object, as the parindma of a lump of clay into a pot. But an unreal object (which the world is according to the Advaitins) does not imply any parinama, e.g. an illusory silver does not.}
Thus we find that Brahman cannot be the material cause of the world on the Advaita doctrine. The Advaitins cannot get out of the difficulty by pointing out that maya is the material cause, Iévara is the efficient cause and Brahman is the substratum, because according to the Advaitins also, the material cause and the efficient causes of the world are identical.2 Here our author follows Keéavakaémirin.®
(2) Criticism of the Advaita doctrine of Tévara.
It cannot be said that Iévara is Brahman, limited by maya,‘ for then Iévara, being subject to ignorance and illusion, cannot be said to be omniscient. To say that one who is associated with maya is omniscient is as absurd as to say that the blind is ‘lotus-eyed’.5
Also, according to the Advaitins, Iévara or miaya-limited con- sciousness is the creator of the world and not Brahman or pure con- sciousness. Now, in what exactly docs Iévara’s creatorship consist १ Ts Iévara a creator in the sense of being a locus, like a nacre; or in the sense of being the perceiver of the adhyasa or false superimposition like a mistaken person; or in the sense of being a deluder, like a magician; or in the sense of acting with a definite intention to produce a definite effect by means of perceivable implements like a potter ? Not the first, for evidently creatorship does not mean passively being a locus only, but the creator must essentially be active. Scripture bears testimony to the fact that the creator of names and forms resolves to be many 6; but can one resolve to be something false ? Hence, why should Iévara voluntarily wish to be something false ? Hence not the second, for why should Iévara voluntarily wish to see an illusion? A person under an illusion does not voluntarily see the illusory object, because for the time being he is perfectly certain that what he is perceiving is true. Not the third, since there being at that time no individual soul to be deluded, I4vara cannot be a deluder. Also, Scripture tells us, as pointed out above, that the creator, prior to creating the world, formed the resolve: “Let me evolve (1.6. create) names and forms” (Chand., 6.3.2), but a magician never resolves
1 §.K., ए. 59. 2 Op. cit., p. 60. 3 See above. ५ Mayavacchinna. 5 $.K., p. 60. $ Vide Chénd., 6.2.1.
156 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
“Let me create’, but only that “Let me show kings, etc.”. Nor, finally, the fourth, for in that case the world cannot be false. A potter never creates an imaginary pot, but always a real one. An imaginary object can never be created, whether by a non-mistaken person, or by a mistaken.!
Thus, we conclude that the Advaita view of Iévara is absolutely untenable.
(F) Criticism of the Advaita interpretation of the text “* Hkamevddvitiyam’’.
In the celebrated text “Ekamevadvitiyam”’ (Chand., 6.2.1), the word “eka,” (= one) means that the Lord is absolutely independent, while the term ‘‘advitiya’’ (= without a second) means that the Lord has nothing equal to or supericr to Himself, 1.6. whatever there is besides the Lord is absolutely dependent on the Lord. ‘Thus, even the qualities and powers, etc. of the Lord are not independent, but depend on the Lord, Who is their very 68861166.
Or, an alternative explanation may be offered, viz.: The term “eka” denies that sentient beings (1.6. the souls) are independent; the term “advitiya’* denies that non-sentient objects (i.e. the world, etc.) are independent; while the term “eva” denies that the own qualities of the Lord are independent. Thus, the text means that the cit, the acit and the svagata-dharmas of the Lord, being of the essence of the Lord, are non-distinct from Him. In this sense alone the Lord is one and without a second.’
According to the Advaitins, however, the above text denies three kinds of differences to Brahman, viz. sajatiya or difference from the sentient; vijatiya or difference from the non-sentient; and svagata or difference from His own qualities and powers. But this view is absolutely untenable. Here the term “eva’’ does not imply any discrimination from something else, e.g. the expression “Sankham- pandu eva” means that the conch-shell is white and does not deny the connection of the conch-shell with anything else. Similarly the expression “Partha eva dhanurdharah” means that Partha is a warrior with bow in hands, but does not deny his connection with something else. Hence, the expression ““Ekam eva advitiyam”’ *
1 $.K., pp. 60-61. 2 Op. cit., p. 16. 3 Op. cit., p. 17.
4 The whole passage is: “Sadeva saumya idamagra sit ekamevadvitiyam” (Chand., 6.2.1).
CRITICISM OF PRATIBIMBA-VADA 157
means simply that the Sat is eka and advitiya and not that the Sat has no connection with anything else. Further, if the term “advitiya”’ implies the absence of a second, then the term “eka’’ becomes a mere superfluity. Hence it cannot be said that the term ‘“‘agre” implies time and the term ‘‘dvitiya’”’ implies an object, as according to the Advaitins nothing besides Brahman ever exists in the present, never did so in the past and will never do so in the future. That is, if Brahman be always without a second, then there is no sense in saying that He was so in the beginning (agre). Further, if the term “advitiya”’ does not deny the absence of a second, then there will be no Non- dualism (for then, there will be at least two realities—Brahman and this absence of a second), and if it does not, then too, there will be no Non-dualism.1 Further, what exactly is meant by the term “sat” in the above text? It cannot mean the pure Brahman, for according to the Advaitins the pure Brahman cannot be expressed by any word or sentence. It cannot mean Brahman with the limiting adjunct of maya, for then the Advaitins themselves have to admit difference, 1.6. if maya be different from Brahman whom it limits, then there can be no Non-dualism ; if non-different, then Brahman Himself will become of the form of avidyé. Finally, it cannot mean the sub- stratum of the adhydasa of ajfidna, for, as shown above,2 Brahman cannot be the substratum of ajfidna.®
(ii) Criticism of rival theories regarding the jiva. (A) Criticism of Pratibimba-vada.
It cannot be said that the individual soul is a reflection of Brahman on avidya, for, in the first place, the very existence of avidyaé is not possible, no definition and proof of avidyé being possible.4 Thus, it cannot be said that avidya is that which is without beginning and a positive entity, yet is negated by knowledge,5 for the ajfiana regarding the illusory silver is by no means without a beginning, so that the above definition is too narrow. Again ajfidna cannot be a positive entity, for if ajfiina, a positive entity, were to give rise to an illusion which is not a positive entity, then we have to admit that a false something may arise from a real something. But this cannot be, for the cause and the effect must be of the same nature. Yet if the
1 See above. 2 See above. 3 8.K., pp. 17-18. 4 Vide above for other criticiams of this point. & An&di, bhavaripa and jfiana-nivartya.
158 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
illusion be not due to ajfiana, it cannot be put to an end by jfidna. Also, according to the Advaitins themselves, ajfidna is different from both existence and non-existence, so how can they hold again that it is a positive entity? Again, ajfidna cannot be always negated by knowledge, e.g. ajfidéna persists in the jivan-muktas in spite of their knowledge; also in spite of knowing perfectly well that the trees on the banks of a river are standing upright, we cannot help seeing them upside down on the surface of the river. Further, if ajfidna be negated by knowledge, then it cannot be without a beginning, for that which is simply due to the false imagination of one thing as another, that which is due to some or other defects, and that which has no existence beyond perception, can never be beginningless, e.g. the illusory silver which is due to the false imagination by a man of a nacre as a silver to some defects of eyesight, want of proper light, etc. and persists so long as the error persists, is not beginningless. Further, if ajfidna be a positive entity, then it cannot be negated by knowledge. Thus, the first part of the above definition of ajfiana (viz. that it is beginningless and a positive entity) comes into conflict with the last part (viz. that it is negated by knowledge). It may be said that the specific vyapti, viz. “‘Ajfidna is negated by jiidna’’, is of a greater force than the general vyapti ‘‘“What is beginningless and a positive entity is not negated by knowledge” and ajfiina (according to us) is different not only from existence but also from non-existence, so that although being different from non-existence, it cannot ne negated, as the self cannot be, yet being different from existence, it can nevertheless be negated like pragabhava.! To this we reply that in that case, i.e. if a specific vyapti be taken to be of a greater force than a general vyapti, we may very well infer any and every thing, e.g. we may very well hold that the specific vyapti ‘Whatever is a hill is without fire” con+ tradicts the general vyapti ‘‘Whatever smokes is on fire’. Further, a specific vyapti regarding ajfidna, as held by the Advaitins, is not possible, since vyapti is a general statemént regarding a class of things, but ajfiana, as hell by the Advaitins—i.e. ajfiana which is beginningless, a positive entity and negated by knowledge, is without any parallel, as other kinds of ajfiana, viz. the ajfiana regarding a nacre, are neither beginningless nor positive entities, and hence ajfiina as held by the Advaitins, being the only one of its kind, cannot be the subject of any vyapti. Further, if it be said that what is different from existence
2 For explanation, see footnote above.
CRITICISM OF PRATIBIMBA-VADA 159
may be negated, then we have to say that atyantabhava! too, which is different from existence, may be negated. Thus we find that the definition of avidy& as that which is beginningloss, a positive entity and negated by knowledge, is not tenable.?
Avidy& cannot be defined also as the material cause of error, for,” as shown above,? illusion being not a positive entity cannot have ajfidna, a positive entity, as its material cause. If again an illusion be taken to be a positive entity (for the sake of argument), still then it cannot have ajiiana, which is different from existence, for its material cause, since the cause and the effect must be of the same nature. An illusion is the knowledge of an object. Now, according to us, both the object of an illusion and the illusory knowledge are real,+ and hence they can have a material cause. Of course, ajiidna is not their material cause, but the illusory object, viz. ‘‘silver’’, has real ingredients as its material cause, while the illusory knowledge, viz. ‘This is a piece of शालः", has the mind as its material cause. But according to the Advaitins neither the illusory object nor the illusory knowledge is real, so how can they have material cause? Hence, it cannot be said that ajfidna is the material cause of illusion. Also, ajfiana cannot be a material cause, because it is not an existent something, according to the Advaitins. Otherwise we have to admit that pragabhiava 5 too can be a material cause. Hence if ajfidina were to be a material cause, it must be an existent something. Further, the effect appears to be of the nature of the cause,—an earthen pot looks like clay, but neither
1 Atyantabhava is the absolute and eternal non-oxistence of one thing from another, e.g. heat from water.
2 §.K., pp. 61-62. 3 See above. ५ * This is the doctrine of Sat-khyati, viz. that all percepts are true, even the so-called illusory ones. Thus the doctrine is that because of the original process of Paficikarana (seo above), everything contains the element and ingredient ofeverything else. A nacre e.g. contains some subtle and ordinarily imperceptible elements of silver, and when owing to some defects in the eyesight, want of proper light, distance, etc., we perceive the silver-element only in the nacre, we mistake the nacre for the silver, although the silver we are perceiving is real silver contained in the nacre. This is the so-called false perception of silver in place of nacre and it is called false, because it fails to lead to successful practical reaction as 4 real silver does; e.g. when we stoop to pick it up under the impression that it is a piece of silver, we find that it is not so and cannot be sold as such. Thus, the distinction between true and false perception is really a question of practical utility (artha-kriyé). Vide छप B., 1.1.1.
5 See footnote above.
160 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
the illusory silver nor its knowledge appears to be ajfiina,—the illusory silver appears to be real silver and the illusory knowledge as real knowledge for the time being. Finally, the definition of ajfiina as the material cause of illusion is both too narrow, because the ajfiana of the jivan-muktas is not the material cause of error, they, according to the Advaitins, being not subject to any more error, though leading an earthly existence; and too wide, because clay, etc. which are material causes are not ajiiina.! :
Thus, the definition of ajfiina as the material cause of illusion is not tenable, because illusion can have no material cause, because ajfidna cannot be a material cause, and because it is both too narrow and too wide.
Thus, no laksana or definition of ajfidna is possible.
Nor is there any pramana or proof of ajfiina. It may be argued: The existence of avidya is proved directly through such perceptions like “I am ignorant’’, “I do not know others’, etc. Its existence is proved by inference as well. The fact is that knowledge of a particular object is preceded by something which is other than the pragabhava 2 of knowledge, which was so long veiling up the object of knowledge, which is now negated by knowledge and which was so long inhering in knowledge itself, and this something is ajfdna; e.g. when a lamp is lit in a dark room, the lamp does three things—it puts its own pragabhava to an end; puts darkness to an end; and manifests objects. Now, this darkness is other than the pragabhava of the light, was so long veiling the objects of the light, is put to an end by the light, yet was so long inhering in the lamp. The same is the case here. Hence the following inference proves the existence of ajfiina: Whatever, coming into existence, manifests objects so long non- manifest, is preceded by something which other than its own praga- bhava, which so long veiled its objects, which is now negated by it and which so long inhered in it, like a lamp lighted in a dark room.
Jfladna does 80.
Therefore jfiana is preceded by something which is other than its own pragabhava, etc., 1.6. by ajfiana.
The existence of ajfiina is proved by Scripture as well,—cf. texts like ‘‘Then there were neither non-Being nor Being”’ (Rg. V., 10.129.1), ९४९.४
1 8.K., pp. 62-63, 2 See footnote above. 9 8.K., ए. 63. Cf. Sri. B., 1.2.1.
CRITICISM OF PRATIBIMBA-VADA 161
To this, we reply: Perceptions like “I am ignorant”, etc. do not establish ajfiana, for, according to the Advaitins, the “I’’ is not the substratum of ajfiina, which is @ positive entity. Such perceptions prove simply the absence of knowledge and not any ajfiana which is a positive entity. Also, what does the “I” stand for in the expression: न am ignorant”? It cannot mean the pure Brahman, for the Advaitins do not admit that; nor can it mean the ahamk4ra, which is non-sentient; nor something else, because there is nothing else besides Brahman according to the Advaitins.
The above inference also is not correct, because it cannot be said that jfiana always negates ajfiana; e.g. the knowledge of happiness, etc. does not negate ajfidna, being of the form of a saksi. Further, the adjective “other than its own pragabhiva’’ is futile, since praga- bhava being that which is put to an end by the object in question, viz. jfiana, it is expressed by the adjective “negated by it”.
Finally, the above text does not prove the existence of ajfiana, but it refers simply to prakrti. The term “‘non-being’’ refers to the subtle mahat, etc., while the term ‘“‘being”’ refers to the gross elements, while the term ‘‘darkness’’, tamas, refers to the primal prakrti, the sense of the text being that in the beginning there were neither subtle elements nor gross elements, but only prakrti, the primal cause.1
Thus, there is no pramana or proof of avidya.
Further, there can be no apprehension of avidya or avidya-pratiti. Thus, is avidya perceived by the pure consciousness or by conscious- ness arising through one or other of the sources of knowledge? 2 Not the first, for if avidya be perceived by the pure consciousness, then such a perception must be real and everlasting, and continue in salvation too. Nor the second, for then avidya will be sometimes perceived and sometimes not. Also, avidyé cannot be grasped through any source of knowledge, as just shown above, and hence it cannot be said the apprehension of ajfiana is due to some source of knowledge. Further, according to the Advaitins, the knowledge arising from the ordinary sources of knowledge is itself due to avidya and hence this will lead to arguing in a circle. Thus, there can be no apprehension of avidya.8
We conclude, therefore, that there can be no definition, proof, and apprehension of avidyéi; hence the very existence of avidya is impossible.
18K., pp. 638. 2 Suddha-caitanys or vrtti-caitanya. 3 §.K., p. 67.
162 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
And if there can bo no avidya, then evidently the individual soul can be a reflection of Brahman on avidya.!
Next, Purusottamaprasida Vaisnava goes on to point out like Keéavakagémirin that if there is to be any reflection of Brahman on avidya, then the latter must be outsido the former2; that the object reflected and the reflection must be of the same status 8; and that there can be no reflection of the formless and colourless Brahman:4
According to the Advaitins, the upadhi or the limiting adjunct pertains to the reflection and not to the object reflected, and that is why tho individual soul is subject to mundane existence and not Brahman. But what does that precisely imply exactly? Tt cannot imply that the qualities of the upédhi pertain to the reflection, just as dirt on the mirror, the upadhi, makes the image of the face look dirty too,—for agoncy, etc. do not pertain to ajfiana, the limiting adjunct, yet the individual soul, the reflection, is an agent, etc. It cannot be said also that the upadhi pertains to the reflection in the sense that the functions of the former pertain to the latter, for the functions of the upadhi, such as distinguishing, etc. (ie. avidyé distinguishes the soul from Brahman) pertain to the ether, which is an object reflected. Also, if the upadhi pertains to the reflection alone, then omniscience, etc., which pertain to Brahman, cannot be said to be due to upadhi. as held by the Advaitins. It cannot be said also that the upadhi pertains to the reflection in the sonse that the qualities inhering in the functions of the upadhi pertain to the reflection, or that the पकती veils its own object from the reflection, for such is never seen in the case of a mirror and a pot. Thus, we find that the upadhi cannot pertain to the reflection 5.
We conclude, therefore, that the Pratibimba-vada is absolutely untenable because the very existence of avidya is not possible; because Brahman cannot be the object reflected; because avidya cannot be the upadhi; and because the upadhi cannot pertain to the reflection.
(B) Criticism of Avaccheda-vdda or Upddhi-vada.
Here, the author exactly follows Devacirya.®
1 8.K.
2 Op. cit., p. 67. See above.
3 Op. cit., ए. 67. See above.
4 Op. cit., pp. 11, 112. See above.
5 Op. cit., ए. 113, 8 See above. 1IB
CRITICISM OF ADHYASA-VADA 163 (C) Criticism of Adhydsa-vdda.
The theory that the course of mundane existence, is due to the illusory suporimposition of the body, etc. on tho soul is not tenable, for the fact is that it is really due to the want of discrimination between the eternal and the non-cternal, between the self and the not-self. In fact, the superimposition of the body, the sense-organs, etc. on the soul,—which is directly opposed to them, is quite impossible. It cannot be said that the perception ‘I am a Brahmana’ falsely attributes the qualities of a Brahmana to the self, for according to the Advaitins the ‘I’, the aham,—is not the self, the itman, but is not-self, so what fault can the Advaitins possibly find with this identity between two things, both of which are not-selves? The fact is that the identity between the body and the soul is established by direct per- ception, and cannot be dismissed summarily as false. Of course, to say that the body and the soul are identified, is not to say that they are one and the same; they are different, yet aro identified in all’ practical experiences, just as heat and iron, though different, are identified in a red-hot iron ball.
The Advaita view is full of contradictions from the very beginning to the end. Thus, according to the Advaitins, the identification of the body and the soul is due to adhydasa or illusory superimposition, but in thc samo breath they declare that the differentiation between the body and the soul also is due to illusory superimposition,—there being the soul alone in reality. But how can possibly the difference and the non-difference between the body and the soul be both falsely superimposed? The unreal (mithya) is absolutely different from the real (satya) and difference (bheda) is absolutely different from non-difference (abheda). Honce if the difference between the body and the soul be mithyad, the non-differenco between them must of necessity be satya. It cannot be said that as the body itself is due to adhyasa, there is neither difference nor non-difference between the body and the soul,—for the illusory silver, though due to adhyasa, is yet different from the nacre.
The perception “I am a dehin” is just like the perception “I am a gehin”; 1.6. just as the latter means “I have a house” and never “T am a house’’, so exactly the former means “TI have a body” and never “Iama body”. So how can it be said that tho latter perception implies an identity between the body and the soul? In fact, our perceptions are always to the effect “My house”, “My eyes”, “My
164 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
hands”, etc. so that there is always a difference between the “I”’, the soul, the possessor and the body, etc. the things possessed. Thus, the perceptions “I am a Brahmana”’, “I am a man” are true per- ceptions. The word ‘‘Brihmana”’ means a conscious individual soul endowed with a particular body, and not a mere body. If the word “Brahmana’’ were to mean a body only, then such injunctions as “A Brahmana should perform a sacrifice’? become absurd, for a body, a non-sentient object, can never possibly perform a sacrifice, etc. In the very same manner, perceptions like व am blind”, etc. are true perceptions, for the blind is a conscious individual soul devoid of eyesight and 80 on. The perceptions “I am thin”, “I am black” etc. are secondary ones like the perceptions ‘“‘My son being thin, I am thin as well’’, “‘I, besmeared with mud, am black”’, etc. but there is no adhyaisa or illusory identity here, since “I” am clearly conscious of my distinction from my son and from the mud here. Moreover, perceptions like ‘‘(The same) I who made obeisance to my father in my childhood am now playing with my grandchildren in my old age”’, “TI, who was a tiger in a dream, am now aman”’, etc. clearly prove that we distinguish between our body and our soul, and that we realise very well that the body may change and assume different forms, but the soul remains unchanged in the midst of all changes. So, the Advaitins cannot say that we mistakenly identify the body and the soul. Hence we conclude that there is no such thing as adhyasa and that the individual souls are not due to adhyasa, but to the beginning- 1688 karmas,!
Further, the Advaita view that the “I” is not the soul, because it does not persist under all states, viz. during deep sleep and release— 18 not at all tenable, for the “I’’ does persist during these states. That the “I” persists during the state of deep sleep is clear from the perception 8० long I slept happily’’, etc.2 Also, according to the Advaitins themselves, the ahamkara is the vital-breath through its power of action, and mind through its power of understanding. Now, if there be no ahamkara during deep sleep, then why is there breathing which is the fuuction of the vital-breath? It may be said that if the shamkéra and the vital-breath be different, then there is no harm if the former disappears during deep sleep; if they be non-different, then
1 §.K., pp. 69-71. 2 Op. cit., pp. 100-102. See V.R.M., above. 3 Kriy&-sakti and vijfidna-éakti.
CRITICISM OF EKA-JIVA-VADA 165
we hold that the portion of the ahamkara which, devoid of the vital- breath, disappears, while the vital-breath portion persists; to this we reply: This cannot be, for if the vital-hreath only persists in deep sleep, then we cannot have perceptions to the effect ‘J slept happily”, as the prina never constitutes the “I”. Thus, we conclude that the “I’’ persists during deep sleep.
The “I” persists during release as well. We do not deny that the Lord is ever-free, but what we insist on is that the Lord is a knower, an “I”. So the “I” persists always. This may be established by inferences as well, thus:: The “I” persists in salvation, being the performer of the sidhanas which lead to salvation, like consciousness.
The “I” is non-different from the very nature of the soul, because it persists in salvation, like omniscience.®
Further, the Advaita view that the “I” is non-sentient, 1.6. the internal organ and not the soul, is not tenable, for in that caso, per- ceptions like “My mind” would mean “My mind’s mind”— which is absurd; and also we should not have, in that case, felt any difference between the “I’’— ourselves and our minds, which we undoubtedly do, e.g. the “I” persists even in the absence of the mind (attention). We never feel that the “I” is non-sentient, and if it be said to be imagined, then the soul too may very well be imagined to be non- sentient, as we can, of course, imagine any and every thing to be any and every thing. So we conclude that the “I’’ is not non-sentient.8
(D) Criticism of Eka-jiva-vada.
There is absolutely no proof that there is only one soul. On the contrary, this view leads to absurd results. Thus, if there be only one sou], then there could not, evidently, be any preceptor-disciple relation and the Scriptures would become meaningless. If the pre- ceptor be possessed of the knowledge of Non-dualism, then he cannot teach the disciple who is different from him, and if he be not possessed of the knowledge of Non-dualism, then he is nothing but an impostor and a cheat.4
1 8.K., pp. 100-102.
2 Op. cit., pp. 102-103. ॐ Op. cit., pp. 103-104. 4 Op. cit., p. 68.
166 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS (४४) Criticism of rival theories regarding the jagat. (A) Criticism of Mdyd-vada.
The Advaitins argue that the world is false or mithyé, as established by the following inference :—
The world is mithya, because it is capable of being perceived (dréyatvat), because it is non-sentient (jadatvat) and because it is limited (paricchinnatvat), like the nacre-silver
To this we reply that the above inference is not correct, because the paksa or the minor term, the sidhya or the major term, the hetu or the reason, the middle tem, and the udaharana or the example, are all untenable.!
The pakga or the minor term is “the world” here. Now, is the world established by one or other of the sources of knowledge or not ? Not the first, because what is so established cannot be negated. If it be said that the universe, though perceived, can yet be negated, since it is not the locus of existence, then we point out in reply that in that case, the pure Brahman too, not being the locus of existence, must be mithya. The second alternative also is not possible, for in that case, the world must become tuccha or absolutely unreal, like the sky- flower, which too cannot be established by any source of knowledge.
The sadhya or the major term, viz. ‘‘falsity’’ or ‘“mithyaitva” too cannot be established. If this “‘mithyatva”’ be real, thon Brahman cannot be said to be the sole reality, if it be unreal, then the world must be true.2
The three hetus or reasons quoted also are untenable. Thus, the first, reason ‘“‘dréyatva’’ does not prove the case. It cannot be said the world is false, because it is perceived, for then Brahman too, being directly intuited by the knowers, must be false. It cannot be said that Brahman so intuited is not pure Brahman, but may4-limited Brahman, who is, of course, mithya,— for unless the knower perceives the pure Brahman, his ajfiana regarding pure Brahman cannot be put to an end, and the pure Brahman, being in that case outside all sources of knowledge, must be non-established like the sky-flower, which too is outside all sources of knowledge. Also, texts which distinctly declare Brahman to be an object of direct intuition,’ will come to be contradicted. Also, if Brahman who is to be enquired after be only maya-limited Brahman and not pure Brahman, then
1 8.K., pp. 4-10. 2 See above. 3 Vide e.g., Mund., 3.1.8.
CRITICISM OF MAYA-VADA 167
evidently, the very enquiry becomes valueless and the scriptures concerned with such an enquiry become useless. Further, no attributes can either be attributed or denied to something which is unknown, so that this very denial of dréyatva to the Supreme Brahman implies that the Supreme Brahman is known.
The second reason ‘‘jadatva’’ also does not prove the case. Now what 18 ‘‘jadatva’’ १ It cannot be said that the non-sentient is what is not a knower, for in the “‘I’’, which according to the Advaitins is a knower, must be sentient, while the pure Brahman, not a knower according to the Advaitins, must be non-sentient. Hence the inference: The pure Brahman is mithya, because He is not a knower, like the Universe. The Advaitins cannot get out of the difficulty by saying that although pure Brahman is not really a knower, yet He is imagined to be so and hence Brahman is sentiont,— for an imagined something cannot be the reason for anything—i.c. imagined knowership of Brahman cannot be a reason for His not being non- sentient; also, according to the Advaitins themselves, the internal organ is imagined to be a knower, and hence it must too be sentient like Brahman. It cannot be said that the non-sentiont is what is not knowledge, for then the knowledge of particular objects through one or other of the sources of knowledge, being knowledge, must be sentient, while the soul, not being knowledge, must be non-sentient. Thus, has the knowledge of the real nature of the self an object or not? On the first alternative, the question arises: Is the soul itself the object here, or not. It cannot be itself its own object, for according to the Advaitins the self is never an object of the ordinary sources of knowledge. But, on the other hand, nothing else can be the object here, since in salvation thero is no other object, yet there is knowledge about the real nature of the self, and what is present alone can be an object. Thus, the knowledge about the real nature of the self can have no object. But the second alternative also—viz. the knowledge wbout the real nature of the self, has no object—is not tenable, for knowledge cannot be without an object, 1.6. it must manifest an object, otherwise the pot, etc. might very well be called knowledge. Further, is the knowledge about the real nature of the self-right knowledge or erroneous knowledge? It cannot be the first, because according to the Advaitins it is not generated through any source of knowledge; nor can it be the second, because it is not due to any defects. Ifit be said that it is neither, then we point out that in that case it cannot be knowledge at all. Thus we find that there can be
168 DOCTRINES OF NIMBABKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
no knowledge of the real nature of the self, and hence the soul, not being knowledge, must be non-sentient. It cannot be said finally that jadatva is being the not-self, because that is not a Universal, there being only one soul and what is not a Universal cannot be the predicate of a definition, e.g. when we define a man as “A man is mortal”, “Mortality” is a universal.
Thus, we conclude that the second hetu ‘“‘jadatva’”’ is not itself established.
The third and the final hetu, viz. ‘‘paricchinnatva’”’ too does not prove the case. There are three kinds of limit—limit of space, limit of time, and limit by an object. Now, limitedness of space and time cannot be a cause of falsity, because the ether, though unlimited, is mithya& according to the Advaitins, while the illusory silver has no limitation of time (i.e. it never was, never is, never will be—no dis- tinctions of time), yet it is mithyé. Avidya, too, being the material cause of all space and time and connected with the all-pervading Brahman, is without any limitation of space and time, yet it is mithya. Hence, it cannot be said that limitation of space and time is a criterion of falsity. Nor can it be said that limitation by an object is a criterion of falsity, because, according to the Advaitins, there is no object besides Brahman
Thus, the three reasons adduced do not prove that the world is false
Finally, the udaharana or the example too is not possible, for according to the Advaitins there is no nacre at all, there being nothing besides Brahman. .If it be said that Brahman may very well be cited as an example here (if we put the argument in the negative form: What is non-perceivable, non-sentient and non-limited is not false, like Brahman)—then we ask: Is the pure Brahman to be cited as an example here or the qualified Brahman? Not tho first, for the pure Brahman is outside all sources of knowledge and can never be cited as an example; nor the second, for that does not prove the case and is opposed to the Advaita theory itself.
Thus we concludo that the above inference does not prove that the world is mithya or false
(B) Criticism of Sattud-traividhya-vdda.
According to the Advaitins, there are three kinds of existence, paramarthika or real, such as Brahman, vyavaharika or empirical such as the world, and pratibhasika or illusory, such as the illusory
CRITICISM OF SATTVA-TRAIVIDHYA-VADA 169
silver. But this distinction is absolutely untenable. First, on the Advaita maxim itself, there must be more than these three grades. Thus, according to the Advaitins, a dream is pratibhasika and the illusory silver too is so, and hence the dreamt silver-nacre illusion must be one degree lower than the pratibhasika, and put to an end by the pratibhasika; while the dream of a dreamt silver-nacre illusion must be still another degree lower. On the other hand, there are objects higher than the vyavaharika. Hence, once the Advaitins begin to divide objects into grades of reality, they cannot stop at three only.!
Further, this division into three grades can neither be real, since Brahman is the sole reality, nor be unreal, since thon the Advaitins contradict themselves. In the very same way the falsity of the world,? the distinctionlessness of Brahman, etc. inevitably lead to the horns of a dilemma.
Further, how to distinguish between the paramarthika and the aparamarthika? It cannot be said that the paéramarthika is the sat or the existent, and the aparamarthika is what is other than the sat, for what is not existent can never be perceived, while the world, etc., are perceived. It cannot be said also that the paramarthika is what is never negated while the apiramarthika is what is negated—because the real nature of a superimposed object may not be negated,® while Brahman may sometimes be an object of negation, as e.g. we say “This is the world and not Brahman’. That is, if Brahman be possessed of attributes, etc. then those very attributes, etc. will be negated, but if He be attributeless, then He cannot be the remover of illusion, as shown above.6 Thus, no valid distinction is possible between the paramarthika and the aparamarthika.’
Further, how can we distinguish between the vyavaharika and the pratibhasika too? It cannot be said that the vyavahdarika is due to maya, or cosmic nescience, while the pratibhasika is due to avidya or individual nescience,—for no hard and fast distinction can be made between maya and avidya, e.g. the magic of a juggler, who is mayika, 18 pratibhadsika, while the pains, etc. of the individual souls are
1 8.K., p- 82. 2 See above. 8 $.K., pp. 82-83.
4 Cf. the sat-khyati-vida, according to which even objects of illusory perceptions are real and existent. See footnote (1) above.
5 The real nature of the silver is not negated, but only its existence then and there in the nacre.
6 See above. 7 $.K., p. 83.
170 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
avidyaka yet vyavaharika. It cannot be said also that the vyava- harika is what leads to successful practical reaction! while the prati- bhasika is what does not,—for in dreams, a dream-pitcher may serve the purpose of fetching dream-water, but none would say the dream- pitcher is vyavaharika. It cannot be said also that the vyavaharika is what is negated by the knowledge of Brahman, while the prati- bhasika is what is negated by the knowledge of something else,—for according to the Advaitins themselves, the praitibhasika ‘silver too is negated by the knowledge of Brahman, and also the knowledge of Brahman alone is correct knowledge according to them. It cannot be said also that the vyavaharika is what is negated by correct knowledge, while the pratibhasika is what is negated by illusory knowledge, for as shown above the knowledge of Brahman negates that also which is negated by illusory knowledge, (i.e. the pratibhasika negated by the vyavaharika). It cannot be said also that the vyavaharika is what is negated by the knowledge of pure Brahman while the pratibhasika is what is negated by the knowledge of something else, for what is meant by the term “pure” here? It cannot stand for the substratum of the erroneous knowledge, for if there be a knowledge of pure Brahman there-can be no error. As shown above again and again, the pure Brahman being essentially sclf-luminous, there can be no ajfidna veiling Him, 1.6. jfiana and ajiiana being mutually con- tradictory and exclusive cannot possibly co-exist. Again, the term “pure” cannot stand for Brahman—without a second—yet not known as such, i.e. the upalaksita Brahman, for if the knowledge of the Suddha Brahman is to stand for that of the upalaksita Brahman, then the Vedanta-texts, concerned with the one, without any dis- tinction, must be taken to be concerned with distinctions. The same argument goes to refute the view that the vyavaharika is what is negated by the knowledge of the great texts like “Thou art that” while the pratibhasika is what is negated by the knowledge of some- thing else,—for the great texts, being due to the Vedanta, concerned with a distinctionless object, must be free from distinctions, and as such cannot be negatory of the vyavahdarika,? and if they refer to distinctions, then those distinctions must be real. Hence it cannot be said also that the vyavaharika is what is negated by knowledge which does not designate distinction, while the pratibhasika is what is negated by knowledge which does so. Finally, it cannot be said that
1 Artha-kriya-karin. ठ 2 See above.
CRITIOISM OF DRSTI-SRSTI-VADA 171
the vyevahisika is what is negated by the paramarthika, while the pratibhasika is what is negated by the vyavahdarika, for that is to assume the very thing to be explained.!
We conclude, therefore, that there is no way of distinguishing between the paramarthika and the apiramarthika, and between the vyavaharika and the pratibhasika, and hence the sattva-traividhya- vada falls to the ground.
(C) Criticism of Drsti-srsti-vdda.
According to the doctrine of Drsti-srsti-vida, the entire universe is generated by perception only, i.e. a thing ts so long as it is perceived, e.g. the body of Devadatta, who is sloeping, does not exist for him, though it exists for Yajfiadatta who is awake and is perceiving it. According to this view recognition is simply an error, like the perception “This is that lamp”’, the fact being that the real lamp never persists for two consecutive moments.
This view is evidently absurd. According to the Advaitins themselves, there are six things which are beginningless—viz. Jiva, ष्णा, pure cit, the distinction between the jiva and. Tévara, avidya, and the connection between the cit and avidyé. Hence, the universe being beginningless, must be permanent.2
Further, if the entire universe be due to perception, then the effect, being of the form of perception only, cannot be said to be due to its own particular cause, ७.६. we have to say that a pot is duo to the perception of one who is perceiving it at that moment, and not to clay. But if an effect be not due to its cause, then the scriptural injunctions regarding the performance of sacrifices, etc. leading to heaven, or of gravana, etc. leading to salvation, are simply meaningless. And the Advaitins themselves ought not to take food for allaying hunger, or utter words for making others understand their thoughts.8
On this view, objects like pots, etc. have no existence beyond the particular perceptions of particular individuals, and this makes ordinary activity impossible. Further, on this view, illusion itself becomes impossible. Thus, if the nacre does not exist prior to being perceived, then when a man perceives “This is a piece of silver”’, thero is generated only silver, and no nacre, and hence the perception cannot be said to be a false perception due to the super-imposition of the silver on the nacre. Also, the knowledge “This is a piece of न
1 8.7, pp. 83-84. 2 Op. cit., p. 105. 3 Op. cit.
172 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
silver” and the knowledge “This is not a piece of silver” are con- cerned with different objects (i.e. the object of the first piece of know- ledge is “silver”, because thing = perception, while the object of the second piece of knowledge is ‘‘not-silver”), and hence the latter cannot negate the former. Also, this very negation of the illusory silver being itself drsti-srsta, the illusory silver must be true.}
Further, during deep sleep, universal dissolution, etc., the dis- tinction between the soul and Brahman must be non-existent, there being no perceiver of it. Every day (1.6. after deep sleep) and after every dissolution, even the freed souls will be again involved in mundane existence. Also, there being no impressions of past karmas (these being not perceived), the same man who went to sleep may not arise again. Salvation itself being drsti-srgta, must be false?
Further, if a mere perception gives rise to a pot etc., that very perception, being drsti-srsta, like everything else, must be itself due to another perception, that to another perception and so on to infinity. The very doctrine of drsti-srsti-vida being itself drsti-srsta, must be false and hence things cannot be drsti-srsta.3
This doctrine also fails to explain the fact of recognition, such as “This is that pot”. The example of a candle is not to the point, for a candle is being consumed, i.e. changed, every moment, but not pots etc. Pots etc. are permanent, and so too the perceiving self and this makes recognition and memory possible. If everything be drsti-srsta, then the knowledge of non-dualism must also be so, and hence it cannot be negatory of the knowledge of plurality.4
If it be said that the following inference proves that the entire universe is drsti-srsta, viz.—The Universe is drsti-srsta, because it is mithya like dream-objects—then we reply that the example quoted is not correct, because dream-objects are not mithya, being created by the Supreme Lord Himself.5
In the very same manner, the Universe too is real, being created by the Supreme Lord. The Universe also leads to successful practical reaction and hence + must be real. It cannot be objected that mere leading to successful practical reactions is not a sure criterion of reality, seeing that often what is merely superimposed—viz. the
1 S.K., p. 105. 2 Op. cit., p. 105.
3 Op. cit., pp. 105-106. 4 Op. cit., p. 106.
5 Op. cit., pp. 107-9. The arguments that the jiva is not the creator of dream-objects, are exactly similar to those of Nimbarka. See above.
CRITICISM OF VISISTADVAITA-VADA 173
illusory snake etc.—lead to successful practical reactions—for the very superimposition of a non-existent thing is not possible.1
The Universe is real because it is protected by the Lord. Thus, has the Lord a direct knowledge of the falsity of the world or not? If He has such a knowledge, then why should He have any inclination to protect it, and if He has not, then He cannot be held to be omni- scient. If it be said that a magician protects false objects, why not the Lord? Then, we point out that the magician never does so—he simply shows real objects, which are past or in some other places, through the power of gems, mantras etc., but never knows them directly nor protects them. But the Lord being omniscient cannot wish to protect what is mithya. Hence we conclude that the world is real, because it is created and protected by the Lord and leads to successful practical reactions, but is never drsti-srsta, or generated by perception.2
(iv) Criticism of rival theories regarding the relation between Brahman, the cit and the acit.
(A) Criticism of Abheda-vdda.
The view that the cit and the acit are absolutely identical with Brahman is absolutely untenable, and has already been criticised above. The fact is that the distinction between Brahman and the cit and the acit is a natural one and persists throughout.3
(B) Criticism of Atyanta-bheda-vdda.
The opposite extreme view too is not tenable, for this makes the abheda-texts false, while the fact is that Scripture as a whole is true, and no texts may be taken to be false.4
(C) Criticism of Visistddvaita-vada.
Here the author follows Devacarya exactly.5
18.K., pp. 109-110. The arguments are exactly similar to Purusottama. See above.
2 §.K., p. 110.
3 Op. cit., pp. 29-30.
4 Op. cit., pp. 97, 99.
5 See above.
174 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
X. Purugottamaprasdda Vaisnava II.
(1) His LIFE AND DATE.
Purusottamaprasada is said to have been born in the city of Jagadhari in Kuruksetra in the Vikrama cra 1680, ie. 1623 A.D. He was the only son of Narayanaprsada, a Gaudiya Brahmin, who was a follower of the creed of Svabhiideva of the sect of Nimbarka. Being an only child, Purugottamaprasida was spoilt by his father, and spent his time in idle pastimes, instead of in study, till he was nine years of age. Thereupon his father took him to his preceptor, Dharmadeva, and left him in his care. Dharmadeva initiated and instructed him with groat care and taught him the holy mantra of the Lord Hayagriva (= horse-necked).1 He composed an claborate commentary, stvled Srutyanta-sura-druma ”, on Nimbiarka’s ^ Savisesa-nirviéesa-Sri- Krena-stava-raja”. He is said to have composed it in compliance with tho request of his preceptor Dharmadeva.2 He wrote also a commentary, styled ^ Adhyatma-sudha-tarangini’’,3 on Srinivasa’s
1 Within a year, so the tradition goes, the Lord, being pleased with the boy, appeared to him in a dream and asked him to ask for a boon. The boy prayed that he might soon be well-versed in all the vedas and thereby fulfil the heart’s desire of his father and teacher. He was granted the boon. He sent the information to his father who wanted him to stay on with his precoptor and continue his studies. He engagod himself to studies with whole-hearted devo- tion and learned everything within three years. At the age of thirteen he returned home, and is said to have defoated all the heretics and preached the Vaisnava religion all around.
2 Preface to 8.8., p. 2.
Tho tradition is that the Lord appeared before him on his request and wrote on the book with His own hand.
3 That this Purugottamaprasada is not identical with Purugottamaprasada T is evident from the following:
(2) The colophon to the Ist taranga of the “Adhydtma-sudha-tarangint is as follows: “Iti Sri-Hayagrivanugrahiasritena Purugottama- prasidakhyens, Vaisnavena Viracitaéyaém Adhyatma-sudhi-taran- ginyaém pratyagitmanirnayo nama prathama-tarangah”, p. 15. (The colophons to other six tarangas mention no name). The exactly similar colophon is found at the end of “ Srutyanta-sura- druma’’ thus: Iti Srt-Hayagrivanugrahaikasevakena Sri-Niya- ménandanuyayina Sri-Purusottamaprasadakhyena Vaisnavena viracite Savisega-nirv is: ga-Sri-Krgna-stava-vyakhyano Srutyanta- sura-drume carama é&khi”’, p. 246. (The same colophon is repeated at the end of each Sikh). This proves that these two works must be composed by the same Purugottamaprasada Vaisnava.
CRITICISM OF ANIRVACANIYA-VADA 175
“Laghu-stava-raja-stotram”’. A third work by him is ‘“ Mukunda- mahima-stava”’, a collection of a hundred and one hymns in praise of Lord Krsna.
He is said to have composed also a very learned book, called “Para-tattva-nirnaya’”’, but it has not yet been found as a whole2
(3) His DOCTRINE.
He accepts the usual tenets of the sect. His main concern is, like Purusottamaprasida Vaisnava I, to criticise the Advaita doctrine and in most places he repeats his काद पाला. = We notice here one original criticism by him.
(i) Criticism of the Advaita view of Anirvacaniya-vada.
There is neither any lakgana or definition, nor any pramana or proof, of anirvacaniyatva. It cannot be said that the anirvacaniya is what is different from tho sat or the existent, for a hare’s horn e.g. is different from the sat, but is taken to be not anirvacaniya, but tuccha. It cannot be said that it is what is different from the asat or the non-existent, because Brahman is different from the non-existent, yet He is not taken to be anirvacaniya. It cannot be said that it is what is different from both sat and the asat, for a thing must be either sat or asat. It cannot be said that the anirvacaniya is what is not the locus of either existence or non-existence, for in that case Brah- man, who is not the locus of any quality, must bo taken to be anirva- caniya. It cannot be said that the anirvacaniya is what cannot be depicted, for whatever cannot be depicted must be simply non- existent, also Brahman, who, according to the Advaitins cannot be
(b) The author of “Adhyatma-sudha-tarangini’? was & worshipper of the Lord Heyagriva, as is evident from the colophon “ Sri-Haya- grivanugrahasritona”’. And Purusottamaprasida Vaisnava ITI was also a worshipper of Hayagriva.
(c) The author of “ Adhyatma-sudha-tarangini”’ was a disciple of Dharmu- deva, a descendent of Svabhideva, as is evident from the opening verse: ^ Sri-Dharmadevapadabjam Svabht-vamsabdhi-sambha- vam” ote., p. 1. And Purusottamaprasida Vaignava II also was a disciple of Dharmadeva.
1 Preface to $.s., 1. 2. 2 B.g., his criticism of the Advaita view that Brahman cannot be the cause of the world (pp. 11ff.), of Adhyisa-vada and dialectic on ajiiéna (pp. 13ff.),
ete.
176 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
depicted, must be anirvacaniya. It cannot be said that it is what is different from the existent, different from the non-existent and different from both the existent and the non-existent, for as shown above, the existent and the non-existent being mutually opposed cannot be denied simultaneously. For the same reason, it cannot be said that the anirvacaniya is what is devoid of existence, devoid of non-existence and devoid of both existence and non-existence. Also, what is meant by the terms “existence” and “non-existence” here? Firstly, it cannot be said that existence means a class and non-existence the absence of that, for in that case, Brahman who has no class becomes anirvacaniya, i.e. unreal, while the world which has a class becomes real. Secondly, it cannot be said that existence is what leads to success- ful practical reaction, while non-existence is what does not, for the very same reason, seeing that Brahman does not lead to any practical reaction, not being the basis of action at all, while the world does so. Thirdly, it cannot be said that existence is what is incapable of being negated, while non-existence is what is so capable, for according to the Advaitins, the anirvacaniya is capable of being negated, yet it is not the same as the non-existent. Fourthly, it cannot be said that ex- istence is what is established by the sources of knowledge, while non- existence is what is not so established, for the anirvacaniya cannot be established by any source of knowledge, yet it is not non-existent. The pure Brahman too is not capable of being established by any source of knowledge yet He is sat. Fifthly, it cannot be said that existence is what is outside all sources of knowledge, for then the existent can have no specific marks of its own, like the sky-flower. Sixthly, it cannot be said that existence is what is free from nothingness, i.e. what is not a non-entity, for then the anirvacanlya, which is not a mere non-entity, like the sky-flower, according to the Advaitins, must be existent. Seventhly, it cannot be said that existence is what is free from Brahmanhood, i.e. what is not Brahman, for then the world must be existent. Eighthly, it cannot be said that existence is what exists at 21] times and in all places, while non-existence is what does not. Now, we accept this definition, but the Advaita theory itself contradicts it, for according to it, the world etc. which are capable of being depicted (i.e. is nirvacaniya), must be existent. Thus, as it is not clear what exactly is meant by the terms “existence” and “non-existence”? here, it cannot be said that the anirvacaniya is what is devoid of existence and non-existence and different from both of these two.
WORKS OF MADHAVA MUKUNDA 177
Further, does the anirvacaniya exist (i.e. asti), or not (i.e. nasti), or is it altogether false (1.6. asat)?1 It cannot be said to exist, for whatever exists must have some mark by which it can be distin- guished from others and depicted, e.g. when we say “The pot exists”’, the very existence of the pot means that it is something which is capable of being depicted by some mark or other. But the anir- vacaniya cannot be depicted and hence cannot be distinguished from anything else and therefore cannot be known, as all knowledge implies assimilation and discrimination. But if the anirvacaniya cannot be known, it cannot be denied too, for just as knowledge (or affirmation) must be of a definite thing so denial too must be so. In fact, nothing at all can possibly be said of the anirvacaniya, as it is absolutely indefinite, indeterminable and indescribable. It can neither be affirmed, nor denied.
Thus, we conclude that no definition of the anirvacaniya is ever possible.?
It has also no pramana or proof. It is not an object of direct perception, as alleged by the Advaitins, for when we mistake a nacre for a silver, what we see for the time boing, is not any anirvacaniya silver, but the real silver-elements in the nacre. Thus, the anir- vacaniya is outside the sphere of all pramanas.4
XI. Madhava Mukunda.
(1) Lire AND DATE.
Nothing is known definitely about his life and date. Keéava Kaémiri Bhatta, as we have seen, refers to one Mukunda as his guru. But we have no means of ascertaining whether he means Madhava Mukunda or not.
(2) Works.
His only known treatise is Para-paksagiri-vajra, or Harda-safi- caya, in which he severely criticises the various Advaita Vedanta tenets of Samkara and his followers. His arguments are similar to
+ The difference between ‘“nastitva”’ and “asattva”’ is that while the former applies to things which are, though are not here and now, as “the pot is not”’, the latter applies to what is never existent at all, as the sky-flower.
2 8.8., pp. 188.
3 Cf. the doctrine of Sat-khyati. See footnote (1) below.
4 8.S., pp. 20ff.
72
178 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
those of Purusottamaprasida Vaignava I (in his Srutyanta-kalpa- valli) which have already been set forth in details.
XII. Vanamiali Miéra.
(1) Lirz AND DATE.
He lived in a village called Triyaga, near Brindavan, and belonged to the Bharadvaja clan. (2) Works.
He composed a treatise, called Vedanta-siddhanta-samgraha or Sruti-siddhanta-samgraha. It consists of seven chapters and is written in verse with a commentary in prose. It discusses the tenets of the Nimbarka School.
XIII. Anantarama.
(1) Lire AND DATE.
Anantarama was one of the later followers of Nimbarka. He was the son of Nariyanaprasada, a Gaudiya Brahmana and was born in the village of Jagidhari in the Punjab in the 17th century A.D. Ho was a disciple of Dharmadasa.! . According to this view he must have been a brother of Purugottamaprasida Vaignava II.
(2) Works.
He composed a number of treatises, developing the Svabhiavika- bhedaibheda-vada of Nimbarka and subjecting the Advaita view to a thorough criticism. But he makes no original contributions and his criticisms of the Advaita view too are borrowed mostly from previous writers,2
His works are the following :—
(a) Vedanta-tattva-bodha. (Prose.)
(9) Vedanta-ratna-mala. (A fairly elaborate treatise in verse, dealing with the three tattvas or categories and their relation.)
1 Preface to Vedinta-ratna-mala.
५ Cf. his criticism of Nirviéega-vada. Vedanta-tattva-bodha, pp. 5ff.—which is exactly similar to the arguments of Purugottama. Vide V.R.M. See above. Adhyisa-vada and dialectic on ajiaéna—Vedainta-tattva-bodha, pp. , 9ff.— exactly similar to the arguments of Purugottamaprasada Vaignava I. See 8.K. See above,
728
© # € % +~
WORKS OF ANANTARAMA 179
(c) Tattva-siddhanta-bindu. (Twenty-five verses.)
(d) Sruti-siddhanta-ratna-mala.1
(€) Vedanta-sira-padya-mala.2 (Twenty-five verses.).
(f) Sri-Krena-carana-bhigana-stotram.? (Seventy-two verses.) (g) Sri-Mukunda-garanapatti-stotram.4 (Seventeen verses.) (h) Acarya-carita.§
Preface to Vedantaratna-mala. Given in 8.R., pp. 91-96. 8.R., pp. 38-51.
Op. cit., pp. 65-67.
Preface ४० 8.8., p. 2.
COMPARISON OF THE DOCTRINE OF NIMBARKA WITH SOME OTHER BHEDABHEDA DOCTRINES.
I. Nimbfarka and RamAanvuja.
SVABHAVIKA-BHEDABHEDA-VADA AND VISISTADVAITA-VADA.
Ramanuja’s theory is too well-known to be recounted at length. The Highest Reality, or Brahman, according to him, is Visnu or Vasu- deva, a Personal God, endowed with every auspicious quality and free from all defects.1 His conception is exactly similar to that of Nimbarka, except that, as we have seen, Nimbarka identifies Brahman with Krsna. There is not a single mention of Radha or Krsna in Ramanuja’s works.
Like Nimbarka, Ramanuja holds that the individual soul is knowledge, yet a knower, an agent, and an enjoyer, atomic in size, and so on.2 Here also, the two are in perfect agreement. But while according to Nimbarka, the individual souls are parts of the Lord in the sense of being His powers or saktis, according to Ramanuja they are so in the sense of being His attributes or modes or visesanas.3 The same remarks apply to the non-sentient substance too. Like Nimbarka, again, Ramadnuja speaks of three kinds of the non-sentient, viz. prakrti or matter, kala or time, and éuddha-tattva or pure matter,4 this last corresponding to Nimbarka’s aprakrta.
Ramanuja explains the relation between Brahman, the sentient and the non-sentient on the analogy of the soul-body, or substance- uttribute relation, 1.6. as a relation of non-separation (aprthaktva). The soul and body, the substance and attribute are different from one another, yet thgy are inseparably connected, and form a whole. Exactly similar is the case with Brahman, and the sentient and non-
1 इम. B., 1.1.1, pp. 2, 63, chap. 1. Madras ed., ete. 2 Op. cit., 2.3.19, pp. 1389-141; 2.3.20ff., pp. 141ff.; 2.3.33ff., pp. 1518. ete. ‘Cf. also V.D. and V.8. on the same siitras. Vide also Y.M.D., pp. 318. 3 Sri. B., 1.1.1, pp. 61, 96, 101, chap. 1, etc.; 1.2.15, p. 42, chap. 2, ete. V.D., intro. pp. 3-4; ete. V.S., 1.1.1, p. 4, ete. ५ Y.M.D., pp. 15ff. ( 180 )
NIMBARKA AND RAMANUJA 181
sentient. But Nimbarka takes his stand, as we have seen, on the cause-effect relation. With Ramanuja the stress is more on the principle of non-difference than on that of difference, but not so with Nimbarka.?
Ramanuja’s view of salvation too is in perfect accord with that of Nimbarka.®
According to Ramanuja, bhakti is the means to salvation. By bhakti he does not understand devotion or love, as Nimbarka does, but upasanaé or meditation. This bhakti is based on knowledge, and arises from six essential pre-requisites, viz. discrimination of food (viveka), complete disregard for worldly objects (vimoka), continued practice (abhyasa), performance of sacrifices (kriya), virtuous conduct, like truthfulness and the rest (kalyana) and freedom from dejection (anavaséda). Bhakti, thus, comprises all ethical virtuos. Nimbarka too holds, as we have seen, that meditation, based on knowledge, is a means to salvation, and that mental purity, generated by the external performance of sacrifices and internal practice of self-control and the rest, is its essential pre-requisite.
Thus, from the point of view of philosophy, the main difference between Nimbarka and Ramanuja consists in their views with regard to the relation between difference and non-difference, God on the one hand, men and the world on the other.
From the point of view of religion, too, there is a difference of spirit between their systems. While Ramanuja’s system, though admitting 9 personal relation between God and man, is more intellec- tual, Nimbarka’s system is less so, and decidedly more devotional and religious. That is, in Raémanuja’s system, devotion is based on an intellectual apprehension of and the consequent reverence for the supreme majesty of the Lord, keeping the devotee somewhat apart from the Lord,’ while in Nimbarka’s system, the superseding element is a sweet relation of love and ecstasy, drawing the two nearor in a relation of utmost intimacy.®
1 Sri. B., 1.1.1, pp. 96, 101, etc., chap. 1; 2.1.15, p. 43, chap. 2, ete. V.D., intro. pp. 1-4. V.S., 1.1.1, ए. 4, etc. Vide also S.A.M., pp. 5ff.
2 See below under Srikantha.
8 Sri. B., 1.1.1, pp. 36, 39-72, ete., chap. 1.
4 Op. cit., 1.1.1, pp. Off., chap. 1. “Evam-rap& dhruvaénusmrtir eva bhaktiSabdenabhidhiyate, updsandpara-paryyayatvat bhakti-sabdasya”’. Seg above.
5 Aiévarya-pradhanabhakti. 6 Madhurya-pradhanabhakti.
182 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS II. Nimbarka and Bhaskara.
SvABHAVIKA-BHEDABHEDA-VADA AND AUPADHIKA-BHEDABHEDA- VADA.
(1) Introduction.
Bhaskara is said to have flourished during the reign of King Bhoja about 918-973 Sakabda, i.e. 996-1061 A.D.1 He wrote a com- mentary on the Brahma-sitras, developing a Bhedaibheda view and criticising Advaita-vida or Maya-vada.
Eggeling thought that Bhaskara was identical with Nimbarka.2 But this view is absolutely untenable. It is clear beyond doubt from Nimbarka’s Vedanta-parijata-saurabha and other works and Bhas- kara’s commentary that Nimbarka and Bhaskara were two different persons, representing two different schools of thought.
(2) Brahman.
The first distinction which is at once evident from a cursory glance through the commentary of Bhaskara is that Bhaskara, unlike Nimbarka, throughout refers to the Highest Reality as Brahman,’ and sometimes as Iévara,4 but not even once calls Him Purusottama or Krsna, as is done by Nimbarka repeatedly. Bhaskara speaks of no consort of Brahman, as Nimbarka does of Radha, as ever accompanying Brahman, i.e. Krsna.
Like Nimbarka, Bhaskara holds that Brahman is the Supreme Cause of the entire Universe, its creator, maintainer and destroyer,5 its material and efficient cause.6 . He holds, like all the rest, that - Brahman can be known through Scripture alone,’ and that Scripture and not reasoning is our guide with regard to super-sensible objects.8
1 Preface to Bh. B., p. 7.
2 1.0.C. (Catalogue of Sanskrit MSS., Part IV, 1894, pp. 802, 803). The MSS. referred to by Eggeling are not Nimbarka’s commentaries at all, but Bhaskara’s, now published in the 0.8.8. See Bibliography.
3 Bh. B., 1.1.1, pp. 6, 7; 1.1.2, p. 8; 1.1.3, p. 9, ete. etc. from the beginning to the end.
« Op. cit., 1.1.2, ए. 8; 1.1.12, ए, 24; 1.2.6, ए. 39; 1.2.9, p. 40, ete. 5 Op. cit., 1.1.2, p. 8; 1.1.11, ए. 24, ete.
6 Op. cit., 1.1.2, p. 8; 1.4.22, ए. 84; 1.4.26, p. 86, ete.
1 Op. cit., 1.1.1, p. 8; 1.1.8, ए. 9, ete.
8 Op. cit., 1.1.4, pp. 16, 19; 2.2.2, p. 110.
BHASKARA’S DOCTRINE OF BRAHMAN 183
Reasoning, to be of any avail, must follow revelation and never super- sede or transcend it.1
Brahman, according to Bhaskara, has two aspects (dvi-riipa), viz. the karana-riipa or the causal state and the karya-riipa or the effected state.2 Brahman is one as cause and many as effects, just as gold is one as gold, but many as bracelets, ear-rings etc. In other words, Brahman is bhinné-bhinna-ripa.4
But the abhinna and karana-ripa is the real, original and natural form of Brahman, while the bhinna and karya-riipa is due to upadhi or limiting adjunct and is, as such, something adventitious,5 though real.6 By Himself, Brahman is originally without distinction, without form, one and without a second, a pure unity and a pure cause. Then, afterwards, He comes to manifest Himself voluntarily in various effects or forms, 1.0. comes to have a form, through upadhi and plurality, 1.6. the universe of souls and matter, follows.?
Bhaskara emphasizes this distinction between the transcendent and the immanent 8 aspects of Brahman again and again.® He points out that the universe has Brahman for its essence, but Brahman has not the universe for His essence1° That is the universe has no existence beyond Brahman but Brahman is never exhausted wholly in the universe, but has other aspects too beyond it. Bhaskara is, of course, careful to point out that the prapafica-riipa and the bhinna- karya-ripa of Brahman is not less real simply because it is something adventitious, and not original, being due to limiting adjunct. He, in fact, does not use the term “upadhi’’ in the Samkarite sense, a8 we shall see later.12
1 Bh. B., 1.1.11, p. 24; 1.3.6, ए. 90; 1.1.11, p. 92, ete.
2 Op. cit., 1.1.4, p. 19; 1.1.11, p. 24, “Tat karanitmana karyatmana dvi- rupena avasthitam’”’; 1.2.28, p. 46.
3 Op. cit., 1.1.4, p. 18.
५ Op. cit., 1.1.4, p. 18, “ Ato bhinnabhinna-svaripam Brahmeti sthitam”’.
5 Agantuka.
6 Bh. B., 2.3.43, p. 141, “Sa ca bhinnaébhinna-svaripo’ abhinna-svabhavi- kam aupadhikam tu bhinna-ripam”’; cf. also 3.2.27 (written as 3.2.26 in order to be in conformity with the numbering of sitras by Samkara), ए. 170; 4.1.3, p. 221; 4.4.4, p. 243. See below.
7 Bh. B., 3.2.11, p. 165
8 Prapafica-vilaksana and prapajica-laksana
® Bh. B., 1.1.20, p. 29; 1.2.23, p. 46.
10 Op. cit., 3.2.11, p. 165; 3.2.13, p. 166; 3.2.23, p. 169; 3.4.8, p. 202. 11 Op. cit., 3.2.11, p. 165; 3.2.23, p. 168; etc. See below. 12 See below.
184 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Bhaskara points out that even when Brahman manifests Himself as effects, He never Himself actually becomes the Universe, but remains unchanged and unmodified in nature, as a spider remains unchanged, though weaving its web out of itself.1 Creation means the mani- festation of Brahman’s power,? and Brahman’s immanence in the created effects is not His actual transformation in the form of those éffects, but is simply His abiding within the universe and within the hearts of men as their Inner Controller and Inner Soul,’ Himself remaining in His pristine exalted condition, absolutely unaffected by their defects and miseries.*
Now, Nimbarka agrees with Bhaskara in holding that Brahman is both transcendent and immanent, i.c. both the transcendent creator and the immanent ruler; that He is never actually transformed into the form of the Universe and that transformation means nothing but projection of His power.®
But in Nimbarka we do not find any such sharp and emphatic distinction between the two forms of Brahman, His karana-ripa and His karya-ripa. According to Nimbarka, Brahman, of course, has a karana-ripa when He is a pure cause, without producing any effects, e.g. during the time of universal dissolution; but even in His causal state, Brahman is not absolutely non-differenced, or nirviéesa, a pure unity or a bare identity as Bhaskara holds. According to Bhaskara in His causal state, Brahman is free from all distinctions whatsoever, 1.6. He has then no internal differences ® even, i.e. His powers and qualities involve no difference in Him. During His causal state the sentient and the non-sentient — His two powers, remain completely merged in Him, like a grain of salt in the sea,” and His qualities, such as knowledge and the rest, are non-different from Him, just as heat, the quality of fire, is non-different from fire, and do not imply any difference of nature on His part.8 In short, according to Bhaskara, Brahman is an abstract Unity in His causal state, with no internal
1 Bh. B., 2.1.14, p. 96.
2 Op. cit., 1.4.25, p. 85; 2.1.14, pp. 96, 97; 2.1.27, p. 105.
ॐ Op. cit., 1.2.5-6, ए. 39; 1.2.18, p. 44
५ Op. cit., 1.1.17, ए. 26; 1.2.8, ए. 40; 1.3.7, pp. 52, 53; 1.4.21, p. 82; 2.1.22 p. 103
5 Sakti-viksepa
6 Cp. the three kinds of bhedas, sajatiya, vijatiya and svagata
7 See below
8 Bh. B., 3.2.23, p. 169; 4.4.7, p. 244.
BHASKARA’S DOCTRINE OF BRAHMAN 185
differences, but becomes a concrete unity in His effected state, with the internal differences of the sentient and the non-sntient. But for Nimbarka, Brahman is always differenced or savigega, in the sense that He has always internal differences, i.e. is always a concrete Unity even during His causal state. The sentient and the non-sentient are never absolutely identical with Brahman, never absolutely merged and ab- sorbed in Him like a grain of salt thrown into the sea, but always retain their own individuality and separateness even during salvation and dissolution, and as such, they always constitute the internal differences of Brahman. Thus, a pure, non-differenced unity is a thing unknown to Nimbarka. Nimbarka, in fact, does not think it necessary to note the karana-ripa of Brahman separately from His karya-ripa for the evident reason that he thinks that there is no fundamental distinction between them to require special mention.
According to Bhaskara, as according to Nimbarka, Brahman is a qualified Being although, as noted above, the qualities of Brahman involve no difference in His own nature.1 Brahman is pure existence and pure knowledge,? yet He is a knower or possesses knowledge as His quality.2 He is omniscient and omnipotent. He has many other qualitics too, such as freedom from sins, freedom from fear, ete.5
It is curious that Bhaskara never directly refers to Brahman as possessed of innumerable qualities, as Nimbarka repeatedly does.” He throughout emphasizes only one quality of Brahman, viz. Omnis- cience. Everywhere he refers to Brahman as Omniscient and Omni- potent.6 Again and again, these two adjectives are coupled together and prefixed before the word ‘‘Brahman’’, whenever the word is mentioned 9. In many other places, again, he speaks of Brahman
1 Bh. 8., 3.2.23, p. 169 (“Na dharmadharmibhedena svaripabhedahy”’), 4.4.7 (p. 244). ८
2 Op. cit., 3.2.15, 16, p. 166; 3.2.17, p. 166; 3.2.19, p. 167; 3.2.23, pp. 168- 169. Brahman is sal-lakgana and bodha-laksana.
3 Op. cit., 1.1.2, etc. 4 Sce below.
5 Op. cit., 1.1.20, ए. 29; 1.2.8, p. 40; 1.2.18, p. 44, etc.
6 Ananta-guna.
7 Vide V.P.S., 1.1.1, p. 1 (page references are to the K.S.S. ed., through- out); 3.2.11, p. 279, etc. ९४९.; S.N.K.S., Sloka 1, ete.
8 Sarvajiia and sarva-éakti.
® Bh. 8., 1.1.2, p. 8; 1.1.11, p. 24; 1.2.6, p. 39; 1.4.26, p. 83; 2.1.14, pp. 96, 97; 2.1.24, p. 104; 2.1.33, p. 107; 2.2.37 (printed as 2.2.40 in conformity with the numbering of Samkara), p. 128, ete. ete.
186 , DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
as possessed of infinite and inconceivable powers.1 With him, thus, the stress is throughout on the wonderful and innumerable powers (Sakti), of Brahman, rather than on His wonderful and innumerable qualities (guna), as with Nimbarka. In fact, not once does he take the trouble of describing Brahman as an abode of all auspicious qualities etc., but rather takes it for granted that Brahman is pos- sessed of various qualities, and speaks of some of them incidentally in connection with discussing the import of certain scriptural texts.? More particularly, he never refers to those softer qualities of the Lord which play so prominent a part in the system of Nimbarka and es- pecially in that of his followers. He, of course, like all the rest, des- cribes Brahman as blissful,8 but not once does he speak of Brahman’s beauty, loveliness or grace.
Bhaskara, in fact, does not regard Brahman as a personal and embodied being as Nimbarka does. According to Nimbarka, as we have seen, the Lord is the Highest Person or Purusottama, possessed of a celestial body, full of divine beauty and grace. But Bhaskara does not speak of the body of Brahman. He also makes no mention of incarnations as Nimbarka does and in his criticism of the Paficaratra system 4 he definitely rejects the theory of four vyithas,—which is accepted by Nimbarka, and his followers.
There is not a single mention of the grace of the Lord in Bhaskara’s commentary,5 and never does he call Brahman ‘“‘ bhaktavatsala’’, etc. which Nimbarka does so often. According to Bhaskara, Brahman is to be worshipped indeed, but not as a Personal God of love and grace, but as a formless and distinctionless entity, in whatever way that might be possible.6 Thus, while according to Nimbarka, the Lord is to be known, loved and worshipped, according to Bhaskara, Brahman is to be known and worshipped, and not loved.
Bhaskara holds, in opposition to Samkara, that Brahman, though not something to be produced, modified and purified, is yet something
1 Bh. 8., 1.4.26, p. 85; 2.1.14, pp. 97, 98; 2.1.30, p. 106; 2.2.2, ए. 1108 2.4.4, p. 146; ete. Ananta-acintya-sakti.
2 Op. cit., 1.1.20; 1.2.8; ete
3 Op. ८९, 1.1.12-19, pp. 24-29
* Op. cit., 2.2.38-40 (printed as 2.2.41-44 in the book in conformity with Samkara’s numbering of the siitras), pp. 128-129
5 See below under “sadhanas”’.
6 1.6. as nirékara and nirvisesa. See below.
BHASKARA’S DOCTRINE OF SOUL 187
to be obtained. He is to be approached by freod souls and to be obtained by them.2 = ४
Here Nimbarka agroes with Bhaskara.3 This question is con- nected with the question whether salvation is a positive acquisition, or & mere negative removal of nescience (as held by Samkara), which will be considered below.
Thus, we conclude that although there is a general agreement between Nimbarka and Bhaskara with regard to the nature and qua- lities of Brahman, as the Universal Cause etc., yet there is a vital point of divergence between the two in that Nimbarka does not coun- tenance the purely formless and distinctionless aspect of Brahman on which Bhaskara lays so great a stress.
(3) The cit.
Like Nimbarka, Bhaskara holds that the soul is knowledge by nature and a knower,5 and an enjoyer,® and an active agent;? that in size, it is atomic 8 and that in number it is infinite.®
But the fundamental difference between Nimbarka and Bhaskara is that Bhaskara holds that although the soul is an enjoyer, etc. yet its state of being an enjoyer, an agent, atomic and innumerable 1° is neither original and natural, nor eternal, but due to limiting ad- juncts and adventitious, lasting so long only as the limiting adjunct itself does.!1
This follows from the peculiar doctrino of Bhaskara, that the individual soul is different-nondifferent from Brahman 12 during the
1 Bh. B., 1.1.4, p. 20. Contrast $.B., 1.1.4, pp. 161ff., 1.6. according to Bhaskara, Brahman, though not upadya, vikarya and samskarya, is yet ipya.
2 Op. cit., 1.2.4, p. 38; 1.2.13, p. 41; 1.3.1, p. 52.
3 See above Nimbarka’s doctrine of salvation.
4 See below under “Moksa’’.
5 Bh. B., 2.3.18, 7. 135.
6 Op. cit., 1.1.17, p. 26; 1.2.8, p. 40; 1.3.7, pp. 52-53; 2.1.22, p. 103.
7 Op. cit., 2.3.33-39, pp. 138-139.
8 Op. cit., 2.3.19-28, pp. 185-137.
9 Op. cit., 1.4.21, p. 52; 2.2.37 (printed as 2.2.40 in the book in conformity with Samkara’s numbering), p. 128.
10 Bhoktrtva, kartrtva, anutva and anantatva.
11 T.e. not svabhavika and nitya, but aupadhika, agantuka and anitya.
12 Bh. B., 1.1.17, p. 26; 1.2.6, p. 39; 1.2.20, p. 45; 1.4.21, p. 81; 2.1.22, p. 103; 2.3.43, p. 141; 3.2.6, p. 162; 3.2.28-29 (printed as 3.2.27-28 in con- formity with Samkara’s numbering), p. 170. See below.
188 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
state of mundane existence only, but originally, i.e. during the causal state of Brahman, it was non-different from Brahman and ultimately, i.e, during the states of dissolution and salvation, it will be non- different from Brahman.!
Thus, during the state of mundane existence, ie. during the effected state of Brahman, the individual soul, as a part and an effect of Brahman and as abiding in and resting on Him, is non-different from Him, because the part is non-different from the whole, the effect from the cause, the support from the supported.2 Yet at the same time, it is different from Brahman because of the upadhi or limiting adjunct which separates it from Brahman. Curiously enough, Bhas- kara illustrates his theory by the examples used by both Parindéma- vadins and Vivarta-vadins. He says that the individual soul is a part of the Supreme Being, a part due to the limiting adjunct of beginning- less avidyé and karma, just as a spark is of fire, or the ether within the ear (limited by the upadhi ‘ear’) is of the universal ether or the vital air within everybody (limited by the upadhi ‘body’) is of the universal शः. Thus, whenever Bhaskara speaks of the individual soul as a part of Brahman, he cites the example of spark and fire, but says at the same time that the individual soul is a part of Brahman , due to upddhis.4
It is clear, therefore, that by the term “upadhi’’ Bhaskara does not understand something false or illusory, as Samkara does, other- wise he would not have quoted the example of spark and fire, a spark being a real part of fire. As we have seen above, he says that the upadhis are beginningless avidyé and karma.5 Again, in another place, he says that the upadhis are buddhi, the internal organ etc., and their qualities, viz. attachment etc., based on the sense of egoity.® What he means is that so long as the individual soul is under the clutches of 8९1१8. 7 and regards itself as absolutely different from
1 See below under “Relation between Brahman, cit and acit.
2 Bh. B., 1.4.2, p..72; 2.1.14, p. 93; 2.1.18, ए. 101; 2.4.4, p. 145; 2.1.19, p. 102.
3 Op. cit., 1.4.21, p. 81.
4 Op. cit., 2.3.43, p. 140; 3.2.30 (printed as 3.2.29 in conformity with Samkara’s numbering), p. 170. Vide also 3.2.19, ए. 167 and 3.2.29, pp. 167-168.
5 Op. cit., 1.4.21, p. 81.
6 Op. cit., 2.3.29-30, ए. 137.
7 Avidyé is defined thus: ^ Sarirddav-andtma-buddhih १, Bh. B., 1.1.4, p- 21; vide also ए. 19.
BHASKARA’S DOOTRINE OF UPADHI 189
Brahman 1, it is led on to perform kamya-karmas etc.— i.e. act in a selfish spirit, and this leads it to be connected with matter, 1.6. with the body, the senses, buddhi, internal organ etc., and matter serves as a limiting adjunct to differentiate it from Brahman.
Bhiaskara admits, therefore, the reality of upadhis. He explicitly says that what is aupadhika is not aparamarthika.2 The difference between what is svibhavika or natural and what is aupaddhika or unnatural is not a difference between what is real and what is unreal, but only a difference between what is original and real for ever (nitya) and what is adventitious and not real for ever, but for a time being only (anitya). Bhaskara points out that what is adventitious and not original is not necessarily false, e.g. a thing which has no heat within it, may become hot when in contact with fire (as an iron pot placed over fire), but this heat which is something adventitious is not some- thing unreal.3 Thus, according to Bhaskara, what is aupadhika is real, very real, so far as it goes, 1.0. so long as the upadhi lasts, but ceases to be so as soon as the upadhi ceases. This sense of the ‘aupa- dhika’ is exactly opposed to the Samkarite sense of it. According to Samkara, what is aupadhika is never real, for if it be real, it could not be ever-negated. Samkara thus identifies reality with permanence. According to him, what is existent or sat is true for all times. But according to Bhaskara, reality and permanence are not necessarily identical. ` ^ real thing may be non-permanent, i.e. be real for a time only and not all throughout. According to Bhaskara, therefore, the non-difference of the soul from Brahman is SVABHAVIKA, 1.6. REAL AND LASTING, being real always,— during the state of mundane existence as well as during the states of dissolution and salvation; while its difference from Brahman is aupddhika, i.e. real, though not lasting, being real during the state of mundane existence only.4
1 Bh. B., 2.3.20, p. 137. “Yavadayam atmaé kevalena dvaitadarganona samsarati tavat-kalabhavi buddhyadyupadhi-yogah.”
2 Op. cit., 2.3.40, p. 139. “Na caupddhikam kartrtvam apéramarthikam.”
3 Op. cit., 3.3.40, p. 139.
4 Op. cit., 2.3.43, pp. 140-141; 3.2.6, p. 162; 3.2.26 (printed as 3.2.25 in conformity with the numbering of Samkara), pp. 161-162; 4.1.3, p. 221; 4.4.4, p. 243. See below under “Relation between Brahman, cit and acit”. It is interesting to compare the view of Bhaskara with that of Audulomi (as given by Bhaskara himself). According to Audulomi (Bhaskara points out) tho soul is absolutely different, or atyanta-bhinna from Brahman during its state of bondage, but becomes different from Him during its state of release. (Bh. B., 1.4.20, ए. 81). Bhaskara criticises this view in the next sitra (op. cit., 1.4.21,
190 ` DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
When the upadhi is removed, then the soul becomes one with Brahman, just as when the pot is broken, the ether within the pot becomes one with the universal ether, or just as a grain of salt when thrown into the sea becomes one with the salt water.2 It attains the pure form of the Supreme Self’ and becomes omniscient and omni- potent + and all-pervading 5 like Brahman, it becomes the Universal soul like Him. ,
After having thus considered what exactly is the significance of the term “‘upadhi” in Bhaskara, we can now understand clearly why and in what sense Bhaskara calls the soul’s state of being an agent, an enjoyer and atomic of the soul, aupddhika merely and not natural. He points out that if the soul were a natural agent, it would have continued to act always, but since where there is action there is enjoyment and where there is enjoyment there is mundane existence, the soul would have been subject to the mundane existence always and would have never been free.? The fact is that the soul is an agent so long 88 it has a body, senses, etc., so long &8 16 is connected with the upadhis of matter, but it is no longer an agent when the upadhi is no more, just as a carpenter is an agent when he has his tools with him and not otherwise,® or just as fire produces smoke when it is in contact with fuel and not otherwise.? And this agency of the soul, though aupa&dhika, is not unrea!,10 1.6. the soul though not always an agent is a real one, so long as it remains as such, i.e. during its state of bondage. The (aupédhika) agency of the soul is dependent upon Brahman !1—a point common with Nimbarka, according to whom also its agency is dependent on Him.
p. 81) and points out that the soul can never be absolutely different from Brahman, for even during the state of mundane existence it is the Supreme Soul Himself who abides as the individual soul. Even the upédhi or matter cannot make tho soul absolutely different from Brahman, just as the spark is not absolutely different from fire, or the ether within the ear-hole from the universal ether. Hence, even during the state of mundane existence the souls are not atyanta-bhinna from Brahman, but bhinndbhinna from Him.
1 Bh. B., 4.4.4, py 243. 2 Op. cit., 4.2.15, p. 231,
3 Op. cit., 4.4.2, p. 242. 4 Op. cit., 4.4.7, p. 244.
5 Op. cit., 4.4.15, p. 247. 6 Op. cit., 4.4.7, p. 244.
7 Op. cit., 3.3.4, p. 139. “Ne svibhavikam kartrtvam, anirmoksa-pra- sangét’’.
8 Op. cit., 3.3.40, p. 139. 9 Op. cit., 3.4.25, (printed as 3.4.26 in conformity with the numbering of Samkara), p. 210. 10 Op. cit., 3.3.40, p. 139. 11 Op. cit., 2.3.41, p.140.
BHASKARA’S DOCTRINE OF SOUL 191
The soul’s state of being an agent too is similarly aupadhika, lasting so long only as karmas and their results, viz. the body etc., do.}
The atomicity of the soul too is aupadhika only, for it, as non- different from Brahman, is all-pervading by nature.?
Bhiskara does not say explicitly whether the soul’s state of being innumerable too is aupadhika only; but in view of the fact that the freed souls merge absolutely into Brahman, as salt in the sea,® it is evident that it too is aupadhike, seeing that a grain of salt thrown into the sea and immediately dissolved in it cannot, of course, be distinguished from a thousand other grains so thrown.
Only the soul’s state of being a knower is not aupadhika, but is natural, for the soul being Brahman Himself,—who is a knower—is always knowledge and a knower.*
Now, if we compare this view of Bhaskara with that of Nimbarka, we find how divergent are their opinions on some very fundamental points. Firstly, according to Nimbarka, the soul is a knower, an agent an enjoyer, atomic in size and infinite in number, all throughout, in bondage as in release, secondly, the soul is always different-non- different from Brahman, but can never become absolutely identical with Him. Hence while according to Nimbarka, the soul’s state of being an agent, an enjoyer, atomic, innumerable and different- nondifferent from Brahman are svabhavika, 1.6. real and ever-lasting, according to Bhaskara they are aupadhika, i.e. real but temporary.
Like Nimbarka, Bhaskara holds that the souls and the world are powers of Brahman. Brahman has two powers—bhogya-sakti and bhoktr-sakti. The first is transformed into the non-sentient world, the second into sentient souls.
As regards the different states of the soul, viz. dream, deep sleep, etc. Bhaskara agrees generally with Nimbarka, only unlike Nimbarka, he holds that the dream-creations are not real and that they are created by the individual soul and not by the Lord.§
As regards the different destinies and paths of the soul, Bhaskara is in complete agreement with Nimbarka.
1 Bh. B., 3.4.25, (printed as 26 in conformity with the numbering of Samkara), p. 210.
2 Op. cit., 3.3.29-32, pp. 137-138; 4.4.15, p. 247.
3 See below.
4 Bh. B. 2.3.18, ए. 135. “Svabhavikaii césya brahma-ripam, aupaédhikam itarat’’.
5 Op. cit., 2.1.27, p. 105.
192 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
(4) The acit.
Bhaskara agrees with Nimbarks generally as regards the process of creation and dissolution, etc.,1 but he differs from him in holding that the universe, like the individual souls, is different-nondifferent from Brahman during His effected state, but non-different from Him during His causal state. It is different-nondifferent from Brahman during the state of mundane existence for the very same reasons the souls are so, as noted above 2~i.e. non-different as a part and effect of Brahman 3 and different as matter. But during dissolution it becomes merged in Brahman and absolutely one with it, just as a lump of salt, thrown into the sea, becomes absolutely one with and non-distinguishable from it. And, just as everything thrown into a salt-lake becomes salt, so the non-sentient merged in the sentient becomes sentient indeed.*
But according to Nimbarka, as we have seen, the non-sentient matter can never discard its own nature and become sentient Brahman, and therefore the Universe is always different-nondifferent from Brahman, during creation as well as dissolution.
Bhaskara also does not speak of the three kinds of the non- sentient, aprakrta; kala, otc., but of the universe alone, which he points out—in opposition to Samkara and in agreement with Nimbarka—is real 5 and eternal.é
(5) The relation between Brahman, the cit and the acit.
Like Nimbarka, Bhaskara recognises three eternal realities, Brahman, the sentient and the non-sentient.? The relation between
1 Bh. B., 2.3.1-15, pp. 130ff. 2 See above.
3 Bh. B., 2.4.4, pp. 145-146.
4 Op. cit., 3.2.17, pp. 166-167. “Cetane acetanam ksiptam abhedat cetano bhavet.
Riméyém vastu vinyastam tat sarvam lavantbhavet”’. Cf. also 2.1.9, p. 91. क
5 Op. cit., 1.1.4, pp. 18, 20; 2.1.4, p. 93;'3.2.11, 10. 165; 3.2.23, p. 168.
6 Op. cit., 2.4.4, ए. 146.
When the universe disappears, i.e. is discovered into Brahman in dissolution, it does not become unreal, but only indistinguishable from Brahman, just as a grain of salt does not become unreal when dissolved in the sea. Hence the world is eternally true. The same is the case with the soul too.
7 Op. cit., 2.3.16, ए. 134:—The jiva is nitya. Op. cit., 2.4.4, p. 146:—The jagat is nitya.
AUPADHIKA-BHEDABHEDA-VADA 193
them has already been noted. It is a relation of different-non- difference during the effected state of Brahman,—during creation and mundane existence, and a relation of non-difference (absolute identity) during the causal state of Brahman—during dissolution and salvation, and here, as we have seen, Bhaskara fundamentally differs from. Nimbarka. " ,
It will be interesting and instructive to consider the Bhedabheda- vada of Bhaskara a little more in detail in order to find out wherein does it exactly differ from the Bhedaibheda-vada of Nimbiarka.
Bhaskara begins with a severe criticism of the view of those who hold non-difference to be the only reality. No doubt he has here Samkara in mind. He points out that difference is an indisputable fact of direct experience and hence can by no means be summarily rejected on the ground of mere logical subtleties, e.g. we find that a cow is different from a horse, a pot from a piece of cloth and so on. All things thus, are mutually different and so how can we disbelieve this fact of direct experience १. Knowledge of difference too is know- ledge no less than knowledge of non-difference.2 So, if we do not regard the one—viz. the latter, as false, what right have we to regard the former to be so ?
Nor can it be objected that difference and non-difference are mutually contradictory and cannot, therefore, co-exist,—for this too is a fact of direct experience that the two do co-exist. In fact nothing is seen to be pure non-difference or pure difference in the world of experience. Everything is, really, different-non-different, different as effects and individuals, and non-different as springing from the same cause and belonging to the same genus, e.g., 8 cow is different from another cow as an individual cow, but non-different from it as belonging to the same genus‘cow’. Again, a cow is different from a horse as a cow, but non-different from it being an existent substance like it and so on. Similarly, a gold ear-ring is different from a gold bracelet, but non-different from it as gold. Everything must be decided to be true or false on the basis of direct experience alone and
direct experience guarantees us in believing that difference and non- difference do co-exist.4
1 Bh. B., 2.1.14, p. 99. 2 Op. cit., 1.1.4, ‰. 19. “Bheda-jiinam api jianam eva” 2.1.14, p. 94, line 13, 98. 3 Op. cit., 1.1.4, pp. 16-17. 4 Op. cit., 1.1.4, pp. 16-17. 13
194 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Hence it is that there is no contradiction or mutual opposition between Brahman, the Unity, and Universe, the plurality, as between heat and cold. If there were any such contradiction, the Universe of souls and matter could not have arisén from Brahman, abode in Him, and been merged in him,—as declared by Scripture.1 Hence, unity and plurality are both real and co-existent.?
After thus establishing the reality of difference and its co-existence with non-difference, Bhiskara goes on to declare that the former, though real, is not ever-lasting,—i.e. is not svabhavika or original and ultimate but 18 aupddhika or adventitious and non-permanent. He emphasizes this point again and again.? We have seen above the peculiar sense in which Bhaskara uses the term ‘aupddhika’—viz. what is real so long as it lasts, only it does not last for ever like what is svibhavika does. Hence, according to Bhaskara, difference is not less real than non-difference, but only less permanent. It lasts, as a reality, so long as the upaédhis—viz. avidyé, karma, matter, do but disappears when the upadhis are removed, just as the ether within the pot disappears when the pot is smashed,‘ or just as the stain on 9 piece of gold disappears when in contact with fire.5
Herein we find a definite point of divergence between Nimbarka and Bhaskara. According to Nimbarka, as we have seen, difference and non-difference are not only equally real but also equally permanent. Just as there can be no pure difference, so exactly there can be no pure non-difference at any time. According to Bhaskara, however, as we have seen, although there can be no pure difference and pure non-difference in the world of experience (i.e. during the effected state of Brahman), still there can be pure non-difference beyond the world of experience (i.e. during the causal state of Brahman).
However much Bhaskara may try to prove by his peculiar theory of upadhi that difference, though not ever-lasting like non-difference, is nevertheless equally real with it, yet we cannot but feel that the two do not hold exactly an equal place in his system, as they do in that of Nimbarkay If difference be neither original, nor ultimate, but only an intermediate passing phase, destined to come to an end, however real it may be during that period, it must of necessity be less
1 Vide e.g. Tait. 3.1. 2 Bh. B., 1.1.4, p. 17.
8 Op. cit., 2.3.48, ए. 141; 3.2.6, ए. 162; 3.2.12, p. 165; 3.2.27, (printed as 8.2.26 in conformity with Samkara’s numbering), ए. 170; 4.1.12, p. 221; 4.4.4, p. 243. ~
५ Op. cit., 4.4.4, p. 246. 5 Op. cit., 4.1.3, p. 221.
13B
BHASKARA ON SALVATION 195
important and less real than non-difference, which is there for ever and from all eternity. But in Nimbarka’s system, as we have seen, difference and non-difference are precisely on the same level and of the same importance
Bhaskara’s theory may appropriately be called ‘‘Aupadhika- bhedabheda-vada’’,! as distinguished from the “Svabhavika-bheda- bheda-vada”’ of Nimbarka.
(6) Mokga.
Bhaskara holds, like Nimbarka, that salvation is a state of supreme bliss, and not a state of pure consciousness only, which he points out, is no better than a state of unconsciousness.2 Salvation is a positive state, a positive new acquisition, 1.6. something new to be obtained, and not @ mere negative removal of the veil of nescience.8 The soul is ever free.4 If salvation were ever-obtained, everyone would have been free.5
Like Nimbarka again, Bhaskara holds that salvation can be obtained only after the destruction of the earthly body. When the works, which have already begun to bear fruits, are all fully exhausted by retributive experience, and when the earthly body, as a consequence, comes to be dissolved, then and then alone can one attain final emancipation.6 He severely criticises the Samkarite conception of Jivan-mukti.7
But the fundamental difference between Nimbarka and Bhiaskara, as we have already seen, is that Bhaskara holds, unlike Nimbarka, that in salvation the individual soul becomes absolutely identical with Brahman.’ This Nimbarka never maintains.
Another fundamental difference between the two is that while Bhaskara admits of two kinds of salvation—viz. sadyomukti or
1 Sundarabhatta, one of the followers of Nimbarka, does actually refer to Bhaskara as the upholder of the ‘Aupadhika-bhedaibheda-vada’. Vide SJS., ए. 30.
2 Bh. B., 1.1.5, p. 21. He holds that it is better to be a jackal in the forest than to be a mukta in the Samkarite sense. 1.3.9, ए. 54; 4.4.7, ए. 244.
8 See above. 4 Bh. B., 1.4.21, p. 18.
5 Op. cit., 1.1.5, p. 20.
6 Op. cit., 3.4.25, (printed as 3.4.26 in conformity with Samkara’s num- bering), p. 210; 4.1°14, ए. 224; 4.1.18, p. 226.
7 Op. cit., 3.4.25, (printed as 3.4.26 in conformity with Samkara’s num- bering), p. 210.
8 See above.
196 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
immediate release and krama-mukti or gradual release, Nimbiarka does not. Bhaskara points out that in accordance with the rule ‘As you meditate, so you become’ (Chand. 3. 14. 1), those who meditate on the Para Brahman or the Supreme Brahman, attain the Supreme Brahman and become free at once, i.e. they at once become identical with Brahman and as such, omniscient, omnipotent and all-pervading like Him. This is immediate release. But those who meditate on the Karya Brahman or the effected Brahman, viz. Hiranyagarbha only, attain at first the effected Brahman only, and not the Supreme Brahman at once. Then, after having acquired supreme knowledge there in the world of Hiranyagarbha, they, on the dissolution of that world, attain the Supreme Brahman by and by, together with Hiranyagarbha.! This is gradual release, These latter kind of freed souls remain distinct from Brahman, so long as they have not attained the Supreme Brahman, and are as such not so long omni- potent like Him, but lack the power of creating, maintaining and destroying the Universe,2, But when they at last attain the Supreme Brahman, they become omnipotent like the immediately freed souls.
But according to Nimbarka there is only one kind of salvation, viz, sadyo-mukti, and the freed souls ever lack the power of creation, etc. and are ever atomic in size. ।
(7) The sddhanas.
Bhaskara lays a very great stress on karma or action as a direct means to salvation. He begins by pointing out that the enquiry into Brahman is to be undertaken only after an enquiry into karma, for knowledge must essentially be combined with action in order to lead to salvation, and unless we first know the nature of actions, we cannot possibly decide which actions are to be so combined and which not.3 Bhaskara insists on this ‘combination of knowledge and action’ (jfiana-karma-samuccaya) again and again all throughout. He
1 Bh. B., 3.1.17, ट 157; 4.3.14, p. 240. See below.
2 Op. oit., 4.4.17-22, pp. 247-249. The sadyo-muktas are ‘niravadhi- kaigvarya’, while the krama-muktas are “saévadhikaisvarya”’.
3 Op. cit., 1.1.1, p. 2.
“ Op. cit., 1.1.1, p. 2. ‘Atra hi jiiéna-karma-samuccayaét moksa-praptih siitrakarasya abhipreté’; 1.1.1., p. 4; 1.1.4, p. 16; 1.1.5, pp. 20, 21; 3.4.1, p. 201; 3.4.25 (printed as 3.4.26 in conformity with the numbering of Samkara), pp. 207, 209, 210; 4.1.6, p. 225.
BHASKARA’S ETHICS 197
points out that one who has studied the Vedas can claim only to have a knowledge of the meaning of the scriptural texts, but the real know- ledge of Brahman depends on some other factors—viz. the proper and disinterested performance of the daily and occasional (nitya and naimittika) duties, and of sacrifices, etc., the practice of charity and penance, the cultivation of self-control and tranquillity, etc. and 80 on, as declared by Scripture.1
Mere action is of course of no avail, for the fruits of mere action are transitory and therefore worthless. But when combined with knowledge, it yields permanent results.?
On the other hand, mere knowledge is of no avail. Knowledge by itself does not lead to salvation unless combined with action and meditation.’
The next question is: In what relation do these two—viz. action and knowledge, stand to each other? Bhaskara points out that the former is not the cause of the origin of the latter, since knowledge arises from éravana or hearing of scriptural texts etc.,4 — but is an essential ingredient of it,5 an essential ingredient that must accompany knowledge, already obtained from other sources, till the end, helping it to lead to final release. Thus, each of these two has its peculiar function:—the knowledge of identity removes all traces of avidyaé and passion, attachment etc., while the proper performance of daily and occasional karmas removes all traces of past karmas.®
Then Bhaskara goes on to point out that this jftana-karma- samuccaya is nothing but upasané-karma-samuccaya,’? for knowledge cannot stop at itself, but must lead to meditation. Thus, first we acquire & knowledge of the Self and then after having thus determined what the Self is, we then afterwards meditate on it, just as we first know the king or the preceptor, and then worship him. So long
1 Bh. B., 1.1.1, pp. 2-5. The passage referred to 18 Brh. 4.4.22.
2 Op. cit., 1.1.1, p. 4 “Svatah kesanikasydpi karmano jiiana-rasa-viddhasya aksayaphalatvat na kslyata iti ucyate”’.
$ Op. cit., 3.4.1, p. 201; 3.4.25, (printed as 3.4.26 in conformity with Samkara’s numbering), p. 209.
« Op. cit., 3.4.25, (printed as 3.4.26), p. 209; 4.4.1, p. 219.
5 Op. cit., 3.4.25, (printed as 3.4.26), p. 209.
6 Op. cié., 1.1.1, p. 3; 3.4.25, (printed as 3.4.26), p. 209.
7 Op. cit., 1.1.1, p. 3.
9 Op. cit., 3.3.1, p. 174.
198 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
as we do not practise meditation, we do not get rid of mundane existence!
Thus, knowledge, leading to meditation, plus action is the cause of salvation.
Now, there are various kinds of meditations, viz. Parabrahma- upasand, Karyabrahma-upasanaé and Pratika-upasand. Of these, the Parabrahma-upasana or meditation on the Supreme Brahman is the best. Now, as we have seen,? the Supreme Brahman has two forms— viz. kérana-riipa or the causal form and karya-ripa or the effected form. The question is: Is He to be meditated on in both these forms? Bhaskara strongly repudiates this suggestion. The Supreme Brahman, he points out, is to be meditated on in His karana-riipa alone, and never in His karya-riipa. Thus Brahman is to be meditated on in His pure causal form, as a pure Unity, devoid of all differences whatsoever, as formless, as different from the universe of souls and matter, as pure existence, as pure knowledge, and as one and without a second.8 Such a Brahman is to be meditated on as identical with the self of the meditating devotee himself thus: “I am Brahman,”’« or in the reciprocal form: “I am Brahman, Brahman is I”.5 This meditation on the identity between Brahman and the soul, removes all aj fiana,® and all diffetences which are but aupadhika, just as the stain on a lump of gold is removed when it is put to fire,’ and the devotee attains identity with Brahman at once, i.e. immediate release.8
Beside this kind of meditation on the formless and attributeless Supreme Brahman, there are certain saguna upasanas of Him—i.e. the upadsanas of Brahman under various aspects, and possessing various qualities, as designated in the Upanisads—viz.. the Sandilya-vidya,
1 Bh. B., 3.4.25 (printed as 3.3.26 in conformity with Samkara’s num- bering), p. 209; cf. also 3.2.25-26 (printed as 3.2.24-25 in conformity with Samkara’s numbering), pp. 169-170.
2 See above. ह
3 Bh. B., 3.2.11, pp. 164-165; 3.2.12, p. 165. That is, Brahman is to be meditated on in His Suddha-karana-riipa, as abheda, nirékara, prapafica-vilak - sana, sal-lakgana, bodha-loksana ekamev&dvitiyam.
५ Op. cit., 3.2.15, p. 166.
5 Op. cit., 3.3.36, (printed as 3.3.87 in conformity with Samkara’s num- bering), p. 181.
6 Op. cit., 1.1.1, ए. 3.
7 Op. cit., 4.1.3, p. 221. $ Op. cit., 4.3.14, p. 240.
BHASKARA’S ETHICS 199
the Madhu-vidyé and the rest.1 These, too, lead to the Supreme Brahman, i.e. to salvation—any one of them.?
Secondly, there is upasané of the Karya-brahma or Hiranya- garbha. Those who practise this sort of meditation, first attain Hiranyagarbha and then the Supreme Brahman, i.e. gradual release.’
Thirdly, there are meditations on symbols, such as names and the rest. Those who practise this sort of meditations do not attain Brahman, but only limited results.
The following is a chart of the various kinds of Upasanas:—
2 ~ = ~ < (1) Para-brahma- (2) Karya-brahma- (3) Pratika-upaésanaé upaésané. up&sana, (leading to limited (leading to Karya- results).
brahma and thence to Para-brahma.)
Nirguna-upasana Saguna-upasana (leading to Brahman). (leading to Brahman).
Thus, according to Bhaskara, knowledge of Brahman-—>Meditation on Brahman-salvation. Karma accompanies all these throughout and nowhere is there any giving up of karma.5
Now, if we compare this view of Bhiskara with Nimbarka’s view of sidhanas, then we find that they differ in the following points :—
(a) According to Nimbarka also, karma has an important part to play in the attainment of salvation, but he does not give it so great an importance as Bhaskara does. According to Nimbarka, the function of karma is simply to purify the mind and thereby help the rise of knowledge, but here it ends. Karma thus is not a permanent accom- paniment of jfiana, according to Nimbarka, nor a direct means to salvation, but only an indirect means. But this Bhaskara definitely denies. According to him, karma is not the cause of the rise of knowledge, but its essential
1 These are considered throughout the 3rd pada of the 3rd chap.
2 Bh. B. 3.3.58, (printed as 3.3.59 in conformity with Samkara’s num- bering), p. 198.
$ Op. cit., 4.3.14, p. 240. « Op. cit., 4.3.15, p. 241.
5 Op. cit., 3.4.25, (printed as 3.4.26 in conformity with Samkara'’s num- bering), pp. 208-209.
200 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
and permanent accompaniment and as such, & direct means to salvation.
(b) Nimbarka also recommends the meditation on the true self of the individual soul as identical with Brahman, but he does not speak of the nirguna-upasana of Brahman, but of the saguna-upasana only. According to him, the conjoint worship of Radha-Krsna is the- best form of worship, but not a mention of this is found in Bhaskara.
(c) Nimbarka emphasises, all along, the grace of the Lord as the first essential pre-requisite of salvation, but in Bhaskara, there is not a single mention of grace.
(d) According to Nimbarka, prapatti and guriipasatti, 1.6. self-surrender to the Lord and to the preceptor, are independent means to salvation, but Bhaskara makes no mention of them at all.
(e) In Bhaskara there is no place for a sweet and personal relationship of love and living companionship between the Lord and his devotee as in Nimbarka.!
(8) Conclusion.
We conclude therefore, that Nimbarka and Bhaskara differ in many essential points with regard to their theories of Brahman, the sentient, the non-sentient, salvation and the means thereto. Hence we are justified in taking Nimbarka and Bhaskara to be two different persons, representing two different schools of thought, viz. Svabhavika- bhedibheda-vada and Aupadhika-bhedibheda-vada respectively.
Bhaskara, in fact, while so severely criticising Samkara, could not be altogether free from Samkara’s influence. That is why he insists so much on the pure, non-different and attributeless form of Brahman and upon the fact that difference is due to upadhis, so also the soul’s state of being an agent, and so on. He, in fact, tries to work out a sort of reconciliation between the Kevaladvaita-vada and the Dvaitadvaite-vaday standing, as it were, midway between Samkara and Nimbarka.
From the point of view of religion, too, Nimbarka and Bhaskara are poles asunder. While Nimbarka’s system is intensely religious, devotional and emotional, there is properly speaking no place of a
1 Ma&dhurya-pradhiné bhakti.
SRIKANTHA ON BRAHMAN 201
personal, emotional religion in the system of Bhaskara, though he speaks of meditation.
Ill. Nimbarka and Srikantha.
SvABHAVIKA-BHEDABHEDA-VADA AND VisisTa-SIVADVAITA-VADA. (1) Introduction.
Srikantha Saivacarya belonged to the Saiva sect, headed by Svetacarya, and flourished after Samkara.2 He wrote a com- mentary on the Brahma-sitras, establishing the supremacy of Siva and developing a theory of Visistadvaita, similar to that of Ramanuja.
(2) Brahman.
The Highest Reality or Brahman, according to Srikantha, is Siva, otherwise called Bhava, Sarva, Pasupati, Mahadeva, Sambhu, Rudra,’ Nilakantha,* Trilocana,5 Umapati,® etc. He is called “Bhava”” because He exists everywhere at all times;7 “Sarva” because He is the destroyer of everything; 8 ‘“Pasupati” because He is the ruler of the jivas (= pasus);® “Mahadeva”? because He enjoys supreme bliss; 10 “‘Rudra’’ because He removes the miseries of the world,!! and so on, and He is called “Siva’”’, because He is free from all taints, and is supremely auspicious.!2
1 $K.B., Mangala-patha, verse 4, p. 5, Part 1.
9 Vide the sub-commentary called “Sivarkamani-dipiki””—on SK.B., p. 9, Part 1. That Srikantha flourished after Samkara is evident from the fact that he, in his commentary, makes many references to the doctrine of Samkara. Vide e.g. 2.3.19, p. 142, Parts 7 and 8; 2.3.42, p. 158, Parts 7 and 8; 2.3.49, p. 161, Parts 7 and 8; etc. The editor, Halasyanatha Sastrin, however takes him to be prior to Samkara vide his Satrartha-candrika-tika” on 8K.B. Mangala-patha, p. 99, Part 1.
8 $K.B., 1.1.1, p. 71. Part 1.
* Op. cit., 1.1.21, p. 257, Part 3; 1.4.29, p. 579, Part 6; 2.1.1., p. 1, Parts 7 and 8; 3.3.39, p. 353, Parts 10 and 11, etc.
5 Op. cit., 1.1.21, p. 255, Part 3; 3.2.31, p. 265, Part 9; 3.3.52, p. 371, parts 10 and 11, etc.
6 Op. cit., 1.1.22, p. 260, Part 2; 1.1.25, intro., ए, 272, Part 2, otc.
7 Op. cit., 1.1.2, p. 126, Part 2. 8 Op. cit., p. 126, Part 2.
9 Op. cit., ए. 127, Part 2. 10 Op. cit., p. 128, Part 2.
11 Op. cit., p. 127, Part 2. 12 Op. cit., 1.1.4, p. 189, Part 2.
202 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Siva is the supreme cause from which everything arises.!_ He is both the material and the efficient causes of the Universe.* He is the material cause of the Universe through His maya or iccha-éakti,® when He is called Narayana or Visnu.4 Narayana thus is Siva in the state or form of the upadana or the material cause,5 and is as such inferior to Siva, though non-different from Him.6 And inferior to Narayana is Hiranyagarbha, or the aggregate of souls or effects.”
Siva is essentially possessed of an infinite number of attributes and infinite inconceivable powers,® i.e. is possessed of distinctions and never without them. On the one hand, He is an abode of all auspicious qualities and powers, and on the other, free from all defects and faults.0 He has two aspects,—stern and soft. On the one hand, He is a mighty ruler, striking terror in the heart of शा, but on the other, He is an abode of infinite bliss,!2 and the cause of the
1 8K.B., 1.1.12, pp. 203, 206, Part 3; 1.1.16, p. 230, Part 3; 1.1.17, pp. 236-7, Part 3, etc. etc.
2 Op. cit., 1.1.2, p. 129, part 1; 1.1.5, ए. 195, Part 1; 1.1.20, p. 246, Part 3; 1.2.9, pp. 340-41, Part 4; 1.4.23-28, pp. 558-572, Part 6.
Srikantha criticises thé view of those Saiva sects which take the Lord to be the efficient cause merely and not its material cause, vide SK.B. 2.2.35-38, pp. 106-113, Parts 7 and 8. ४
8 SK.B., 1.2.9, pp. 341, 345, Part 4; 1.4.27, p. 570, Part 6.
4 Op. cit., 1.2.2, p. 318, Part 4; 1.3.12, p. 430, Part 5; 3.2.36, pp. 269-70, Part 9; 4.3.11, p. 476, Parts 10 and 11.
, 6 Op. cit. 1.2.3, ip. 318, Part 4; 1.3.4, p. 430, Part 5; 3.2.35, ए. 269, Part 9; 4.3.11, p. 476; Parts 10 and 11.
6 Op. cit., 1.3.12, ए. 430, Part 5. “Yato Visnu-Sivayor upddana-nimittayor avasthé-bhedam antarena svariipa-bhedo nasti”’.
7 Op. ctt., 4.3.14, p. 478, Parts 10 and 11.
8 Op. cit., 1.1.1, pp. 71, 89, Part 1; 1.1.2, p. 121, Part 2; 1.1.24, p. 272, Part 3; 1.2.1, p. 302, Part 4; 1.2.9, p. 338, Part 4; 1.2.19, p. 371, Part 4; 1.3.22, p. 445, Part 5; 2.1.1, p. 1, Parts 7 and 8; 2.1.25, p. 37, Parts 7 and 8; 2.1.28, p. 39, Parts 7 and 8; 2.1.30, p. 40, Parts 7 and 8; 3.2.11, p. 245, Part 9; 3.2.13, p. 248, Part 9; 3.2.17, p 248, Part 9; 3.2.29, p. 363, Part 9; 3.3.17, p. 310, Part 9; 4.4.22, p. 506, Parts 10 and 11.
9 Op. cit., 1.1.2, ए. 124, Part 2.
10 Op. cit., 1.1.1, p. 89, Part 1; 1.1.2, pp. 121, 128, Part 2; 1.1.24, p. 272, Part 3; 1.2.9, p. 338, Part 4; 3.2.11, p. 245, Part 9; 3.2:17, p. 248, Part 9; 3.3.17, p. 310, Part 9; 4.4.22, p. 506, Parts 10 and 11.
11 Op. cit., 1.3.40, p. 496, Part 5,
12 Op. cit., 1.1.13-16, pp. 206-230, Part 3.
SRIKANTHA ON BRAHMAN 203
bliss of individual souls,1 supremely merciful and gracious towards His devotees ४ and the giver of salvation 8 and other fruits.*
The sentient and the non-sentient are the powers of the Lord.5 The cit-6akti consists in three factors, viz. knowledge, volition and action,® while the acit Sakti consists in the five great elements, viz. earth, water, fire, air and ether.? Brahma, Janardana, Rudra, Iévara, and Sadaéiva are the presiding deities of these five elements respectively.8
The sentient and the non-sentient, consisting of these eight forms, constitute the body of the Lord.® Or, they are the attributes of the Lord,!° qualifying Him, as the body qualifies the soul, or as blueness qualifies lotus.11_ The Lord is thus qualified by the universe 1४ and has the universe for His form or body.18
The Lord, qualified by the universe, has two forms,—viz. causal state and effected state.1¢ During His causal state, the attributes
1 $K.B., 1.1.15, pp. 217-18, Part 3.
2 Op. cit., 1.1.1, pp. 71, 91-92, Part 1; 1.2.1, p. 302, Part 4; 1.2.9, p. 337, Part 4; 1.3.24, p. 452, Part 5; 2.1.1, p. 1, Parts 7 and 8; 2.1.35, pp. 49, 50, Parts 7 and 8; 4.3.1, p. 468, Parts 10 and 11; 4.1.1, p. 482, Parts 10 and 11; 4.4.22, p- 506, Parts 10 and 11.
3 Op. cit., 1.1.1, pp. 71, 91-92, Part 1; 1.1.17, p. 235, Part 3; 1.1.20, p. 246, Part 3; 2.1.35, pp. 49-50, Parts 7 and 8; 3.3.39, p. 355, Parts 10 and 11.
ˆ + Op. cit., 3.2.40, p. 276, Part 9. ।
5 Op. cit., 1.2.9, p. 340, Part 4; 1.4.27, p. 566, Part 6; 2.1.18, p. 29, Parts 7 and 8.
6 Op. cit., 1.2.9, p. 345, Part 4. See also sub-commentary on the same page.
7 Op. cit., 2.3.14, p. 133, Parts 7 and 8.
8 Op. cit., 1.1.16, p. 228, Part 3. See also sub-commentary on the same page. 2.3.14, p. 133, Parts 7 and 8.
9 Op. cit., 1.2.1, pp. 303, 307, Part 4; 1.2.12, p. 352, Part 4; 1.3.8, p. 417, Part 5; 1.4.22, p. 551, Part 6; 1.4.27, p. 567, Part 6; 2.1.9, p. 14, Parts 7 and 8, 2.3.14, ए. 133, Parts 7 and 8; 2.1.22, p. 31, Parts 7 and 8; 3.2.28, ए. 259, Part 9.
10 Op. cit., 2.1.22, p. 31, Parts 7 and 8; 2.3.52, p. 162, Parts 7 and 8; 3.2.27, p. 259, Part 9.
11 Op. cit., 2.1.22, p. 31, Parts 7 and 8.
12 Op. ctt., 1.1.1, pp. 71, 89, Part 1; 1.1.20, p. 246, Part 3; 1.2.1, p. 303, Part 4; 1.4.27, p. 571, Part 6; 2.1.14, p. 19, Parts 7 and 8; 3.2.29, p. 259, Part 9. The Lord is prapaiica-visista.
18 Op. cit., 1.2.9, p. 345, Part 4; 3.2.29, p. 263, Part 9. The Lord is pra- paiica-riipa.
14 Op. cit., 1.1.2, p. 135, Part 1; 1.4.27, pp. 567, 571, Part 6; 2.1.9, p. 14, Parts 7 and 8; 2.1.27, p. 39, Parts 7 and 8.
204 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
and. powers of the Lord, viz. the sentient and the non-sentient, exist in Him in a subtle form, while during His effected state, they are manifested in various names and forms. The Lord is thus, both the cause and the effect. The universe is nothing but the Lord Himself.1
The Lord is not pure knowledge, but a knower.2 He is an enjoyer as well, though not of the fruits of karma like the soul, but of His own infinite bliss,? and finally He is an agent. His‘five actions are:—creation, maintenance and dissolution of the universe, favour, 1.6. emancipating the soul, and concealment or concealing the essential nature of the soul i.e. causing its bondage.
Finally, the Lord is possessed of a celestial, non-material body, which does not entitle Him to any karma.§
If we compare this view of Srikantha with that of Nimbarka, we find that there is not much difference between the two doctrines, so far as the philosophical part goes, except that while Nimbarka identifies Brahman with Krsna, Srikantha identifies Him with Siva, and in his system Uma takes the place of Nimbarka’s Radha. As a Saiva teacher, Srikantha makes Visnu subordinate to Siva, which, of course, Nimbarka as a Vaisnava teacher will not tolerate.
But as we have seen, Nimbarka too holds, like Srikantha, that Brahman is the sole supreme cause of the universe, both its material and efficient cause, that He is essentially possessed of attributes and powers, that He is an abode of supreme might and majesty on the one hand and infinite beauty, bliss and tenderness on the other, that the cit and the acit are saktis of the Lord, that the Lord is a knower as omniscient, an enjoyer as enjoying celestial pleasures and @ doer, as the creator, controller and giver of fruits, and possesses a celestial body.
The most important point of difference worth noticing is that Nimbarka does not admit that the sentient and the non-sentient are the visesanas, attributes, of the Lord. This view has been severely criticised by the followers of Nimbarka.6 They point out that they
1 §K.B. See below under “ Relation between Brahman, cit and acit’’.
2 Op. cit., 2.3.29, p. 147, Parts 7 and 8; 3.2.16, pp. 247-8, Part 9.
3 Op. cit., 1.1.2, pp. 122, 124, Part 2; 1.2.11, p. 350, Part 4; 4.4.21, p. 500, Parts 10 and 11.
५ Op. cit., 1.1.2, pp. 108-115, Part 2. The krtya-paficaka or the five actions are (1) Janma, (2) Sthiti, (3) Pralaya, (4) Anugraha, (5) Tirobhava.
5 Op. cit., 1.1.21, pp. 251-252, Part 3; 1.2.8, p. 328, Part 4.
० 8.J., pp. 43-44; 8.8. p. 45. See above. Cf. also Anantaréma’s “Vedan- tatattva-bodha”, pp. 27-32.
SRIKANTHA ON SOUL 205
are powers and parts of the Lord, and do constitute His body, but are not His attributes by any means.
Another point of difference is that Srikantha rejects the vyihas 1 accepted by Nimbarka and does not speak of avataras or incarnations.
(3) The cit.
Srikantha’s doctrine of the individual soul too is similar to that of Nimbarka. Like Nimbarka, he holds that the soul is an eternal and real substance,2 a knower,8 an enjoyer,# and an active agent,5 and atomic in size,® and that its state of being a knower, an enjoyer, an agent and atomic are natural, pertaining to its very nature and are, as such, ever-lasting, in bondage as in release.
He is also in perfect agreement with Nimbarka with regard to the different states of the soul, viz. dream, deep sleep and the rest,—viz. that the dream-objects are created by the Lord,” that the Lord is the place of deep sleep and not the vein or the pericardium,® that the state of swoon is a distinct and peculiar state,® and so on, and also with regard to the various destinies and paths of the soul, viz. the path of Gods etc., and the way of the soul’s going through them.10
There are, however, two points of difference :—
(a) First, as we have already seen, according to Srikantha the soul is an attribute of the Lord, which Nimbarka does not hold.
(6) Secondly, according to Nimbarka the very nature of the soul is to be controlled, while the very nature of the Lord is to control, and hence the soul is ever under the contrdi of the Lord, in release too as in bondage. But according to Srikantha, although the soul is under the control of the Lord during the state of mundane
1 $K.B., 2.2.39-42, pp. 115-119, Parts 7 and 8.
2 Op. cit., 2.3.18, ए. 140, Parts 7 and 8.
3 Op. cit., 2.3.19, ए. 142, Parts 7 and 8; 2.3.27-29, pp. 146-7, Parts 7 and 8.
4 Op. cit., 1.3.6, pp. 407-8, Part 4; 3.2.13, p. 246, Part 9; 4.4.19, pp. 497-98, parts 10 and 11.
5 Op. ¢it., 2.3.33-39, pp. 152-154, Parts 7 and 8.
6 Op. cit.
7 Op. cit., 3.2.1-6, pp. 224-233, Part 9.
8 Op. cit., 3.2.7-8, pp. 235-239, Part 9,
9 Op. cit., 3.2.10, p. 242, Part 9.
10 Op. cit., 4.3.1-25, pp. 468-479, Parts 10 and 11.
206 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
existence,! yet when it becomes free and attains simi- larity with the Lord, it is no more under His control in the sense that it is no longer subject to scriptural injunctions and prohibitions which embody the very commands of the Lord Himself,? but becomes independent.®
(4) The acit.
Here too, Srikantha agrees with Nimbarka in holding that the world is real and eternal, and a power of the Lord.5 Srikantha, like Nimbarka, admits real transformation. According to him, the entire universe, consisting of the sentient and the non-sentient, is an effect or real transformation of the Lord, just as the curd is of the milk.6 The process of creation is as follows: During universal dissolution, there is nothing—no sun or moon, no day or night, no names or forms, no sentient or non-sentient objects, but everything is enveloped in deep darkness, and the Lord, with His sentient and non-sentient powers drawn forth, i.e. non-manifest, abides as a cause, absolute, one and without a second, self-luminous, a solitary perceiver. Then there arises in Him the supreme power of knowledge, removing the darkness around, and the Lord wishes to be ‘many’. Thereupon He develops His own subtle powers of the sentient and the non- sentient, so long blended with Him, and the universe of names and forms arises. The Lord is thus both the cause and the effect.? But although the Lord is transformed into the universe, yet He Himself remains untransformed and full, just as the genus, though present in each species, is yet itself non-divided.8
1 $K.B., 2.3.40, ए. 156, Parts 7 and 8; 2.4.14, p. 178, Parts 7 and 8.
8 Op. cit., 4.4.9, p. 487, Parts 10 and 11.
8 Op. cit.
« Op. ctt., 1.4,9-10, pp. 522-24, Part 6. Srikantha points out like Nimbarka, that no contradiction is involved in holding the world to be both unborn and an effect of the Lord. It is unborn in the sense it ever abides as a subtle power of the Lord, and it is an effect in the sense that during creation, it is developed in gross forms possessing various names and forms. Vide SK.B., 1.4.10, pp. 524, Part 6.
5 Op. cit., 1.2.9, p. 340, Part 4; 1.4.27, p. 666, Part 6; 2.1.18, p. 29, Parts 7 and 8.
6 Op. cit., 1.4.27, p. 565, Part 6.
7 Op. cit., 1.2.9, pp. 340-41, Part 4; 1.4.27, pp. 566-67, Part 6; 2.1.10, p. 29, Parts 7 and 8.
8 Op. cit., 2.1.27, p. 39, Parts 7 and 8.
VISISTA-SIVADVAITA-VADA 207
Srikantha also agrees with Nimbarka with regard to the successive stages of creation, viz. the ether, the air, etc.1 But he differs from Nimbarka in two points, viz. :— (a) First, he takes the world, as we have seen, to be an attribute of the Lord, which Nimbarka does not. (b) Secondly, he does not speak of the apraikrta and kala as species of the non-sentient, as Nimbarka does.
(5) Relation between Brahman, the cit and the acit.
Thus, according to Srikantha, there are three real and eternal entities—viz. Siva, the sentient and the non-sentient, just as according to Nimbarka, there are three real and eternal entities, viz. Krsna, the sentient and the non-sentient. Now, what, according to Srikantha, is the exact relation between these three ?
Srikantha points out, exactly like Nimbarka, that on the one hand there is an essential difference between Brahman, and the sentient-nonsentient. The Lord is by nature an abode of all aus- piciousness, purity and perfection, and absolutely free from all faults and defects, but the souls and the universe are not so. The universe is non-intelligent and impure. The soul is intelligent, no doubt, yet it is never omniscient like the Lord, but possessed of but little and limited knowledge,? and is impure eternally subject to stains and defects. Further, the Lord is the director, the souls and the world the directed. The Lord is the Lord of the entire universe, but the soulis not.6 The Lord is the object to be worshipped,® the end to be attained,? and independent,8 while the soul is the worshipper, the attainer and dependent. Thus the Lord is by nature different from the sentient and the non-sentient.®
But the sentient and the non-sentient, though different from the Lord, are not yet absolutely different from Him, but are at the same time non-different from Him, for the Lord is the cause, and the cit and
SK.B., 2.3.1-14, pp. 122-133, Parts 7 and 8.
Op. cit., 1.2.11, p. 35, Part 4; 1.3.43, p. 505, Part 6; 2.1.23, p. 32, Parts 7 and |
Op. cit., 1.2.11, ए. 351, Part 4.
Op. ०४४., 1.2.12, p. 362, Part 4. 5 Op. cit., 1.3.44, p. 506, Part 6.
Op. cit., 1.2.2, pp. 316-317, Part 4.
Op. cit., 1.3.21-22, pp. 444-445, Part 5.
Op. cit., 2.1.14, p. 21, Parts 7 and 8.
Op. cit., 2.3.45, pp. 159-60, Parts 7 and 8.
208 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
the acit His effects;1 the Lord is one who pervades, the sentient and the non-sentient, the pervaded,? and the cause and the effect, what pervades and the pervaded are non-different.8 Here also Srikanth perfectly agrees with Nimbarka.
But, next the vital question arises: Are we then to believe that there is both difference and non-difference between Brahman and the universe? This suggestion Srikantha repudiates at once. He points out that we must guard against three views, viz.:—
दौ (५) Atyantabheda-vada or the view that there is an absolute difference between Brahman and the universe, as between @ pot and a piece of cloth, because that will be in conflict with scriptural texts designating difference between the two.
(8) Atyantaébheda-vada or the view that there is an absolute non-difference between them, as between the nacre and the illusory silver, because that too will go against the scriptural texts which designate a difference between them.
(c) Bhedibheda-vada or the view that there is both difference and noti-difference between them, because that will go against facts of direct experience, as difference and non- difference, being mutually contradictory, are never found to co-exist.
The correct view, Srikantha continues, is that the relation between Brahman and the universe is exactly analogous to that between the soul and the body, and between the substance and its attribute, and between the cause and its effect. The soul (sariri) and the body (Sarira) are non-different in the sense that the soul cannot exist without the body and vice-versa; the substance (guni or visesya) and its attribute (guna or visesana) are non-different in the sense that the substance cannot exist with the attribute and vice versa; the cause (karana) and its effect (kirya) are non-different in the sense that the cause cannot exist without the effect, because the cause always pos- sesses the power of producing the effect, i.e. the effect, even when not actually existent in that particular form, is ever existent in the cause
1 §K.B., 2.3.42, p. 158, Parts 7 and 8; 2.8.46, p. 159, Parte 7 and 8; 2.3.52, p. 162, Parts 7 and 8; 3.2.28, p. 259, Part 9. :
9 Op. cit., 2.3.42, p. 159, Parts 7 and 8. ‘
8 Op. cit., 2.1.15-21, pp. 21-80, Parts 7 and 8; 2.3.42, ए. 169, Parts 7 and 8..
VISISTA-SIVADVAITA-VADA 209
in the form of its power,—and vice versa. Brahman and the universe are non-different in exactly the same sense, because Brahman cannot exist without the universe, which ever exists in Him as His power,— just as fire cannot exist without heat or » blue lotus without blueness, and the universe cannot exist without Brahman, just as an earthen pot cannot exist without clay. Thus, non-difference here means essential and mutual interdependence, i.e. the relation between two things none of which can exist without the other,! and not actual identity. And difference means difference of nature. Just as the soul, though non-different from the body, in the above sense, is yet different from it in nature and superior to it; just as the substance, though non-different from the attribute, in the above sense, is yet different from it in nature and superior to it; and just as the cause, though non-different from the effect in the above sense, is yet different from—so exactly Brahman, though non-different from the universe in the above sense, is yet different from it in nature and superior to it.2
It is this peculiar relation between Brahman and the universe which makes it possible for them to form one whole in spite of their difference. The soul and the body, though different, form one integral whole, because none can exist without the other. Similarly, Brahman and the universe, though different, form one concrete whole, because none can exist without the other.
Hence, Srikantha calls his doctrine “‘ Visista-Sividvaita-vada’’,8 or the doctrine that Siva, the Unity, is qualified by the sentient-non- sentient, the plurality, just as the soul is qualified by the body.
It will be interesting to note wherein exactly Srikantha’s doctrine of Visistadvaita differs from Nimbarka’s doctrine of Svabhavika- bhedabheda. According to Nimbarka also, when we say that the universe is non-different from Brahman, we do not mean thereby that it is actually identical with Him, but simply that it is absolutely depen- dent on Brahman and cannot exist without Him. Non-difference thus means essential dependence according to Nimbarka as well; and difference also means difference of nature according to him. Hence Nimbarka’s doctrine is not open to the objection raised by Srikantha
1 “Prapafica-Brahmanor ananyatvam néma....vind-bhava-rahitatvam” SK.B., 2.1.22, p. 31, Parts 7 and 8.
2 Op. ctt., 2.1.22, p. 31, Parts 7 and 8.
3 Op. cit., 2.1.14, p. 19, Parts 7 and 8. Vide also 2.1.14, p. 20, Parts 7 and 8; 2.1.22, ए. 31, Parts 7 and 8.
14
210 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
against Bhedabheda-vada, viz. that non-difference and difference being mutually exclusive, cannot co-exist.
Thus, according to both Nimbar
and difference are both true, and =
Non-difference = essential dependence, Difference = difference of nature.
But with Nimbarka, non-difference and difference are precisely
on the same level, they co-exist and have the same importance. But according to Srikantha, non-difference and difference are both real and co-existent, no doubt, but non-difference is the principal, which is qualified by difference and in this sense difference is subordinate to non- difference, just as the body is subordinate to the soul which it qualifies. Thus, with Srikantha (as with Ramanuja), the stress is more on the principle of identity than on that of difference.
ka and Srikantha, non-difference
(6) Moksa.
Salvation, according to Srikantha, consists in the severance of the bondage of the mundane existence,! and the consequent attaining of the state of Siva.2 It means becoming similar to Siva in nature and qualities, i.e. becoming omniscient and independent like Him, possessed of all His infinite auspicious qualities and freed from all stains and defects.8
Thus, the released soul becomes only similar to the Lord, and never identical with Him. Salvation means the full development of the self of the soul and not its absolute absorption in the Lord.6 The freed soul is distinct from the Lord in this that it is atomic, while the Lord is all-pervasive,® and that it lacks the power of creating, main-
1 $K.B., 1.1.1, pp. 91-92, 98, Part 1; 3.4.48, ए. 414, Parts 10 and 11; 4.1.2, p. 428, Parts 10 and 11. That is, salvation means paéa-viccheda and pasutva- nivrtti.
2 Op. cit., 4.1.3, p. 428, Parts 10 and 11; 4.4.9, p. 487, Parts 10 and 11.
$ Op. cit., 4.4.9, ps 487, Parts 10 and 11.
^+ Op. oit., 1.3.8, p. 417, Part 5; 3.2.24, p. 257, Part 9; 3.3.40, p. 356, Parts 10 and 11; 4.4.1, pp. 481-2, Parts 10 and 11; 4.4.4, pp. 483-4, Parts 10 and 11; 4.4.9, p. 487, Parts 10 and 11.
5 “Pariptirnam ahambhavam prakatam anubhavati.” This ahamkara or egoity of the freed soul, Srikantha points out, is not like the samsérika or prakrta ahamkara, since it is not narrow (paricchinna), but universal (prapaiica- vagahin). Vide 4.4.19, p. 498, Parts 10 and 11.
6 See above.
14B
SRIKANTHA ON SALVATION 211
taining and destroying the universe—which power belongs exclusively to the Lord alone.!
The freed soul shares all the divine pleasures with the Lord.® It possesses pure, independent and non-material sense-organs and mind, by means of which it enjoys pleasures.8 It is united with the Lord in blissful experience (samarasya) * and perceives always the ever-blissful form of the Lord.5
Salvation, thus, is a positive state of supreme and unsurpassed bliss, and knowledge,’ and not a state of mere unconsciousness, and it can be attained only after the destruction of the earthly body (videhan-mukti).8
Thus, we find that Srikantha’s conception of salvation too tallies with that of Nimbarka, with the difference (which runs throughout between the two)—
(a) that while according to Nimbarka, salvation means attaining Kregnatva or the nature of Krsna, according to Srikantha it means attaining Sivatva or the nature of Siva; although, as we have seen, the natures of Krsna and Siva, as held by the two, are the same.
(b) There is another difference, viz. while according to Nimbarka, the freed soul is under the absolute control of the Lord, equally with the soul in bondage, according to Srikantha it is not so, as already noted above.®
(c) A third point of difference is that Srikantha, like Bhiaskara, admits of two kinds of salvation, viz. immediate or sadyas, and gradual or krama. He points out that those who meditate on the Lord in His own nature go directly to the Lord and become free at once, but those who meditate on the Lord as sentient souls and as non-sentient objects, or on Naraéyana,—who is but the
1 $K.B., 4.4.17-18, pp. 495-97, Parts 10 and 11.
2 Op. cit., 4.4.21, pp. 499-500, Parts 10 and 11.
8 Op. cit., 1.3.1, ए. 417, Part 5; 4.4.14, p. 49, Parts 10, 11.
4 Op. cit., 4.4.19, p. 498, Parts 10 and 11.
5 Op. cit,, 1.3.1, ए. 417, Part 5; 4.4.14, ए. 491, Parts 10 and 11.
® Op. cit., 2.1.35, p. 49, Parts 7 and 8; 4.4.9, p. 488, Parts 10 and 11; 4.4. 14. p. 492, Parts 10 and 11.
7 Op. cit., 1.1.1, ए. 92, Part 1.
8 Op. cit., 4.2.8, ए. 456, Parts 10 and 11; 4.2.18, p. 465, Parts 10 and 11.
® See above. ॥
212 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Lord in the form of the material cause of the Universe,! —first go to Nardyana, and thence to Siva afterwards.2 But Nimbarka, as we have seen, admits of one kind of salvation only, viz. immediate.
Tn other points, however, they are in perfect agreement.
(7) The sdédhanas.
According to Srikantha, the study of Brahman must essentially be preceded by the study of religious duties, for Dharma is the sadhya, Brahman the sidhaka.2 Dharma, i.e. the proper and disinterested performance of the daily and occasional duties, such as the performance of sacrifices, etc., and the practice of charity, penance, self-control and so on, purify the mind and thus help the rise of knowledge in it.* Thus, karma is a necessary element of knowledge.®
But the function of karma extends no further. Karma fulfils its task by helping the rise of knowledge, but does not itself lead to salvation. It is, therefore, only an indirect means to salvation, salvation being directly brought forth by knowledge alone.®
Now this knowledge is nothing but meditation.? Knowledge leads to meditation and meditation to salvation. One desirous of salvation should first know the Lord from Scripture, and then meditate on Him.®
There are various kinds of meditation leading to different results. There is, first, meditation of the Lord in His own nature (svariipena), which leads to Him directly and immediately. The Lord is to be meditated on in His own supreme nature as identical with the self
1 See above.
2 $K.By 1.1.32, p. 292, Part 3; 4.3.15, ए. 479, Parts 10 and 11. See below.
8 Op. cit., 1.1.1
५ $K. 1.1.1, pp. 37, 39, 42, 43, 68, 84, Part 1; 3.4.26-27, pp. 397-99, Parts 10 and 11; 4.1.16, p. 447, Parts 10 and 11; 4.1.17, p. 447, Parts 10 and 11
5 I.e. Karma is Yidyatga and vidyad-sahakarin. Op. cit., 3.4.1, p. 384, Parts 10 and 11; 3.4.9, p. 887, Parts 10 and 11; 3.4.26, pp. 397-98, Parts 10 and 11.*
6 Op. cit., 3.4.26, p. 396, Parts 10 and 11. “Sakgit jfianaphalam eva moksah.”’ ‘
7 SK.B., 1.1.4, p. 187, Part 2. “Ata up&sandripa-jiana-mokgaphalam vidhiyate.”
8 Op. city 1.1.4, p. 189, Part 2; 3.4.61, p. 419, Parts 10 and 11; 4.1.1, pp. 422-25, Parts 10 and 11.
KINDS OF UPASANA 213
of the meditating devotee, which helps the removal of the paésutva of the soul and the consequent attainment of Sivatva.! There are also various paré-vidyads or meditations on the Supreme Being, depicted in the upanigads, which also lead to the Lord directly 2
There is, further, meditation on the Lord as Narayana or the material cause, which ledds to the attainment of Narayana first, then to that of the Lord.8 Then there is meditation on the Lord as sentient souls (bhoktr-ripena) and as non-sentient objects (bhogya- ripena), which also does not lead to the Lord directly but by and by. Finally, there are certain symbolic meditations which do not lead to the Lord at all.5
The following is a chart of the various kinds of Upasands:—®
carne :
| (1) Meditation (2) Medltation (3) Meditation (4) 0 (5) 1
onthe Lordas on the Lord ontheLordas on the Lord on symbols. He 18 in Him- under various Narayana. as souls and (Pratika- self. (Svarti- aspects. (Upadana- matter. upasana.) pa-upésana or (Para-vidyés upaésana.) (Bhoktry-bho- Karana- of the upani- gya-upasana upasané.) sads.) or Karva- upasana.) (Leads to the (Leads to the (Leads to Naraé- (Leads to the (Does not lead Lord.) Lord.) yana and thence Lord by to the Lord.) to the Lord.) and by.)
Srikantha points out that the grace of the Lord is an essential pre-requisite of salvation. The Lord is the giver of salvation, and unless He is pleased to favour us, we can never attain salvation.7
Thus, according to Srikantha : Karma->jfidéna>upasana->* Bhagavat-prasada—>mukti.
It will be clear from the above that here too Srikantha is in perfect agreement with Nimbarka. Nimbarka also holds like Sri-
1 §K.B., 4.1.3, pp. 427-8, Parts 10 and 11.
2 Op. cit., 3.3.57, p. 380, Parts 10 and 11.
$ Op. cit., 4.3.15, p. 479, Parts 10 and 11.
4 Op. cit., 1.1.32, ए. 292, Part 3.
5 Op. cit., 3.3.58, p. 38, Parts 10 and 11.
6 See above.
7 SK.B., 1.1.1, pp. 71, 92, Part 1; 1.1.17, p. 235, Part 3; 4.2.16, p. 464. Parts 10 and 11; 4.4.1, p. 482, Parts 10 and 11.
214 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
kantha (and against Bhaskara) that karma, through generating mental purity, helps the rise of knowledge, and is as such only an indirect means to salvation; that knowledge and meditation are both direct means to salvation; and that the grace of the Lord plays an important part in the attainment of salvation. He, however, does not speak of the meditation on Narayana as the material cause, although he recommends the Ahamgraha-updsana or the meditation on the Self of the devotee as identical with that of the Lord.1 And Srikantha does not speak of prapatti and guripasatti, or self-surrender to the Lord and preceptor respectively, as independent means to salvation, as Nimbarka does. Further, Srikantha does not emphasise a sweet and intimate relation of love, as Nimbarka does, between the Lord and. His devotee, but rather a more distant relationship of awe and reverence, like Ramanuja.?
श
(8) Conclusion.
Thus, we find that from the point of view of philosophy, the main difference between the Svabhavika-bhedibheda-vida of Nimbarka and the Visista-Sivadvaita-vada of Srikantha lies in their conceptions of the relation between the one and the many, non- difference and difference. On other points, however, they agree on the whole.
From the point of view of religion, of course, there are sectarian differences between them, as natural. Srikantha, as > Saiva teacher rejects the vyihas, takes the Dahara-vidya as the best of all the ‘meditations 3 and so on, which Nimbarka, as a Vaisnava teacher, does not. Further, there is a distinct difference of spirit too as noted above.‘
From the point of view of ethics, Nimbarka is more liberal, and makes provisions even for those who are unable to reach salvation by their unaided effort}—which Srikantha doves not,
1 See above.
2 Aisvarya-pradhané bhakti and not madhurya-pradhané bhakti.
ॐ 8K.B., 3.3.38, p. 351, Parts 10 and 11. Vide also the sub-commentary Sivarka-mani-dipika, p. 2, Part 1, “Daharavidya-nisthah ayam dcirya” 6४९,
4 Cf. Ramanuja above.
PROPOSITIONS OF BALADEVA 215
IV. Nimbarka and Baladeva
SvABHAVIKA-BHEDABHEDA-VADA AND AOCINTYA-BHEDABHEDA-VADA. (1) Introduction.
Baladeva Vidyabhisana was a follower of the school of Caitanya, and a disciple of Viévanatha Cakravartin.1 He wrote a commentary on the Brahma-sitras, viz. ‘“Govinda bhasya’’, so called because it was composed, so the tradition goes, under the command of Lord Govinda or Krgna.2
Baladeva composed another treatise, called ‘‘Prameyaratnavali”, which summarises the teachings of the school of Caitanya and is based on the doctrine of Madhva. It lays down nine prameyas or. propositions, established by proper proofs, viz. :—
(a) The Lord is the Highest Reality.
(8) The Lord is known from Scripture alone.
(c) The Universe is real.
(d) The difference between the Lord and the individual souls is real.
(e) The individual souls are real and are servants of the Lord.
(f) The individual souls are different from one another, and there are various grades of souls.
(g) Release consists in the attainment of the Lord.
(h) Worship of the Lord is the sole cause of release.
(४) There are three sources of knowledge, viz.: perception, inference and Scripture, the last being the most reliable and authoritative.§
1 Preface to SD.R., p. 1; preface to P.R., p. 9.
2 “Bhasyam etad viracitam Baladevena dhimaté, S$r1-Govinda-nidegena Govindakhyam agat tatah.”
Gloss on G.B., p. 1,‘chap. 1.
Preface to G.B., p. 2; preface to P.R., pp. 16-17.
The tradition is that when Baladeva was living in Vrndavana, once he entered into a great philosophical controversy with a very learned scholar of the Advaita school. The latter, being unable to meet Baladeva’s arguments, asked him on what particular commentary his arguments were based. Baladeva replied that they were based on the commentary of the sect of Caitanya. Then the Advaita scholar wanted to see it. Thereupon, Baladeva in compliance with the command of Lord Krsna composed the commentary in a month.
3 P.R., introduc. verse 5, p. 11; and end verses 1 and 2, pp. 135-136, where Baladeva cites Madhva as authority. He makes obeisance to Anandatirtha (i.e. Madhva) in P.R., verse 8, introduc., p. 5.
216 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
A third philosophical work of Baladeva is ‘“Siddhanta-ratna”’, elucidating his general doctrine.1
Baladeva admits of five tattvas or categories which are exactly similar to those admitted by Harivyadsadeva.?
(2) Brahman.
(a) His essential nature, attributes and powers.
According to Baladeva, the Highest Reality or Brahman is Krsna, ® Visnu‘* or Hari,5 a Personal God, possessed of infinite auspicious qualities ° and inconceivable powers.’ He 18 ‘Nirguna’ in the sense of being free from certain qualities Which are included under the generic term “‘guna”’, viz. the three gunas of prakrti—sattva, rajas and tamas and He is ‘saguna’ in the sense of being a storehouse of all auspicious qualities.6 His attributes are of two kinds—majestic and sweet. The former consists in His indomitable might and lordli- ness, the latter in His infinite bliss and loveliness. One of the greatest and at the same time, sweetest attributes of the Lord is His
1 For other alleged works of Baladeva, see preface to P.R., pp. 9-10.
2 G.B., introduc., p. 12, chap. 1. “Tatha hi Iévara-jiva-prakrti-Kala- karm§ani pafica-tattvani Sriiyante.”’
3 P.R., lst prameya, p. 14; 7th prameya, verse 1, p. 106; 8th prameya, verse 4, p. 121; verse p. 9, 127.
« G.B., introduc.; 1.1.43 1.2.26; 1.2.27; 1.3.8; 1.3.14; 1.3.16; 1.3.24; 1.4.1; ete. etc.
5 Op. cit., 1.1.3; 1.1.18; 1.1.19; 1.3.23; 1.3.30; 2.3.14; 3.2.32; 3.3.29; 3.3.38; 3.3.61; 3.4.1; 4.1.7; etc. etc.
P.R., 5th prameya, p. 86; 8th prameya, p. 116, verse 1, p. 117.
6 G.B., 1.1.2; where he points out that the very word “Brahman’’ denotes the possession of unlimited and unsurpassed attributes, for the word means ‘in whom all the attributes reach to infinity’; 1.1.3; 1.4., introduc.; 3.1, introduc. ; 3.2.22; 3.3, introduc.; 3.3.12, etc.
P.R., lst prameya, pp. 32-36, where the attributes of the Lord are enumerated as omniscience, bliss, lordliness, friendliness, teachership, saviour- hood and beauty. 7G.B., 1.1.2; 1.2.7; 1.2.32; 1.4., introduc.; 2.1.37; 2.3.6; 2.3.18; 3.2.18; 3.2.27. :
8 G.B., 1.1.11, pp. 55-56, chap. 1.
9 Op. cit., 3.3.29, introduc, p. 157, chap. 3.
ATTRIBUTES OF BRAHMAN 217
essential love and solicitude for His devotees. He is verily, a slave of His devotees and even gives His own Self to them.!
The attributes and powers of the Lord are by nature inconceivable (acintya) and mysterious.2 Baladeva emphasises this point again and again. The Lord is all pervading yet atomic, or of the size of a span, dwelling actually within the heart of His devotees; ® He is one, yet appears as many; 4 all-knowledge, yet appears as having a body; 5 essentially formless and colourless, yet possesses the most attractive form ;6 unmanifest, yet manifests Himself to His devotees ;7 He is just and impartial, yet shows special grace to His devotees ; 8 He is the creator of all, their material cause, yet unmodified Himself; ° without any parts, yet possessed of parts; 10 immeasurable, yet measured.11
All such paradoxical or apparently contradictory qualities co- exist in the Lord since everything is possible in His case.!2 We, of course, fail to conceive this, but we must believe it on the authority of Scripture, for in transcendental matters, Scripture, and not reasoning, is our only guide.18
The attributes of the Lord are not different or separate from the Lord, but are nothing except the Lord Himself. And, although there is no real distinction between the Lord and His attributes, yet for conventional purposes, a distinction is recognised and spoken of. Baladeva bases his theory of the identity of substance and attribute
1 G.B., 3.3.31, p. 162, chap. 3. 3.3.51, p. 208, chap. 3; 3.4.1, p. 235, chap. 3: “vidyaya paritusto Haris sva-bhaktaya atmanam dadati’’; 3.4.43, pp. 287-88, chap. 3.
2 Vide footnote 3 below.
$ G.B., 1.2.7; p. 115, chap. 1, “Vibhutve sati anutvadikam acintya-sakti- yogat’’; 1.2.32, p. 142, chap. 1.
4 Op. cit., 1.2.32, p. 142, chap. 1; 2.1.27, p. 60, chap. 2.
8 Op. cit.
¢ Op. cit., 2.1.37, p. 78, chap. 2.
7 Op. cit., 3.2.27, p. 82, chap. 3.
8 Op. cit., 2.1.37, see below under “The Saédhanas”’.
® Op. cit., 2.1.27, p. 60, chap. 2.
10 Op. cit.
11 Op. cit.
12 Op. cit., 1.2.32, 2.1.27, 2.1.37, ए. 78, chap. 2; 3.2.13, p. 58, chap. 3.
18 Op. cit., 2.1.11, ए. 32, chap. 2; 2.1.27, ए. 62, chap. 3; 2.3.17, ए. 186, chap. 2; 3.2.17. p. 63, chap. 3; SD.R., 18४ pada, pp. 37, 42,
218 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
on the doctrine of visesa, already explained.1 Thus, just as the coil constitutes the serpent and is not separate from it, but is yet the attribute of the serpent, so the Lord, Who is essentially intelligence and bliss, possesses intelligent bliss as His attributes ४००; 8 or just as the sun is essentially light, yet the substratum of light, so the Lord, though essentially of the nature of knowledge, is yet the substratum of knowledge as well; 8 or just as time is one incessant duration and has neither priority, nor posteriority, so the Lord is both knowledge and knower, bliss and blissful, substance and attribute.4
The fact is that the Lord has no internal differences,5 i.e. is not a concrete whole of different kinds of attributes, just as a tree is a con- crete whole of roots, leaves, and flowers, etc.6 But He is one essence throughout like a diamond, and every one of His attributes is identical with Him, and not a part, separate from Him, and as such every one of them is full, perfect and unchangeable.’
The Lord has three powers—viz., paré-déakti, apard-Sakti, and avidya-Sakti.8 The first is called Visnu-Sakti or Svaripa-sakti, the second ksetrajfia and the third karma,® and also maya or tamas.10 The para-éakti is three-fold—viz. samvit or jfiana-éakti, 1.6. the power of consciousness; sanhidhi or bala-éakti, ic. the existence-giving power, viz. that which brings about the union of atoms, etc.; and hlddini or kriya-Sakti, 1.6. the bliss-giving power.!1 Through the
1 See under Harivyasadeva, vide G.B., 3.2.28, introduc., p. 84, chap. 3. “Atha svartipéd gunanim abhedah pratipadyate”’; 3.2.31, see below.
P.R., Ist prameya, verse 11, p. 37.
For the doctrine of ७1688, vide G.B., 3.2.31, pp. 87-89, chap. 3, “ Visesasca bheda-pratinidhih bhedébhave api bhedakaryyasya dharma-dharmi-bhavader vyaveaharasye nivarttakah’’, etc.—exactly like Harivyasadeva.
2 G.B., 3.2.28, p. 85, chap. 3.
3 G.B., 3.2.29, p. 86, chap. 3.
५ G.B., 3.2.30, p. 86, chap. 3.
5 G.B., 3.2.28, p. 85, chap. 3; 3.3.13, p. 136, chap. 3: “Svagata-bhedasyap pratyaékhyanaét”, SD.R,, lst pada, pp. 43-44.
6 Cf. the three kinds of bheda, sajatiya, vijatiya and svagata.
7 G.B., 3.3.13, p. 136, chap. 3.
8 Op. cit., 1.4.26, p. 266, chap. 1; 3.3.39, pp. 177-78, chap. 3.
9 Op. cit., 1.4.26, ए. 266, chap. 1.
P.R., lst prameya, p. 42:— “Vignu Saktih paré prokté kgetrajfidkhya tathapara; Avidya-karma-samjfianyé trtiyaé saktirigyate.”
10 G.B., 1.4.10, pp. 224-25, chap. 1. 11 P.R., Ist prameya, p. 44.
POWERS OF BRAHMAN 219
first the Lord, knowledge by nature, Himself knows,! and gives knowledge to the souls. Through the second the Lord, existent by nature, Himself exists,2 and gives existence to space, time, matter, souls and karma. Through the third, the Lord, bliss by nature, Himself enjoys, and gives bliss to the souls.®
The apara-sakti and the avidya-sakti of the Lord consist respec- tively in the souls and matter.4
The Lord is thus both the efficient and material cause of the universe. He is the efficient cause through His para-éakti, and He is the material cause through His apara and avidya-saktis.6 When these latter two powers are manifested in gross forms, the Universe of souls and matter arises. As the operative cause, the Lord is Unchangeable or kfitastha, as the material cause, He is subject to modification or parinimin.? But though subject to modification, He remains modified in His own essential nature, which fact, though apparently contradictory, must be accepted on the authority of Scripture.8
Like the attributes, the powers of the Lord too are identical with the Lord, since the Lord has no internal differences.®
The para-Sakti of the Lord is identical with Sri, the constant companion of the Lord, and as the para-sakti of the Lord is identical with the Lord Himself, Sri is identical with the Lord.1° But though identical with the Lord, she cannot but love and be devoted to the Lord, Who is her very existence, just as the branch cannot but love the tree, or the moon-beam the moon,!! and an erotic sentiment is possible between the Lord and Srf.12_ The Lord is, thus, an enjoyer of objects of desire (viz. Sri), not through lust, but through love. The intense bliss which the Lord enjoys from His contact with Sri does
1 That is, jfiana becomes 1१8४६. 2 That is, sattvaé becomes sat.
3 SD.R., 18४ pada, p. 64. Ananda becomes ananda-maya.
4 G.B., 2.1.14, p. 38, chap. 2.
5 Op. cit., 1.4.23-27, pp. 262-271, chap. 1.
6 Op. cit., 1.4.26, p. 266, chap. 1. ‘“‘Tasya nimittatvam upadanatvafi eabhidhiyate. Tatradyam parakhya& Saktimadripena, dvitiyan tu tad-anya- éakti-dvayadvaraiva.”” i
7 Op. cit., 1.4.26, p. 267, chap. 1.
8 Op. ctt., 2.1.10, pp. 50-51, chap. 2. 9 See above.
19 G.B., 2.3.40, p. 182, chap. 3. P.R., lst prameya, verse 12, p. 40. 11 G.B., 3.3.41. 12 Op. cit., 3.3.42, p. 186, chap. 3.
220 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
not imply any want of perfect bliss, fulness and self-enjoyment on His own part, but it is like the joy which one feels on seeing one’s own beauty in a mirror.?
The Lord is, of course, not an enjoyer in the sense the individual soul is, i.e. is never subject to actions and their results? —
The Lord is a knower too and not merely pure knowledge 8 and an agent, 1.6. the creator, maintainer and destroyer, the cause of bondage and release 5 the dispenser of justice, ie. fruits of karmas.® Those acts which the Lord performs through His cit-éakti and svaripa, viz. His acts as incarnations, viz. suckling the breasts of Yasoda, playing with cowherds and cowherdesses, etc. are eternal, while those acts which the Lord performs through matter and time, viz. creating the world, etc.—are non-eternal.”
(9) His form (vigraha) and manifestations (avataras).
The Lord is possessed of a celestial, non-material form or body.® The body of the Lord possesses the positive attributes of existence, intelligence and bliss, all-pervasiveness and the rest, as well as the negative attributes of not being coarse, nor fine, neither short, nor long, neither red, nor fluid, etc.®
The form of the Lord is unmanifest to the external 8611868.10 But though the Lord is ordinarily imperceptible to the senses, yet in absorbed devotion, He becomes perceptible even to the senses of the devotee. A devotee who is full of love for Him and repeatedly practises meditation and the rest, has his senses saturated, as it were, with His essence through His grace. He then becomes fit for seeing Him and sees Him with his purified mind, just as he sees external objects.11
1 G.B. : _ SD.R., 18४ pada, pp. 76-83. 2 Op. cit., 1.2.8, pp. 115-16, chap. 1. 3 See above. * । 4 See above. 6 G.B., 3.2.5, p. 45, chap. 3. ५ Op. cit., 3.2.29-42, pp. 100-104, chap. 3. ? Op. cit., 3.3.11, pp. 128-133, chap. 3. 8 Op. cit., 2.1.31, pp. 68-69, chap. 2. ® Op. cit., 3.2.32, introduc., pp. 76-77, chap. 3; 3.3.34, p. 169, chap. 3. Vide Brh., 3.8.8. 10 Op. cit., 3.2.23, ए. 177, chap. 3. 11 Op. cit., 3.2.24-27, pp. 78-79, chap. 3.
FORMS OF BRAHMAN 221
The form or body of the Lord is not different from the Lord, but identical with Him,) just as the attributes and powers of the Lord are not different from, but identical with Him.? Hence the Lord is called formless, 1.6. He does not possess the form or the body, but is the form or the body.? The body of the Lord being His very self 4
_ possesses all the attributes of the Lord, viz. all-pervasiveness, knowledge, etc.5
The Lord has a multitude of forms through which He manifests Himself as avataras or incarnations. That is to say, the Lord is one indeed, so is His eternal consort Sri, yet they become many, since they assume various forms through their essential power.®
Thus, just as in a crystalline gem there exist many hues and colours, though the gem is one, so in the own form of the Lord there exists an infinite number of forms, each eternal and perfect and mysterious, and the Lord, though one and not limited by them, is yet fully manifest through every one of them.’
The Lord incarnates Himself variously as Fish, Tortoise, etc. and again as Krsna the Sweet, Rama the Brave, Nrsimha the Terrible, etc. These incarnations, viz. Fish and the rest, are not to be confused with the souls, in spite of the fact that they too, like the souls, are called parts of the Lord. Just as both the sun and the firefly are called light, yet are not the same, or just as both nectar and wine are called liquids, yet are not the same, so the incarnation and the soul, though both parts of the Lord, are not the same.8 The soul is under the control of the Lord, and subject to injunctions and prohibitions, but not so the incarnation ®; the soul is atomic and non-full, but the incarnation 18 not 80.10 In fact the term ‘‘part’’, applied to the incarnation means the Lord in His entirety.
nt -~-~~~-~~]~]{~ब-्-~-{-्-~-~ब{ब-ब-ब-्-्-ब- ---~-~-ब------
1 G.B., 3.2.14, introduc., p. 58, chap. 3.
ॐ See above.
3 G.B., 3.2.14, p. 59, chap. 3. = “‘Riipam vigrahas tad-vidistam Brahma na bhavatiti aripavad ity ucyate vigrahas tad ity arthah.”
५ Op. cit., 3.2.16, p. 61, chap. 3. “‘Atra dehéd bhinno dehity evam bidhes- vara-vastuni nasti, kintu deha eva dehiti labdham.”
5 Op. cit., 3.2.14, p. 59, chap. 3.
6 P.R., lst prameya, verse 13, p. 45.
? G.B., 3.3, introduc., p. 106, chap. 3.
8 Op. cit., 2.3.44, pp. 223-24, chap. 2.
9 Op. cit., 2.3.46, p. 226, chap. 2.
10 Op, cit., 2.3.47, p. 227, chap. 2.
222 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
The fact is that the Lord may manifest all His powers in an incarna- tion, who is then called a full incarnation, or He may manifest only a portion of His powers, when the incarnation is called partial. But these partial incarnations are not parts of the Lord in the same sense the souls are. On the contrary, they represent various aspects of the same Lord, manifesting His different powers, just as the crystal shows different attributes or colours at different times. Or, to give another example, just as a learned teacher, though perfectly well-versed in all the scriptures, may not expound all of them, while addressing a lower class, but only some portions of them and may be called a partial teacher only in that sense, so the so-called partial manifesta. tions of the Lord, though really identical with the Lord Himself, manifest only a portion of His attributes and powers and are hence called partial incarnations.!
Thus, in the Krsna incarnation only, 1.6. in the infant Krsna, suckling the breasts of ०६०१६, all the six attributes of the Lord, viz. supreme love for all humanity, being an object of supreme love for all humanity, being the composer of supremely sweet heavenly music, possessing a most beautiful form and immeasurable compassion,—are fully manifested, while in other incarnations, fewer attributes and powers are manifested.?
The essential form of the Lord is, thus the form of Krsna, the cowherd, with eyes like full-blown lotus, and body blue like cloud, wearing raiments like sparkling lightning, with two arms adorned with the symbol of silence, surrounded by cows, cowherds and cow- herdesses and standing under the Heavenly Tree.8
Besides this essential form of blissful Krsna (svayamripa) the Lord has His power or energy forms (or vilasa-riips)—such as Narayana, Vasudeva, Samkarsana and Aniruddha.4
1 G.B., 2.3.45, pp. 224-25, chap. 2. 2 Op. cit., 2.3.45, pp. 224-25, chap. 2.
SD.R., 2nd pada, p. 117. 8 G.B., 3.2.16, p. 61, chap. 3; 3.3.6 (introduc.), 3.3.20; introduc., p. 117,
chap. 3; 3.3.29, introduc., p. 156, chap. 3; 3.3.38, p. 176, chap. 3. Cf. Gopala-pirva-tapani:— “Sapundarika-nayanam meghiébham vaidyutaémbaram, Dvibhujam mauna-mudradhyam vanamiélinam Iévaram”’, etc.
५ G.B., 3.3.15, ए. 138, chap. 3.
WORLD OF BRAHMAN 223
Just as the Lord manifests Himself in different incarnations so Sri too, the eternal consort of the Lord, manifests herself in corres- ponding incarnations. Thus, when the Lord assumes the form Aditya, she becomes Kamali; when He becomes Bhargava, she becomes Dharani; when He becomes Rama, she becomes Sita; when He becomes Krsna, she becomes Rukmini and so on. Thus, when He becomes a God, she becomes a goddess, when He becomes a man, she becomes a woman, and 80 on.!
Besides the full and partial incarnations, who are the Lord Himself, there are certain exalted souls like Sanatkumara, Narada, etc., through whom the Lord shines forth temporarily. These God-possessed souls are called ‘avesivataras’.2 They too are to be venerated highly, but not to be worshipped like the Lord or His incarnations, for they do not possess all the attributes of the Lord.3
(c) The City (or loka) of the Lord.
The city of Brahman, called Vaikuntha, Gokula, Samvyoma or Mahiman, is identical with the Lord Himself, and not different from Him,‘ just as the attributes and powers of the Lord and His body are identical with Him.5
Hence, like the Lord Himself, the city of the Lord too is possessed of the six celestial attributes 6 and free from the three attributes of matter, viz. sattva, rajas and tamas. It cannot be attained by the ungodly, but only by those who perform the five-fold duties 7 and are eternally perfect and devoted to the Lord. The divine city is full of marvellous palaces and courtyards, gardens and. pools, and is refulgent with the light of myriads of suns.8
It is not to be wondered how the Lord can be both the dweller (the Lord) and the place dwelt in (the City), for everything is possible
1 P.R., lst prameya, p. 61.
2 G.B., 3.3.21, introduc., p. 146, chap. 3.
$ Op. cit., 3.3.23, ए. 148, chap. 3.
4 Op, cit., 3.3.37-38, pp. 176-178, chap. 3.
5 See above.
6 Viz. supreme love for humanity, etc. See above.
7 Viz. abhigamana, up&dana, 1] ४३, adhyana and samadhi. Vide ‘Prabha- tika’ on P.R., ए. 60. See below under “The Ritualistic Doctrine of the School of Nimbarka”’. Cf. also 8.B., 2.2.42.
8 P.R., lst prameya, pp. 59-60.
224 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
in His case, possessed as He is of inconceivable powers.1 But though the City of the Lord is nothing but the Lord Himself, yet it appears as a material city to the devotee, through the grace of the Lord.?
The Lord brings down on earth His City—which is His own self, and manifests Himself there. Hence, just as Krsna is not to be regarded as an ordinary man, but as the Lord Himself, so Mathura is not to be regarded as an ordinary earthly city, but as the Divine Abode.®
It will be seen now that Baladeva’s doctrine of Brahman is similar to that of Nimbarka, so far as general philosophical principles go apart from sectarian details. According to both, Brahman or the Highest Reality is Krsna, accompanied by Radhé. Baladeva makes Sri the constant consort of the Lord, but Sri is nothing but Radha since, he points out, when Sri or the para-Sakti of the Lord manifests herself as the giver of gladness, joy and expansion of consciousness, she is called Radha, the highest of all women. Hence Radha 18 the para-sSakti or the hladini-éakti of the Lord and non-different from Him. Again, according to both, the Lord is possessed of attributes and His attributes are majestic and awe-inspiring on the one hand, and sweet and lovable on the other, the Lord is both the material and efficient cause of the world,:the Lord is possessed of a celestial body, dwells in a celestial city and manifests Himself in different incarnations and vyihas, the Lord is both transcendent and immanent and so on. According to Baladeva, as we have seen, the apara and avidya Saktis of the Lord represent His immanent aspects, and the para or svaripa Sakti is transcendent aspect.
Thus, there is on the whole perfect agreement between Nimbarka and Baladeva, although the peculiar view of Baladeva, viz. that there is identity between the Lord and His attributes, powers, body and city, is not found in Nimbarka. According to Baladeva, as we have seen,
there is no internal] difference in the Lord, in the sense that the Lord a
1 G.B., 3.3.37, p. 175, chap. 3.
2 Op. cit., 3.3.36, p. 174, chap. 3.
8 P.R., lst prameya, verse 17, p. 162.
* G.B., 3.3.42, p. 187, chap. 3. “‘ Hladini-séra-samaveta-sam-vid-dtmaka- yuvati-ratnatvens tu Radhadi-Sri-rapa ca.”
Vide also P.R., lst prameya, p. 55.
° SD.R., 2nd pada, pp. 118-19. “Ya bhagabad-abhinnabhihité yé ca
hladinity-ddina visegité 88 paraiva Radhikesvariti.”
THE SOUL 225
is not a concrete whole of various attributes, but is each of these attributes. But according to Nimbarka, there is internal difference in the Lord in the sense that the sentient and the non-sentient. which are parts and powers of the Lord are ever different from Him, though not outside or independent of Him. And Baladeva too should admit that there is internal difference in the Lord in this sense, for according to him also, the sentient and the non-sentient, though powers of the Lord, are different from Him.!
(3) The Cit.
Baladeva’s doctrine of the individual soul too is similar to that of Nimbarka.
(a) Like Nimbarka, he holds that the individual soul is, by nature, eternal—without beginning and without end,® self luminous. The soul is not knowledge merely, and though its form is that of knowledge, its nature is that of a knower.4 It is also an enjoyer 5 and an active agent.6 It is an agent in a two-fold sense, viz. it acts on the external world indirectly through the instrumentality of its sense-organs—e.g. it sees colour by means of its eyes, lifts objects by means of its hands and so on—, and it is also an agent in the act of directly controlling those sense-organs, just as a carpenter is an agent in the act of carpentary through the medium of his instruments, viz. axe, etc., i.e. constructs various objects by means of these tools, and he is also an agent in the act of directly holding and using those tools.?
But though the individual soul is an agent, it is not an independent agent like the Lord. In fact, every act of the soul involves five factors —viz. the soul, the body, the different sense-organs, various kinds of energies and the Lord, and he who thinks himself to be the sole agent is a mistaken fool.8 The fact that the activity of the soul depends ~~~ ~~~ -~----“^~------------------------- -------------- ~~~
1 See below under “Relation between Brahman, the cit and the acit’’.
2 G.B., 2.3.16, pp. 183-185, chap. 2.
8 Op. cit., 2.3.43, pp. 221-222, chap. 2.
4 Op. cit., 2.3.17, p. 186, chap. 2. “Jia evatma jiana-ripatve sati jiatr- svarupa eva.”
5 Op. cit., 2.3.27, p. 198, chap. 2.
Op. cit., 1.2.8, pp. 115-116, chap. 1.
6 Op. cit., 2.3.31-38, pp. 203-212, chap. 2.
7 Op. cit., 2.3.38, p. 210, chap. 2.
8 Op. cit., 2.3.38, pp. 210-211, chap. 2. Vide Gité, 18.14. Vide also G.B., 2.1.14, where it is said that the soul is an agent in the same sense that the cow
15
226 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
upon the Lord—which fact is declared by Scripture itself 1—does not however, imply that the individual soul is a mere automaton, moved by the Lord, so that the scriptural injunctions and prohibitions, which presuppose free will on the part of the agent are useless, for the Lord causes the individual soul to act in a particular way, not arbitrarily, but out of regard for its tendencies, generated by its own past works. Thus, as the acts of the soul in the present life are determined by its acts in former lives, it itself is really responsible for its acts, though impelled by the Lord, just as the rain is the common cause of the growth of various kinds of plants, while the seed is the particular cause of the particular plant. Hence, the soul is an agent, though a secondary agent, while the Lord is the causative agent, because without His permission, the soul cannot act. But still, as the responsibility of the soul does not cease, the scriptural injunctions and prohibitions are not meaningless.?
The soul’s state of being a knower, an enjoyer and an agent of the soul, Baladeva points out like Nimbarka, are natural, pertaining to it in bondage and in release.3
Like Nimbarka, again, Baladeva insists on the soul’s eternal dependence on and servitude to the Lord.* The soul is ever under the control of the Lord in bondage,® as in release.®
Like Nimbarka, again, Baladeva holds that the soul is a part,”
is an agent in the act of producing milk. The cow has no power of her own to produce milk, but it is the vital energy (prana-Sakti) of the cow which is the primary agent in the production of the milk. Similarly, though the soul is observed to produce an effect, it is not independent in its acts, but the Lord is really the primary agent here.
1 G.B., 2.3.39, p. 213, chap. 2; 2.3.46, pp. 226-227, chap. 2.
ॐ Op. cit., 2.3.40, pp. 214-215, chap. 2. See below under “Moksa’’. P.R., 5th prameya, pp. 65-66. “Jivénam bhagavad-dasatvam.” G.B., 2.3.46, pp. 226-227, chap. 2. See below under “Moksa”’. G.B., 2.3.41-43, pp. 217-222. Baladeva points out the soul is nota
part of the Lord as a piece of stone cut off from the rock is of the rock, for Brahman is by nature indivisible. Hence the soul is said to be a part of Brahman in the sense of being © subordinate to Him, separate from Him, yet related to Him, as the created, the ruled, the supported, etc. G.B., 2.8.41. 158
3 @ a ॐ ©
KINDS OF SOUL 227
an effect 1 and a power? of the Lord, and is both different and non- different from Him.’ So much for the nature of the soul.
(©) Next, the size of the soul. Here also, Baladeva agrees with Nimbarka in holding that it is atomic in size,‘ and that this atomicity of the soul, like its agency and the rest, is natural, i.e. the freed soul also remains atomic and does not become all-pervading like the Lord.
(c) Next, the number of souls. Here too Baladeva agrees with Nimbarka in holding that there is a plurality of souls.6 He points out that the souls are not absolutely equal and similar. Although their essential nature is the same, i.e. although they have no distinctions among themselves, in so far as they are all intelligent by nature, all cognising subjects and agents and atomic in size, yet there are differ- ences and gradations owing to their karmas and sidhanas.6 Even the freed souls are different from one another on account of the difference of their devotion.’
(d) Finally, the kinds of souls. Like Nimbarka, Baladeva holds that there are broadly, three kinds of souls, viz. baddhas or the freed souls, i.e. the souls who were in bondage, but are free now, and nitya-
1 1.4.26, pp. 265-66, chap. 1; 2.1.14, pp 38-44, chap. 2; 2.3.16, pp. 184-185, chap. 2..
Baladeva points out exactly like Nimbarka that no contradietion is involved by holding the soul and the universe to be both eternal and products of the Lord. When the sentient and the non-sentient, the two powors of the Lord, lie latent in Him, they are said to be non-existent, but when they are manifested, the universe of souls and matter is said to originate. The difference between the souls and the pradhana is, however, this: when the non-sentient objects like the pradhana and the rest, originate from Brahman (i.e. are manifested), they undergo a chango of essontial nature—i.e. so long they were energy of Brahman, the sentient, but now they become non-sentient. But the souls do not undergo any such change of essefitial nature when they originate from Brahman. Tho only change in their case consists in the contraction and expansion of intel- ligence—i.e. during dissolution their intelligence is in a state of contraction, during creation it is in a state of expansion,—in either case, however, the soul does not undergo any essential change of a nature. (G.B., 2.3.16.)
2 Op. cit., 2.3.16, pp. 184-185, chap. 2; 2.3.41, p. 219, chap. 2.
3 See below under “Relation between Brahman, cit and acit”’.
4 G.B., 2.3.18-30, pp. 187-202, chap. 3.
5 Op. cit., 2.3.42, p. 220, chap. 2.
५ Op. cit., 2.3.49-51, pp. 229-230, chap. 2.
“Svaripa-simye api tad-adrstinim aniyamat nand-vidhatvat”’, 2.3.49.
7 P.R., verses 2-3, pp. 108-105. See above.
228 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
muktas, or the ever-free souls, who are the eternal companions of the Lord.!
The souls in bondage, according to Baladeva, are again of two kinds, those who desire for salvation, and those who desire for heaven or other worldly objects. The first kind of devotees are again of two kinds—viz. svanisthas and the ekantins. These latter, again are of two kinds—viz. parinisthas and nirapekgas.?
Baladeva is also in perfect agreement with Nimbarka regarding
the different states of the soul, viz. dream, deep sleep, swoon, etc. and also regarding the destiny of the soul and its journey through the path of gods, ete. There is only one slight point of difference. According to Nimbarka, the general rule is that the presiding deities of light, day, etc. (the successive stages in the path of gods) or the agents of the Lord lead the souls of knowers to the Lord.5 But ‘according to Baladeva, though this is the general rule, yet the Lord makes an exception in the case of the nirapeksa devotees, who are His special favourites, and Himself comes down to fetch them to Him, being impatient of delay.® ।
. (4) The Acit.
Baladeva’s theory of the world too is very similar to that of Nimbarka. Like Nimbarka, he holds that the world is an effect, a development of prakrti, which is a part, an effect and a power of the Lord.” Prakrti is also called tamas, maya or avidyé.® It is originally the equilibrium of the three gunas, but it is fertilised, i.e. set to motion, by a glance of the Lord and gives rise to the Universe.®
Baladeva emphasises the reality of the world, and criticises the Samkarite doctrine of Vivarta-vida.1° He points out that the omnis- cient Lord has created the world with His own power, thence the
1 G.B., introduc., 3.3.11, ए. 131, chap. 3.
2 For the peculiar duties, etc. and status of these three classes of devotees, see below under “Binds of Bhaktas”’.
$ G.B., 3.2.1-3, pp. 40-43, chap. 3.
५ Op. cit., 4th chap., 3-4 8488. 5 See above.
6 G.B., 4.3.16, pp. 80-81, chap. 4.
7 Op. éit., 1.4.26, p. 266, chap. 1; 2.1.14, ए. 38, chap. 2; 2.3.16, p. 184, chap. 2. See above footnote 1.
8 Op. cit., introduc., pp. 13-14, chap. 1.
® Op. ctt., introduc., pp. 13-14.
10 Op. cit., 1.4.26, pp. 267-269, chap. 1.
BRAHMAN, SOUL, MATTER 229
world is bound to be real, for the real cannot produce what is unreal.! The statements that the soul alone existed in the beginning, etc., simply mean that during dissolution souls and matter remain merged indistinguishably from the Lord, like birds in a dark forest.?
Like Nimbarka, Baladeva admits kala to be an eternal, non- intelligent substance. - Time, according to him, consists in three states—viz., past, present and future and is conventionally denoted by such terms as ‘‘simultaneous”’, “slow’’, ‘‘quick”’, etc. It is measured by seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc.—up to parardha. It is in constant motion, like a wheel and is involved in the creation and destruction of objects. It is a power of the Lord, and as such without beginning and end.
But Baladeva does not speak of the aprakrta as Nimbarka does. He speaks instead of karma as the fifth category, a non-intelligent substance, without beginning, but having an end.4 Karma, too like matter and time, is an important factor in creation. The Lord, though omnipotent and independent, is not capricious, and hence He creates the world strictly in accordance with the karmas of the souls. These three substances, viz. matter, time and karma, are co-eternal with the Lord and subordinate to Him, though the Lord never disregards them in His act of creation.5
(5) Relation between Brahman, the cit and the acit.
Like Nimbarka, Baladeva holds that there are three eternal substances. Brahman, the sentient and the non-sentient. The vital question is—what is the relation between them ?
Firstly, Baladeva points out, exactly like Nimbarka, that there is an essential differonce of nature between Brahman, on the one hand, and the sentient and the non-sentient, on the other. The Lord is supremely pure and perfect, free from all sins and all karmas, while the soul is tainted by sins and fettered by karmas,® and the universe is impure and non-intelligent. The Lord is the ruler,’ the creator
1 P.R., 3rd prameya, verse 1, p. 75, etc.
2 Op. cit., verse 2, p. 80.
3 G.B., introduc., p. 14, chap. 1.
4 Op. cit., introduc., p. 15, chap. 1.
5 Op. cit., 2.1.35, pp. 74-75, chap. 2.
ˆ ५ Op. cit., 1.1.20, pp. 83-84, chap. 1, 1.2.2, p. 111, chap. 1; 2.1.22, pp. 58-55,
chap. 2.
7 Op. cit., 1.1.21, pp. 84-85, chap. 1.
230 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
and the supporter, while the souls and the world are the ruled, created and supported. The Lord is the object to be attained,? the master and the beloved 8 and the worshipped ५ while the souls are the attainers, servants, lovers and the worshippers. Even the freed soul is different from the 5 Lord.
But on the other hand, the soul and the universe are non-different from the Lord, for they are effects of Brahman and the cause and the effect are non-different.6 Further, the Lord is all-pervading and pervades the soul and the universe and in this sense too, the soul and the universe are said to be non-different from Him.? Hence we have two kinds of texts, declaring both the difference and non-difference of the Lord from the sentient and the non-sentient.
But how are we to reconcile both difference and non-difference ? Baladeva frankly gives up the problem as incomprehensible. An incomprehensible difference—non-difference is the truth of things, and although we cannot conceive it by reason, we must accept it on the authority of revelation, for scripture is our sole guide in trans- cendental matters. Baladeva emphasises, as we have seen, the inconceivable and mysterious powers of the Lord.® According to him, the problems how unity (Brahman) can become plurality (prapafica) without losing its unity and integrity,!° how one can appear as many without being limited by its manifold forms?! are beyond our grasp, although the facts that unity does become plurality, the one, many cannot but be believed and accepted. Similarly, the relation between unity and plurality, one and many is an insoluble and incomprehensible mystery, but as scripture teaches both difference and non-difference, we must accept both to be true.
Thus, like Nimbarka. Baladeva too accepts both difference and non-difference to be true. As a follower of Madhva, however, and
1 ७.8., 1.1.17, pp. 173-174, chap. 1; 1.2.4, ए. 112, chap. 1. 2 Op. cit. ॐ Op. cit., 2.3.41, pp. 217-218, chap. 2.
Baladeva points out that the phrase “Thou art that” (chand. 6.8.7, etc.) means simply that “All thy functions are dependent on the Lord” (p. 219, chap. 2).
4 Op. cit., 3.2.18 {introduc.) (p. 65, chap. 3),
5 See below under “Moksa’’.
6 G.B., 2.1.14-20 (pp. 38-51, chap. 2).
? Op. ०४, 2.1.14 (p. 38, chap. 2).
8 Op. ott., 2.3.17. See above, p. 63, chap. 3. : 9 See above. 10 See above. 11 See above.
SALVATION 231
also as mainly a religious teacher (religion requires difference between the Lord and His devotee), he lays a greater stress on difference than on non-difference between the Lord and the soul. But he is also reluctant to admit an absolute difference between them as Madhva does, since the effect cannot be absolutely different from its cause— which would lead to Asat-kéryya-vida—or the pervaded from one who pervades. Hence he ends by accepting both difference and non- difference and regarding them as incompatible and incomprehensible, though true.
Nimbarka, however, as we have seen—accepts both difference and non-difference to be equally true and compatible as well. The doctrine of Baladeva may, therefore, be called ‘‘Acintya-bheda- bheda-vada”’ as distinguished from the ‘“Svabhavikea-bhedabheda- vada”’ of Nimbarka.
(6) Mokga.
Bondage, according to Baladeva, consists in turning one’s face away from the Lord and the consequent obscuration of its own real nature and attributes, while salvation consists in turning one’s face towards the Lord, when bondage falls off and the soul attains the form and attributes of the Lord.?
Thus, like Nimbarka, Baladeva too holds that the state of salvation involves two factors. On the one hand, it moans the manifestation of the real nature of the self—the full development of its eight-fold superior attributes,’ and on the other it means becoming similar to the Lord.4 The difference between the Lord and the individual soul being eternal, this difference persists in the state of salvation too and the
. freed soul never becomes identical with the Lord. The freed soul is different from the Lord in two points as usual, viz. it is atomic,5 while the Lord is all-pervading, and it lacks the power of creation
1 Vide P.R., where he devotes one entire prameya (4th prameya, pp. 81-94) in demonstrating the difference between Brahman and the souls, but it contains not a word about non-difference between them. And he makes obeisance to Madhva and quotes him as authority in the beginning and in the end. See footnote (1) above.
ॐ G.B., introduc., p.13, chap. 1; 1.3.19, p. 167, chap. 1; 3.4.43, ए. 288, chap. 3.
3 Op. cit., 4.4.1-2, pp. 84-88, chap. 4. The eight qualities are freedom from sins, etc., vide chand, 8.7.1.
4 Op. ctt., 1.1.16-17, pp. 71-74, chap. 1; 1.3.22-23, pp. 169-170, chap. 1; 1.3.43, p. 207, chap. 1.
5 Op. cit., 4.4.20, p. 116, chap. 4.
232 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
etc.—which power belongs exclusively to the Lord.1_ The freed soul is equal to the Lord in point of enjoyment, and not essentially and absolutely .2
In all these points, Baladeva is in perfect agreement with Nimbarka. Like Nimbarka, he emphasises the individuality and separate existence of the freed soul and holds that the freed soul too is a knower, an agent and an enjoyer like the soul in bondage. It isa knower in the sense that it directly knows or intuits Brahman and is omniscient like Him.’ It is an agent in the sense that it roams and sports about in the world of Brahman,‘ possesses divine creative powers (satya-samkalpatva) 5 and creates the world of Fathers, etc. at will.6 It is an enjoyer in the sense, that it shares, as noted above, the enjoyments of the Lord 7 and subsists in infinite and eternal bliss.8
According to Baladeva, therefore, as according to Nimbarka, salvation is a positive state and not a mere negative state of absence of pain.®
Baladeva, further, agrees with Nimbarka in holding that the freed soul is ever under the control of the Lord, but of none else.1°
Baladeva points out that although the freed soul is under the control of the Lord, yet it is not obligatory for it to carry on meditation on the Lord any longer,!! yet it is irresistibly drawn towards worship. ping the Lord, who is so ravishingly beautiful, just as a person suffering from billiousness, though cured by eating sugar, continues to eat sugar, even after his complete cure, simply because sugar is so sweet.12 But this worship of the Lord by the freed soul, is considered to be no action in the ordinary sense of the word, because it worships without any taint of the gunas.13
G.B., 4.4.17-18, pp. 111-113, chap. 4. Op. cit., 1.1.16, pp. 71-72, chap. 1; 4.4.21, pp. 117-118, chap. 4. Op. cit., 4.4.15, introduc. and siitra, pp. 108-109, chap. 4. Op. cit., 2.3.32, p. 206, chap. 2. 5 Op. cit., 3.2.1, ए. 41, chap. 3. 6 Op. cit., 4.4.8, p. 98, chap. 4. ? See footnote (2). 8 G.B., 4.4.20, p. 116, chap. 4. 9 Op. cit., 4.4.1, p. 85, chap. 4. 10 Op, ctt., 4.4.9, p. 100, chap. 4. 11 Op, ott., 3.3.27-28, pp. 153-158, chap. 3. 18 Op, cit., 4.1.12, p. 15, chap. 4. “Pittadagdhasya sitaya pittanaée api sati, bhiiyas tadaésvada-vat.” 13 Op, ctt., 2.3.88, ए. 211, chap. 2.
eo @ oe
THE SADHANAS 233
According to Baladeva, just as there are mutual differences among the souls in bondage, so there are mutual differences among the freed souls as well, owing to their difference of devotion!
The freed souls, Baladeva points out, are colleagues of the Lord and hence possess the power of appearing in many forms,? e.g. when the Lord manifests Himself as Krsna, the freed souls become His companions and so on.
The freed soul, Baladeva points out, is in threefold union with the Lord—viz. first, it is in the city of the Lord which is the Lord Himself; secondly, the Lord is in it, so that it ever feels the presence of the Lord; and thirdly, it is in union with the external form of the Lord.4 It is this separation from the external form of the Lord which generates the sentiment of viraha or separation in the freed soul, which sentiment it is said to undergo sometimes in spite of its intimate union with the Lord.5
Baladeva, like Nimbarka, accepts Videhan-mukti only and not Jivan-mukti.¢
Baladeva points out that Scripture speaks of four kinds of salvation, viz. sélokya, or residence in the same world with the Lord; sarsti or possessing the same power and rank as the Lord; and simipya or proximity to the Lord and séyujya or intimate union with the Lord. But of these, séyujya-mukti is the main and involves all the rest, because, when the soul is in union with the Lord, it resides in the same world as the Lord, attains His nature and attributes and is in proximity to Him.’
(7) The Sddhanas. (a) Bhakti, its nature and pre-requisites (viz. karma and jiidna).
According to Baladeva, bhakti or devotion is the sole and direct cause of salvation.8 ,He uses the term ‘‘bhakti’’ in the sense used
1 P.R., 6th prameya, verses 2-3, pp. 103, 105. See below under “Kinds of Upasana”’.
2 G.B., 3.3.11, p. 131, chap. 3.
3 See above.
4 G.B., 4.4.4, pp. 91-92, chap. 4.
5 Op. cit.
6 Op. cit., 3.3.33, p. 116, chap. 3; 3.3.53, pp. 211-12, chap. 3; 3.4.52, pp. 303. 304; chap. 3, 4.1.15, pp. 21-23, chap. 4.
7 Op. cit., 4.4.4, pp. 91-92, chap. 4.
8 Op. cit., 3.2, introduc., p. 38, chap. 3; 3.3.48, p. 202, chap. 3; 3.3.54, pp. 214-217, chap. 3. १
234 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
by Nimbarka, viz. ‘prema’ or intense love,! and not in the Ramanujist sense of upasand or meditation.?
Bhakti, he points out, really involves two factors—viz., vairdgya or @ strong disgust for any and every object other than Brahman, and prema or an equally strong yearning and love for Brahman. These two, vairagya and prema, are the principal of all sidhanas. The former is generated by the knowledge of the imperfection and transitoriness of all worldly objects, as well as by the knowledge that attachment to worldly objects leads to endless rebirths; while the latter is generated by the knowledge of the Lord and His glorious attributes, omniscience, omnipotence, loveliness and the rest.8
It is clear, therefore, that devotion is not blind, irrational, but is rational and essentially based on knowledge. It is based on a two- fold knowledge, viz. knowledge of the individual self and the world and knowledge of the Lord.4
Baladeva distinguishes between two kinds of knowledge: vijfiina and prajiia. Vijfidéna means intellectual knowledge, which is obtained from the study of scripture, while prajfid means intuitive knowledge which is nothing but devotion and meditation. The former is indirect, since it is only textual conception; the latter is direct, since it is intimate realisation. The former is the gateway to the latter and is of no avail by itself, for by merely mastering the meaning of words by merely studying the Vedas, one does not become a Brahma-vid or a real knower of Brahman. A real knower of Brahman is he who not only knows Brahman, but intutts or realises and-feels Him directly. Just as the mere utterance of the words “Honey is sweet ” will never give a man the taste of the sweetness of honey, but he must actually taste honey to realise how sweet is honey, so exactly is the case here.® In this way, knowledge leads to devotion and meditation and thereby to salvation.
1 For the definition of bhakti, see under Nimbarka.
2 See in loco for Ramanuja’s definition. According to Baladeva, dhyana is only one form of bhakti; the main characteristic of which is intense joy and love. See below under “Modes and kinds of Bhakti’’.
ॐ G.B., 3.2, introduc., pp. 38-39, chap. 3; 3.2.42, p. 104, chap. 3.
For the knowledge which specially help the rise and growth of bhakti—see below.
५ G.B., 1.1.2, p. 8P, chap. 1; 3.3.64, p. 217, chap. 3; SD.R., lst pada, p. 54. “Bhaktir api jiiéna-visego bhavati”, and p. 67 “jiiaéna-bhakti-rap&y&h vidy&ySh tu s&ke&t tat-praptau iti na kdcit kgatih’’.
5 Op. ctt., 1.1.2, p. 30, chap. 1; 3.3.52, p. 209, chap. 3; 3.4.12, pp. 244-247,
BHAKTI 235
Karma or action too, Baladeva points out like Nimbarka, has an important part to play in the attainment of salvation. The proper performance of the duties incumbent on one’s own stage of life goes to refine and purify the mind and thereby help the rise of knowledge and devotion init.1 Like Nimbarka, again, he points out that the function of karma extends thus far only and no farther. Karma is 8 means to the rise of knowledge and devotion, but not a means to their fruit, viz. salvation. And, when once knowledge and devotion have arisen, karma is no longer necessary and hence is abandoned, just as a horse is necessary for accomplishing a journey, but no longer necessary when the journey is accomplished.?
Hence Baladeva definitely rejects the Vidyé-karma-samuccaya” vada, or the doctrine that the combination of vidya and karma leads to salvation. He points out that vidya and vidya alone (by which term he understands ‘devotion preceded by knowledge’’) ® is the cause of salvation.
Like Nimbarka, Baladeva emphasises the grace of the Lord as an essential pre-requisite of the attainment of salvation. A man’s unaided effort, he points out, can be of no avail unless the Lord is pleased to choose and help him. Thus, choice by the Lord is the most important cause of salvation.®
This fact, however, does not contradict the statement, made above, that devotion is the sole cause of salvation, for the grace of the Lord and the consequent.choice by Him are not arbitrary, but depends on the devotion of the souls themselves. The Lord does not choose any and every one, but only those who are whole-heartedly devoted to Him. Hence, ultimately devotion is the cause of salvation.®
1 G.B., 1.1.1, p. 25, chap. 1; 3.4.8, pp. 236-37, chap. 3; 3.4.26, pp. 263-64, chap. 3; 3.4.33, pp. 271-278, chap. 3.
2 Op. cit., 3.4.8, pp. 236-37, chap. 3; 3.4.36, pp. 263-64, chap. 3; 3.4.33 pp. 271-273, chap. 3.
For the place of karma in the life of the three kinds of bhaktas, see below in loco.
$ G.B., 3.3.48, p. 202, chap. 3. “Vidya-Sabdena jianaptirviké bhaktir ucyate.” ,
4 Op. cit., 3.3.48, p. 202, chap. 3; 3.3.50, p. 204, chap. 3; 3.4.35,'p. 262, chap. 3.
5 Op. cit., 3.3.64, pp. 214-216, chap. 3.
6 Op. cit., 2.3.40, pp. 214-215, chap. 2; 3.3.54, pp. 214-217, chap. 3.
SD.R., lst pada, p. 57.
236 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
The grace of the Lord leads to the direct intuition or vision of the Lord. Though the Lord is infinite and unmanifest, yet when He is pleased with His devotees, He manifests His own essential form to them through His mysterious power of grace.1_ This direct vision of the Lord means the perception of the Lord as an ezternal object, i.e. perceiving the Lord in the very same way as one perceives an external object,2 and this external vision of the Lord is absolutely necessary for unless there be such a vision, there can be no salvation.’
This direct vision of the Lord Himself is different from the vision of Him as an incarnation, when e.g. he descends on earth as Rama or Krsna and so on. The former is tho vision of Him as free from maya or contact with matter, the latter is the vision of Him as enveloped in maya. The former can be gained only when the gross and the subtle bodies are destroyed through Brahma-vidya, the latter can be gained in the present life through great merit. Hence, the former alone leads to final emancipation, the latter only to heavenly joys ५
Thus, we conclude that the successive sadhanas are as follows:— The first thing is to keep company with good and righteous men and to serve them and to perform one’s own duties in a purely disinterested spirit.6 By such company and serving, there arises the knowledge of one’s own self and of the supreme self. This two-fold knowledge produces vairagya on the one hand, prema or bhakti on the other.
When bhakti becomes strong, the devotee becomes the beloved of the Lord and comes to be chosen by Him, and then finally, comes the direct vision of the Lord which is salvation.®
Thus:—Sat-sanga and niskima-karmas ~> jfidna ~> vairdgya and prema or bhakti— bhagavat-prasida and varana -> saksitkara and mukti.
There are certain auxiliaries which help the attainment of salvation, viz. :—
1. Guru-bhakti or worshipping the spiritual teacher as a God and Guru-prasdda or the consequent grace of the spiritual teacher. The Lord cannot be reached by the mere study of the Veda, but the kindly
1 G.B., 3.2.27.
ॐ Op. cit., 3.3.49, introduc., p. 203, chap. 3.
3 Op. cit., 3.3.48-49, pp. 202-203, chap. 3.
4 Op. cit., 3.3.53, pp. 211-212, chap. 3.
5 See the exception in the case of the nirapeksa bhaktas, under “Kinds of Bhaktas’’.
6 G.B., 3.3.54, ए. 217, chap. 3.
AUXILIARIES TO SALVATION 237
glance of the preceptor is absolutely necessary, for salvation depends upon the favour of the preceptor in imparting the means of reaching Brahman to the disciple.!
But although the grace of guru is absolutely necessary, yet one must not fall into the mistake of supposing that it is all-sufficient, for supreme devotion to the Lord, éravana, manana and the rest too are no less necessary.?
Thus, Baladeva definitely rejects guripasatti—which consists in relying on the preceptor and preceptor alone—as an independent and self-sufficient sadhana.
2. Worship of good and holy men as gods and the consequent grace of these Holy ones. If a man has the good fortune to obtain the grace of good and holy men, he obtains the grace of the Lord too.8
3. Visiting sacred places and not abusing the worshippers of the Lord and so on.4
Devotion, as we have seen, is generated by the knowledge of the supremely glorious attributes of the Lord.6 The following kinds of knowledge more specially help the rise and growth of devotion :—
1. The knowledge that the Lord is possessed of inconceivable powers and is the substratum of all paradoxical and contradictory attributes,® instead of detracting from His greatness, strengthens the love of the devotee towards Him, and the devotion for the Lord is increased by such contemplation on His contradictory attributes.’
2. The knowledge of the great contrast and difference between the Lord and the individual soul helps the rise of devotion. Devotion for the Lord becomes natural and easy when we contemplate the greatness of His nature and attributes and our own insignificance.§
3. The knowledge that the Lord is the Inner self of all and not an external object, generates devotion for Him, for if He were as easily attainable as an external object like a jar and the rest, then there could have been no devotion for Him.®
G.B., 3.3.44, p. 192, chap. 3.
Op. cit., 2.2.45, ए. 193, chap, 3.
Op. cit., 3.3.51, pp, 206-208, chap. 3, = P.R., 8th prameya, verse 1, p. 113. Op. cit., 3.3.51, pp. 206-207, chap. 3.
See above. 6 See above. G.B., 3.2.13, p. 58, chap. 3.
Op. cit., 3.2.22, p. 76, chap. 3.
Op. cit., 3.2.23, introduc., p. 76, chap. 3.
@@ 0 ~ @ kh @ 8
238 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
4. The knowledge that the bliss of the Lord is the highest, naturally generates devotion for Him, for there could be no devotion, for one who is possessed of only limited and transitory bliss.1
5. The knowledge that the Lord is the Highest Being is an essential cause of devotion for Him, for there can be no devotion for a Lord from whom there is a still higher.?
6. The knowledge that the Lord, as all-pervading, is near the devotee, encourages devotion for Him, for if the Lord were not near, but a far-off Deity, the devotee would have naturally become discouraged and would have despaired of reaching Him, which would have resulted in a decrease of his devotion for Him.3
7. The knowledge that the Lord is the giver of fruits softens and encourages the devotee and helps the rise of devotion, for if the Lord did not give rewards of action, or gave inadequate rewards, He would have been considered as a cold, callous and unjust person, so that no devotion would have arisen for Him.4
(8) Modes and kinds of bhakti.
There are mainly nine modes of devotion :— 1. Listening to the recitation of the name of the Lord. (Sravana.) Singing it to himself. (kirtana.) Remembering it always. (smarana.) Serving the Lord humbly. (pada-sevana.) Worshipping Him. (arcana.) Saluting Him. (vandana.) Treating Him as a Master. (disya.) Treating Him asa Friend. (sakhya.) Self-surrender. (atma-nivedana.)
CHI = छ $> wh
Every one of these nine modes has full efficacy and leads to salvation.5
1 G.B., 3.2.32, introduc., p. 90, chap. 3. 2 Op. cit., 3.2.37, introduc., p. 95, chap. 3. 3 Op. cit., 3.2.38, introduc., 97, chap. 3. + Op. cit., 3.8.39, introduc., ए. 100, chap. 3. 5 Op. cit., 3.3.32, pp. 164-165, chap. 3. Cf. Bhagavata-purana, 7.5.23 :— ४ Sravanam kirtanam Vigsnoh smaranam pada-sevanam, Arcanam dasyam vandanam sakhyam aétma-nivedanam.”
KINDS OF BHAKTI 239
An objection may be raised here:—
Devotion has been defined as immediate intuition or realisation.! But only one form of devotion—viz. meditation, may he said to be such an immediate intuition, while the other forms, viz. worship, muttering of prayers, etc., cannot be said to be so, because they involve activities of the body, speech and so on.
The reply to this objection is as follows :—
Devotion is the consciousness of the bliss-giving power of the Lord (hladini-sakti),? 1.6. it is the consciousness of intense joy. It leads the devotee to be united with the Lord through love. This being the case, even the physical activities of the devotee (who is united with the Lord), viz. his worship, etc., become sources of intense joy to Him, thence they also become immediate realisation of the Lord. That is, just as the body of the Lord, whose essence consists of pure bliss and intelligence is all-joy throughout, and every one of His limbs—His nails, His hair, etc—is made up of bliss, so every activity of the devotee—physical or otherwise—is a direct perception of the Lord. And, we must not question how physical activities can be direct realisations, but we must accept it on the authority of Scripture.’
The attributes of the Lord, as we have seen, are of two kinds—viz. majestic and sweet. Now, corresponding to these two kinds, there are two different kinds of devotion, viz. vidhi-bhakti or devotion of fear and ruci-bhakti or devotion of love. The former is generated by the knowledge of His supreme might and majesty, the latter by that of His infinite beauty and sweetness and either of these leads to salvation.4
The nine modes of devotion, mentioned above, may be brought under either of these two kinds, 1.6. there may be éravana of the Lord as majestic or as sweet and so on.5
1 See above.
8G.B., 3.4.12, p. 247, chap. 3. ‘Hladini-sira-samavetasamvid-ripa bhaktih.” SD.R., 18४ pada, p. 60.
3 Op. cit., 3.4.12, p. 247, chap. 3.
4 Op. cit., 3.2.9, introduc., pp. 156-158, chap. 3.
For further accounts—see below for a detailed exposition, see SD.R., 2nd pada, pp. 88-107.
5 P.R., 8th prameya, verse 4, p. 121.
““Navadha bhaktir vidhi-ruci-pirva dvividhé bhavet’’, etc.
240 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
(c) Kinds of updsand.
The Lord, as we have seen, has an infinite number of forms, thence there is an infinite number of ways of meditating on Him, and these meditations are different from one another. Thus, the Lord may be meditated on as Krsna, Rama, Nrsimha, Naranarayana, Fish, Tortoise and 80 on.2
The Svanistha devotees as we shall see,’ try to meditate on all the forms of the Lord. But such a procedure is not to be encouraged for three main reasons, viz. first, because it is impossible, for none can possibly meditate on all the forms of the Lord, possessed as He is of infinite inconceivable forms; + secondly, because it involves an unnecessary distraction of thought and results in a general devotion for all form, but a deep devotion for none; 5 thirdly, because it is unnecessary, since meditation on any one form is sufficient to lead to salvation.® ‘
Hence the correct procedure is the procedure of the ekantin devotees, i.e. to choose one particular form only, and stick to that form throughout. And, this choice of one particular form is determined by one’s preceptor and the order of good men with whom one is brought up.” त
These nitya-pijas, the sole object of which is the realisation of Brahman, differ from the kimya-piijas which aim at gaining, not Brahman, but some other particular fruit like fame or fortune, etc. With regard to these latter kinds of piijas, one is at liberty to worship any form and change from one form to another as suits the case; e.g. the worshipper of the Nrsimha-form may worship other forms for obtaining particular ends. But the nitya-pijas must never be changed, as pointed out above but must remain the same and uniform throughout. Even when one who practices nitya-pija is in need of some lower kimya objects, he must ask his own God for it, but never have recourse to the worship of any other form.8
There are two eternally perfect paths of meditation on the attributes of the Lord, viz. the path of vidhi-bhakti and the path of
G.B., 3.3.60, p. 225, chap. 3.
Op. cit., 3.3, introduc., pp. 106-108, chap. 3.
See below under “Kinds of Bhaktas’’.
५.8, 3.3.9, p. 124, chap. 3.
Op. cit., 3.3.8, p. 123, chap. 3. See below under “Kinds of Bhaktas”’. Op. cit., 3.3.61, p. 266, chap. 3.
Op. cit. 5 Op. ctt., 3.3.62, pp. 227-230, chap. 3.
KINDS OF UPASANA 241
ruci-bhakti. From the highest companions of the Lord—viz. the eternally freed souls, down to the lowest mortal on earth, everyone must follow either of these two paths, 1.6. meditate on either God, the Majestic, or on God, the Sweet. And as either of these leads to salvation, the devotee is at perfect liberty to follow any of them.
But although both ‘these ways of meditation lead to salvation, yet ruci-bhakti is superior to vidhi-bhakti, for the simple reason that the Lord being all love and all sweetness Himself, the devotion of love and sweetness is more pleasing to Him than the devotion of fear and majesty. Hence, the devotee following the path of ruci-bhakti by his steady and selfless devotion brings the Lord under his control, as it were; for when he, out of his infinite love for the Lord, surrenders and offers himself to Him, He in His turn, being pleased with him, gives Himself to him, manifests His own infinite sweetness to Him, and makes it possible for him to experience His sweetness fully. The Lord is, of course, conquered by any kind of devotion, yet devotees following the path of ruci-bhakti, conquer Him more easily and fully than the other kind. Hence ruci-bhakti is the highest of all kinds of devotion.?
The Lord is to be meditated on as accompanied by Sri, His eternal consort.8
Besides meditating on the various attributes of the Lord, the devotee should meditate on the various limbs of the Lord, accom- panied by appropriate gestures, 1.6. on His smiling face, compassionate eyes, etc.4
The different forms of meditation lead to different forms of realisation. The universal rule is that as one meditates on the Lord, so he obtains or realises Him.5 Hence the devotee sees or realises the Lord as possessed of those attributes only, with which he has so long invested Him in His meditations, and not as possessed of other qualities. Thus, he who meditates on the Lord as Sweet and Beautiful sees Him as such in salvation; while he who meditates on Him as Mighty and Majestic sees Him as such.* Hence, the visions of the Lord differ in accordance with the attitudes of the devotees, and the
+ G.B., 3.3.29-30, pp. 158-160, chap. 3. + 2 Op. cit., 3.3.31, pp. 161-162, chap. 3. SDR., 2nd pada, pp. 104-42. 3 Op. cit., 3.3.42, p. 188, chap. 3. 4 Op. cit., 3.3.63-68, pp. 230-232, chap. 3. 5 Cf. Chand., 3.14.1. 6 Op. cit., 3.2.35-36, pp. 94-95, chap. 3; 3.3.56, p. 221, chap. 3. 16
242 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
same Lord appears in different aspects to different devotees, just as the same light of a lamp appears different when it falls on different parts of a temple, viz. on a crystalline surface, or on a wall embedded with rubies, etc.; or just as the same air passing through different musical instruments, viz. flute, conch-shell, etc. produce different sounds! There is thus a difference in the state of salvation owing to the difference of devotion,? i.e. a difference among the freed themselves owing to their different sentiments.®
(4) Kinds of bhaktas.
There are, broadly, two kinds of devotees, viz. svanistha and ekantin. The latter are, again of two kinds—viz. pari-nistha and nirapeksa. The svanisthas are Universalists, 1.6. they meditate on ail forms of the Lord and always coalesce in their meditations all the attributes of the Lord, found in every form. But the ekantins, viz. the pari-nisthas and the nirapeksas, are exclusionists, i.e. they do not meditate on all forms of the Lord, although they know or well that the Lord has innumerable forms; but they choose one particular form only, and meditate on that alone. Thus, their love is not universal ¢ but limited, e.g. the exclusive worshipper of the Krsna-form does not combine, in his meditation, the form sacred to the worshipper of the Nrsimha-form, viz. the flowing mane, the gaping jaw, the terrible teeth and so on; just as the exclusive worshipper of the Nrsimha-form does not meditate on the lute and cane of Krsna, nor on His beauty and sweetness, so dear to the devotee of Krsna.5 But the svanisthas meditate on these different attributes of the different forms,
1 G.B., 3.3.52, p. 209, chap. 3; 3.2.35, p. 94, chap. 3. 2 Op. cit., 3.3.52, p. 209, chap. 3. 8 P.R., 6th prameya, verse 3, p. 105. “Santadya rati-paryyanta ye bhavah paiica kirtitah Tair devam smaratém pumsim taratamyam mitho matam.”
The five sentiments are the five degrees of devotion, each ® little higher than the preceding one: (1) Santa or tranquil meditation on the Lord (Srikrsna- nigtha-buddhivyttita) ; (2) Dasya, or active service of the Lord (sevé); (3) Sakhya, or a feeling of personal friendship with the Lord (nihsambhramata); (4) Vatsalya, or filial affection for the Lord (sneha); and (5) Madhuryya or feeling of sweetness the highest stage of emotional development (ruci-bhakti) (asahga-saiga-danena sukhotpadanam). Vide “Prabha” tika on P.R., ए. 106.
Cf. Harivyaésadeva above.
4 G.B., 3.3, introduc., pp. 108-109, chap. 3,
5 Op. cit., 3.3.8, p. 122, chap. 3.
16B
KINDS OF BHAKTAS 243
in a succession of time, just as one sees different hues in the prism at different times.!
The ekantin is superior to the svanistha, because his devotion, being exclusive, is deeper and more absorbing, and as such higher than that of the Svanistha. The ekantin thus has a deep, one-pointed love and devotion for ohe particular form, while the svanistha has a general love for all forms, but a deep love for none.2
The respective duties of the three classes of devotees are as follows :—
1. The svanisthas belong to the order of householders. They faithfully discharge the duties incumbent on their own castes and stages of life with a view to attaining vidya 8 since in their case, the rise of vidya depends on two sets of qualifications, viz. physical or external, such as, the performance of sacrifices, the practice of charity, penance, etc.; and moral or internal, such as, self-control, dispassion, endurance, etc.*
But when the svanisthas, thus obtain vidya through the proper performance of the duties incumbent on their castes and stages of life, they do not give up karma, but go on performing them in order to increase the already obtained vidya.6 The second object, which leads them to perform karmas even after the origin of vidyd, is their desire to go to heaven and experience its varieties.6 But these karmas of the enlightened svanisthas are not to be confused with the ordinary kamya-karmas of ordinary men, for the Svanisthas do not wish to enjoy heavenly pleasures, etc., but their going to heaven and experienc- ing its varieties are also to serve the Lord and study the works of the Lord as found there. The Svanisthas really go to the Lord, and it is only as an incident that they go to heaven, and see its objects. Heaven, thus, is no more than a halting stage in their continuous progress towards the world of Brahman. Just asa man, while going to a village,
1 G.B., 3.3, introduc., p. 108, chap. 3; 3.3.7, p. 121, ohap. 3.
2 Op. cit., 3.3.8, 9, pp. 123-124, chap. 3.
“Svanigtha-bhakter ekanti-bhaktir gadhé-veSad valiyasi,” 3.3.8, p. 123; 3.3.61.
$ Op. cit., 1.1.1, p. 25, chap. 1; 3.4, introduc., p. 234, chap. 3. For the defi- nition of “vidy&’’, see above.
4 Op. cit., 3.4.26-27, pp. 263-267, chap. 3.
5 Op. cit., 3.4.32-33, p. 271, chap. 3.
6 Op. cit., 3.4, introduc., ए. 234, chap. 3; 3.4.33, pp. 271-272, chap. 3.
244 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
may casually touch the grass on the roadside, so the svanisthas, incidentally experience the joys of heaven, while going to the Lord.1
Thus, two factors co-operate in leading the svanisthas to heaven, viz.: (a) the merit of the works performed by them after the rise of vidya, and (b) the works which have already begun to bear fruits before the rise of vidya. Leaving these two sorts of works, vidya burns up all other karmas of the svanisthas.?
The fact is that the power of vidya being supreme, vidya can burn to ashes all works whatsoever, even those which have begun to bear fruits, but does not do so in deference to the will of the Lord. The Lord wishes that the enlightened devotee should continue his earthly existence a little longer, so that he may be a living example to mankind, and spread His glory in the world. Hence, the devotee, who has harmonised his will to the will of the Lord, allows his prarabdha karmas to go on producing effects. That is, he allows vidya to singe his prérabdha karmas, but not to reduce them to ashes. His prarabdha karmas are just like a piece of half-burnt cloth, which retains its texture and looks like a piece of cloth, but which falls to pieces at the slightest touch. Dressed in such prirabdha karmas, the devotee goes on carrying on his duties in accordance with the will of the Lord.’
2. The parinisthas too belong to the order of householders and they too perform, with equal faith and zeal all the duties incumbent on their castes and stages of life but not with a view to going to heaven in order to see the wonderful works of the Lord there, but simply for the sake of society and the good of humanity, i.e. for setting examples before others to follow.‘
Besides the duties mentioned above, the parinisthas have to perform the bhagavata-dharmas or duties of meditation, etc., out of love for the Lord.5
Of these two classes of duties, the bhagavata-dharmas are by far the more important ones for the parinisthas. Their primary duty is to worship the Lord and this they can never omit. The other kinds
1 G.B., 3.५.33, pp. 272-273, chap. 3.
2 Op. cit., 3.4.33, pp. 272-273, chap. 3.
3 Op. cit., 3.4.16, pp. 251-252, chap. 3; 3.4.52, p. 304, chap. 3; 4.1.16, pp. 21-22, chap. 4.
Note the exception in the case of the nirapekgas.
« GB., 1.1.1, p. 26, chap. 1; 3.4, introduc., p. 284, chap. 3; 3.4.34, introduc., p. 274, chap. 3.
5 Op. cit., 3.4.84, introduc., p. 274, chap. 3.
THE NIRAPRKSA BHAKTA 245
of duties, on the other hand, are to be performed by them in their leisure moments after they have duly performed their bhagavata- dharmas, and may even be altogether omitted. And this omission of these duties does not incur any sin on their part, since it is not due to any voluntary neglect of duty, but only to their being absorbed in the worship, etc., of the Lord.}
3. The nirapeksas (such as Gargi) do not belong to the order of householders, or to any order, but are sanydsins or hermits. These dispassionate sages are ever immersed in meditation, uninfluenced by anything else and totally indifferent to worldly life They are not required to perform any duties incumbent on castes, etc., to gain vidya because owing to their proper performance of all the duties like truth, austerity, prayer and the rest, they are born in this life with their minds already purified and fit for vidyé. The sense is: A man who has duly discharged the prescribed duties in his previous life dies before the actual origin of vidya. Hence, in his next birth, his mind is already fit for vidya and he is able to obtain full and perfect vidya by simply coming into contact with holy men. Thus, the company of the good is all that is required for the rise of vidya in the case of the nirapeksas.3
The nirapeksas, belonging to no stage of life, are superior to the svanisthas and the parinisthas, belonging to the stage of householders, for the condition of a non-householder is a better means of acquiring vidya, and the nirapeksas are devoted to the Lord, heart and soul, with no other distraction.¢
The nirapeksas are never in danger of falling off from their state of devotion and meditation, and be attracted by the life of a house- holder, because their senses are completely devoted to the Lord alone, so much so that they never feel attracted to anything else, and also because all desires are completely destroyed in them, except the desire for the Lord.’ They’desire only to worship the Lord, and faith is the only enjoyment they crave for just as a hungry man craves for food.®
Although the nirapeksas perform no karmas, as the svanisthas do, yet vidya by itself carries them to heaven for two purposes—viz. first, for testing whether they have a true vairigya or disinterested
1 G.B., 3.4.34-35, pp. 274-276, chap. 3; 3.4.22, pp. 258-259, chap. 3. 2 Op. cit., 3.4.38-39, pp. 280-282, chap. 3.
3 Op. cit., 3.4.38-39, pp. 280-282, chap. 3.
५ Op. cit., 3.4.39, p. 281, chap. 3.
5 Op. cit., 3.4.40, pp. 283-284, chap. 3.
6 Op. cit., 3.4.42, p. 286, chap. 3.
246 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
spirit, or are fascinated by heavenly delights; and secondly, for pro- claiming to all the inhabitants of heaven their unselfish love and devotion.1 The nirapeksas never desire for heavenly enjoyments, nor even the offices of world-rulers like Indra and the rest.?
The nirapeksas are special favourites of the Lord. Through the special grace of the Lord, they obtain vidya at once simply through sat-sanga,? and through the grace of the Lord, they, though in the midst of the distractions of the world are yet outside its entanglements.4 Further, they have to undergo no anxieties for their worldly wants, because the Lord Himself supplies their every want.5
It has been pointed out above that the prirabdha-karmas of the enlightened devotees continue to produce effects through the wish of the Lord, in order that they may teach mankind. But an exception is made in the case of some Nirapeksas who become free as soon as they obtain vidya, without having to undergo the consequences of their prarabdha-karmas.®@ Through the will of the Lord, who is impatient of their delay in coming to Him, yet wishes to uphold the strict principle of justice that the fruits of karmas must be always experienced, the good and bad prirabdha-karmas of those nirapeksas go to their friends and foes respectively who experience their consequences.’
When the nirapeksas thus obtain vidya they discard their gross and. subtle bodies and get a divine body called “prasida-vapus” by means of which they enjoy all pleasures along with the Lord.§
As a special concession to the nirapeksas, the Lord Himself comes down to fetch them to Him, being impatient of delay, and does not leave the task to the troop of conducting divinities of light, day and the rest, as He does in the case of other devotees.®
Now, if we compare Baladeva’s theory of sidhanas with that of Nimbarka, we find that both agree in holding that karma is but an indirect means to salvation, assisting only the rise of knowledge, but not directly bringing about its fruit, viz. salvation. They also agree in holding that knowledge and devotion mutually involve each other:
a 1 G.B., 3.4.33, p. 273, chap. 3. 2 Op. cit., 3.4.41, p. 285, chap. 3. 5 Op. cit., 3.4.38, ए. 280, chap. 3. « Op. cit., 3.4.43, pp. 287-288, chap. 3. 5 Op. cit., 3.4.44, pp. 289-290, chap. 3. 6 Op. cit., 4.1.17, introduc., pp. 25-26, chap. 4; 4.1.17, pp. 26-28, chap. 4. 7 Op. oit., 4.1.17-18, pp. 27-29, chap. 4. 8 Op. oit., 4.1.19, ए. 30, chap. 4. 9 Op. cit., 4.3.16, pp. 80-81, chap. 4.
NIMBARKA AND BALADEVA 247
the former leads to the latter, devotion is not blind, but based on knowledge. Further, Baladeva agrees with Nimbarka in taking self ‘surrender too to be an independent sadhana, although he does not consider it in details and regards it as a mode of devotion. But unlike Nimbarka, he rejects, as we have seen 2 surrender to a preceptor as an independent means, for he expressly points out that although devotion to the preceptor and the consequent grace of the guru are absolutely necessary elements in salvation, yet they are never the sole elements. Devotion to the Lord and one’s own efforts consisting in éravana, manana and the rest too are absolutely necessary,—devotion to the preceptor cannot by itself lead to salvation.
According to Nimbarka, each of the Upanisadic vidyds, viz. Sandilya-vidya, Madhu-vidyé, Dahara-vidyaé and the rest leads to salvation, but Baladeva does not mention any of these vidyas, but emphasises, instead, meditations on the different forms of the Lord, regarding which Nimbarka is silent.
Further, although Nimbarka holds that the Lord has two different aspects, viz. majestic and sweet, yet he does not speak of the two separate kinds of meditations on the Lord as the majestic and the Lord as the sweet, as Baladeva so emphatically and repeatedly does.
Although Baladeva holds that meditation on any form leads to salvation, yet he thinks that the Krgna-form is the best of all, since Krsna is the most perfect form of the Lord, and the Lord, he points out, is to be meditated on as accompanied by Sri (who in her highest manifestation is Radha). Here Baladeva agrees with Nimbarka, who also recommends the joint worship of Radha-Krsna as the best form of worship.
Both Nimbarka and Baladeva emphasise madhuryya-pradhina bhakti, 1.6. a sweet and most intimate relation of love between the Lord and His devotees, and not a mere relation of awe.
While Baladeva takes the order of a non-householder (andgramin) to be higher than that of householders (asramins) and takes the non- householders (nirapeksas) to be special favourites of the Lord, Nimbarka is of a different opinion, viz. that everyone should belong to one or other of the stages of life, otherwise one cannot be entitled
‘to Brahma-vidya.
1 See above “Atma-nivedana”’ or self-surrender to the Lord is regarded as one of the nine modes of devotion and as leading to release by itself. 2 See above.
248 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Another peculiar point in Baladeva’s system is that vidya is taken to be capable of burning up all karmas, even those which have begun to bear fruits. But other commentators agree in holding that ‘ vidya cannot destroy these prarabdha-karmas—which can be destroyed by retributive experience alone. Even the Advaitins are forced to admit it, although it has made their view open to much criticism—viz. how can the effect (viz. the body—the product of karmas) persist even when its cause (viz. ajfiina) is removed.
Nimbarka does not speak of the three kinds of devotees—Svanistha, etc., as Baladeva does.
(8) Rituals.)
The devotee must be purified by the Pafica-samskaras—which are exactly similar to those admitted by the school of Nimbarka.2 The devotee should live in places like Mathura and the rest. He should fast on the Lord’s Day, on the eleventh day of the moon (ekadaéi). If it does not commence on the break of dawn (arunodaya), he should observe it on the next day. Similarly, he should observe the birthday festival of the Lord on the eighth day of the moon (Janmastam!), but if the eighth day of the moon does not commence with sunrise (siryyodaya) he should observe it on the next day. Finally, the devotee should avoid with care the ten sorts of blas- phemy or Néma-aparadha, viz.:— 1, Censuring holy men. 2. Meditating on other deities like Siva and the rest as indepen- dent deities, i.e. uttering their names in presence of Visnu. 3. Showing contempt for one’s preceptor or for other persons fit to be revered. 4. Speaking ill of Scripture and other works which are in conformity with it. 5. Disbelieving the efficacy of the sacred Name of the Lord in removing all sins, 6. Trying to explain the scriptural statements regarding the efficacy of the sacred Name by other methods, i.e. as mere eulogy.
1 P.R., 8th prameya, verses 1-8, pp. 117-125, 9 For details, see “Prabha” tika on P.R., p. 122. See below under “Ritualistic Dootrine of the School of Nimbarka’’.
NIMBARKA AND RAMANUJA 249
7. Wilful commission of sins on the idea that the mere utterance of the sacred Name afterwards will be able to wash them off.
8. Thinking that any other good work, such as charity, etc., can be equal to the utterance of the Sacted Name.
9. Teaching the Name to a disbeliever.
10. Not loving the Name, even after hearing its glory.
Now, if we compare this doctrine with the ritualistic doctrine of the school of Nimbarka, we find that there is not much difference between the two. However, so far as the determination of the tithis for the observance of religious vows and festivals goes, Baladeva says, as we have seen if the ekadaéi-tithi does not begin with the break of dawn (arunodaya) one should not observe the ekadaséi-vrata on that day, but on the nextday. But according to the followers of Nimbarka, if the tithi does not begin with midnight, one should observe the vow the next day. Again, according to Baladeva, if the astami-tithi does not begin with sunrise, one should not observe the Janmastami-vrata on that day, but according to the followers of Nimbarka, if the tithi does not begin with midnight, one should, as before, perform the Janmastami on the next day.!
(9) Conclusion.
Thus, we find that from the point of view of philosophy, the main difference between Nimbarka and Baladeva lies in their conceptions of the reconcilableness or otherwise of difference and non-difference. While the system of Nimbarka is more philosophical, that of Baladeva is more religious. From the point of view of religion, however, there is not much difference between them, except the sectarian ones, since both are infused with the same spirit of emotion, ecstasy and intimate association between the Lord and the individual soul.
V. RESUME.
(i) PoInTs OF DISSIMILARITY BETWEEN NIMBARKA AND
RAMANUJA. Ramdnuja. Nimbarka. (1) The Highest Reality is Visnu. The Highest Reality is Krsna, No mention of Krsna and accompanied by Radha.
Radha. 1 See below under “Some of the religious observances and festivals of the sect of Nimbarka”’.
250 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Ramanuja.
(2) The sentient souls are attri- butes or modes of the Lord. ६
(3) The non-sentient substance is an attribute or mode of the Lord.
(4) Difference qualifies पणा. difference and is as such subordinate to it. More emphasis on the principle of identity.
(5) Bhakti means meditation.
(6) The relation between God and man is a distant relation of reverence.
(7) More intellectual.
continuous
` Nimbarka. They are powers of the Lord, and not His attributes.
The non-sentient substance is a power of the Lord, and not His attribute.
Difference and non-difference are precisely on the same level, none being subordinate to the other. Equal emphasis on both the principles.
It means intense love.
The relation between them is an intimate relation of love.
More religious.
Points of similarity between Nimbdarka and Ramanuja.
(1) Brahman is a personal God, endowed with infinite auspicious attributes and powers and free from all defects, the one identical material and efficient cause of the universe.
(2) The souls are knowledge by nature, knowers, doers, enjoyers, ` atomic, innumerable, dependent and real in bondage as in
release,
(3) The non-sentient substance is of three kinds, matter, pure matter and time; and is real and dependent on the Lord.
(4) Difference and now-difference are both real.
(5) Meditation, based on knowledge and accompanied by proper actions, is the means to salvation.
(6) Salvation is the full development of the nature of the individual soul, and its attaining similarity with the Lord. There is no jivan-mukti.
(7) The grace of the Lord is an essential condition of salvation.
NIMBARKA AND BHASKARA 251
(ii) PoINTS OF DISSIMILARITY BETWEEN NIMBARKA AND BHASKARA.
Bhaskara.
(1) The Highest Reality is Brahman or Iévara, not a personal God of love and grace. No consort of Brahman mentioned.
(2) Emphasises the formless non- different causal state of Brahman,—with no inter- nal differences even,—over and above His effected state as having a form and different-non-different from the universe.
(3) Does not speak of incarna-
tions and rejects the vyiihas. (4) The soul is different-non-
different from Brahman during mundane state, but non-different from Him during salvation.
(5) The soul’s state of being an agent, an enjoyer and atomic are not natural and everlasting, but due to limiting adjuncts and tem- porary. ।
(6) Does not speak of the
` aprikrta and time as spe- cies of the non-sentient substance.
(7) The world is different-non- different from Brahman during creation, but non- different from Him during dissolution.
Nimbarka. The Highest Reality is Krsna, a personal God of love and grace, accompanied by Radha.
Does not admit of such a purely non-different form of Brahman, who has always internal differences.
Accepts incarnations and
vyihas.
The soul is always different- non-different from Brahman, in salvation too.
It is natural and everlasting.
Does so.
The world is always different— non-different from Brahman.
252 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Bhaskara. Nimbdarka. (8) Difference is due to limiting Difference and non-difference adjunct, non-difference is are equally natural. natural.
(9) Action is a direct means to It is but an indirect means to salvation. salvation.
(10) No grace of the Lord is re- Grace of the Lord is an essential quired for salvation. pre-requisite of salvation.
(11) No place for a relation of Emphasises such a relation. love and companionship.
(12) Salvation means the absolute The soul retains its individuality
absorption of the soul in even in salvation. Brahman. (13) Admits two kinds of salva- Admits one kind of salvation, tion, viz. immediate and viz. immediate. gradual.
Points of similarity between Nimbarka and Bhaskara. (1) Brahman is endowed with attributes and powers and is the one identical material and efficient cause of the universe.
(2) The souls and matter are the effects, parts and powers of the Lord, and are real and eternal.
(3) They are different-non-different from the Lord (during mundane existence).
(4) Both difference and non-difference are real (during mundane existence).
(5) Knowledge and meditation are direct means to salvation.
(6) Salvation is a posite acquisition, a positive state of bliss; and there is no jivan-mukti. . ब
(iii) Posts OF DISSIMILARITY BETWEEN NIMBARKA AND SRIKANTHA,
Srikantha. Nimbarka. (1) The Highest Reality is Siva, The Highest Reality is Krsna, accompanied by Uma. accompanied by Radha.
(2) Visnu is subordinate to Siva. Not so.
NIMBARKA AND SRIKANTHA 253
Srikantha.
(3) Does not speak of incarna- tions and rejects the vyitthas.
(4) The souls and the world are attributes of the Lord.
(5) The freed soul is not under the control of the Lord.
(6) Does not speak of the apra- krta and time as species of the non-sentient sub- stance. |
(7) Non-difference and difference are both real, yet difference qualifies non-difference
‘and 18 as such subordinate to it.
(8) There are two kinds of salva- tion, viz. immediate and gradual.
(9) Emphasises a relation of awe and reverence between God and man.
(10) Does not recognise prapatti and guripasatti as inde- pendent saédhanas.
(11) Recommends meditation on Nardyana as the material cause. "
Nimbarka. Accepts incarnations and vythas. They are powers and not
attributes of the Lord.
The soul is ever under the con- trol of the Lord, even when freed.
Does so.
Difference and _ non-difference are both real and on the same level.
There is one kind of salvation, viz. immediate.
Emphasises a relation of love and companionship.
Does so.
Does not do so.
Points of similarity between Nimbarka and Srikantha.
(1) Brahman, a personal God, is endowed with all auspicious attributes and powers, and free from all faults, and is the one identical material and efficient cause of the Universe.
(2) The souls are knowledge by nature, knowers, agents, enjoyers, atomic and innumerable and real in bondage as in release.
264 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
(3) The non-sentient substance is real and dependent on the Lord. (4) Difference and non-difference are both real. (5) Salvation implies the full development of the real nature of the
soul and its attaining similarity with the Lord.
jivan-mukti.
There is no
(6) Action is an indirect means to salvation, while meditation based on knowledge is the direct means, (7) The grace of the Lord is an essential pre-requisite of salvation.
(iv) PoINTs OF DISSIMILARITY BETWEEN NIMBARKA AND BALADEVA.
Baladeva,
(1) The Lord is identical with His attributes, body and city.
(2) The Lord has no internal differences.
(3) Does not speak of the apra- krta as a species of the non-sentient, but substi- tutes karma.
(4) Difference and non-difference are real yet irreconcilable.
(5) Guripasatti is not an in- dependent sidhana.
(6) The order of an anaéramin is higher than that of an
aéramin. (7) Vidyé can -destroy even prarabdha-karmas.
(8) Does not speak of the medi- tations mentioned in the Upanigads as means to salvation.
(9) Speaks of two distinct kinds of meditations—viz. me- ditation on God, the Sweet and God, the Majestic.
Nimbarka. Not so.
The Lord has always internal differences.
Admits the aprikrta and not karma to be a species of the non-sentient.
. They are both real and reconcil-
able.
It is so.
The order of an aéramin is the best of all.
It cannot do so.
Does so.
Does not do so.
NIMBARKA AND BALADEVA ५ 266
Baladeva. Nimbarka. (10) Speaks of three classes of = Does not do so. disciples, viz. svanistha, parinistha and nirapeksa.
(11) More religious. More intellectual.
Points of similarity between Nimbarka and Baladeva.
(1) Brahman is Krsna, accompanied by Radha, and endowed with all auspicious qualities and free from all defects. He is the one identical material and efficient cause of the Universe and manifests Himself in incarnations and vyihas.
(2) The souls are knowledge by nature, knowers, agents, innumerable, atomic, dependent and real in bondage and release.
(3) The world is real and dependent on the Lord.
(4) Time is an eternal non-sentient substance.
(5) Salvation means the full development of the real nature of the soul and its attaining similarity with the Lord. There is no jivan-mukti.
(6) Action is an indirect means to salvation, while meditation, based on knowledge, is the direct means.
(7) Self-surrender to the Lord is a direct means to salvation.
(8) A most intimate relation of love and companionship between God and man is emphasised.
(9) The grace of the Lord is an essential factor in salvation. -
(10) Ritualistic doctrine similar on the whole.
VI. RITUALISTIC DOCTRINE OF THE SCHOOL OF NIMBARKA.
(1) Inrriation To THE MantTRa or THE LorD (DIKSA), ETC.
A Vaignava 1 must be initiated by his preceptor to the mantra of his sect. There are two kinds of Vaisnavas, viz. simpradayikas and asimpradiyikas. The former learn the great truth, taught by the Lord Himeelf, directly from a pious and learned preceptor, who in his
1 For the marks of a Vaignava, see Sv.S., 11th taranga, pp. 117ff. See below.
266 DOQTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
turn, has learnt it from 9 previous preceptor and soon. The latter do not have recourse to a preceptor and therefore, do not learn the truth direct but simply imitate the manners and customs of the former kinds of Vaignavas. Evidently, the former are far superior to the latter, and they alone get the fruit, viz. salvation. Hence, everyone who desires to attain salvation should approach a preceptor and be properly initiated by him.1
He must be initiated to the Visnu-mantra, and not to the mantra of Brahma, Siva, or any other deity, for Visnu-mantra is the best and the only efficacious one.?
Now, there are various kinds of Visnu-mantras, of which the Gopala-mantra of eighteen syllables 9 is the best.4 Hence the devotee should be first initiated by Mukundagarana-mantra and then by the Gopéla-mantra of eighteen syllables.5
Men of four castes are to be initiated to the Gopala-mantra without distinction, although a Sidra and a woman are entitled only to a curtailed mantra of the Lord consisting of ten syllables.®
The devotee should approach his preceptor for initiation in the following manner :—
Having first properly performed his daily duties, such as samdhya,” meditation and so on, he should prepare the pafica-gavyas or a mixture of the five products of the cow, viz. milk, sour milk, butter, the liquid and the solid excreta. He should first of all put some liquid excreta of the cow in a pot, reciting the Gayatri-mantra; with the recitation of prescribed mantras successively put in it some solid excreta of the cow, milk, sour milk and butter and finally the washings of the kuéa-grass; mix them all and drink the mixture with the utterance of ‘Om’. This will purify him and destroy his sins.8
Next, he is to put on a new sacred thread.® He should first wash the threads in clean water, then rinse his mouth, practise breath- exercises and make the resolve to wear a new thread in order that he may be entitled to the performance of works enjoined in Scripture. After that he should take the threads in his hands, recite the Gayatri-
1 D.P., pp. 7-8. 2 Op. cit., p. 7.
8 Viz. “Klim Kysnaéya Govindiya Gopijana-vallabhéya svaha”. See K.D., 2nd patala, pp. 32-55.
५ K.D., 2nd patala, pp. 32ff.; D.P., pp. 14-15; Sv.S., 3rd taranga, pp. 14ff.
5 D.P., pp. 15, 27. ० Op. cit., K.D., 18६ patala, p. 3.
7 See below. under “Practical mode of worshipping the Lord the idol’.
8 D.P., pp. 16-18. 9 Of course, excluding a éiidra or a woman.
FIVE-FOLD SACRIFICES 257
mantra over them ten times, hold them separately in his right hand with the utterance of two mantras and put them on one by one, rinsing his mouth each time and reciting the Gayatri-mantra as best ashe can. The old threads are to be taken out with the recitation of mantras, placed on a clean spot for the time being and thrown into a river afterwards.! .
Purified thus by the proper performance of the daily duties, by the drinking of the Pajica-gavyas and by the putting on of a new sacred thread, the devotee should now approach a preceptor, and be initiated by him to the holy mantra of the Lord. The successive stages of the process of initiation, viz. goptrtva-varana, atmasit- karana, etc., have already been considered in details.2
A Vaisnava has two-fold marks, viz. internal and external. His internal marks are dhyana or meditation, bhakti or devotion and yajfia or performance of sacrifices, preceded by his initiation to the Gopéla-mantra,’ as pointed out above. Meditation and devotion have been already considered.4 So only the third remains to be considered.
There are five kinds of yajfias or sacrifices, viz. atma-yajiia, japa-yajiia, dravya-yajiia, jfidna-yajiia and yoga-yajiia.5
1. The method of performing the atma-yajfia is as follows: Having risen early in the morning, washed his hands and feet, rinsed his mouth and bowed down to his preceptors, the devotee should eulogise the Lord and recite appropriate mantras, and afterwards renounce his own self and everything belonging to himself to the Lord, choosing Him as His Master, Father, Husband, Friend and All, and asking Him to make him His own absolutely. The rule is that one belonging to the first three classes should renounce and dedicate one’s self to the Lord with the utterance of the three mantras, viz. ‘Om. I am 167, the Mukunda-mantras stated in the Pafica-ratra and the mantra taught by Srinivasa, viz. ‘All is yours, nothing is mine. Svaha’’; while one belonging to the fourth caste 18.४0 renounce one’s self by reciting two mantras only.®
1 D.P., pp. 21-22.
2 Op. cit., pp. 22ff. See above under Guriipasatti. For the month suitable of the dikga, see Sv.S., 3rd taranga, pp. 8ff.
3 Op. cit., p. 1.
4 See above in Loco.
5 §.R., pp. 111-114. Also, D.P., pp. 2-3.
6 Op. cit., p. 112. We are not told which two mantras.
17
258 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
(2) The japa-yajfia is prescribed thus: The devotee should bathe in the river, offer oblations of water to the Lord; on his return, wash his hands and feet, place a seat as enjoined and sit down on it. Then he should make obeisance to the successive spiritual teachers; meditate on the Lord the Mantra-mirti Sabda-Brahman, who though one, yet appears as having parts through sound, just as the one air assumes five-fold forms in every man; and pray to Him as his Saviour. Next he should worship the Lord mentally with five Upaciras, or ingredients! and externally place the Idol on the throne and worship it with pidya,2 arghya® and so on; practice breath-exercises; recite the mantra of eighteen syllables; and perform japa or mutter mantras as best 88 116 0811. After the japa, he should once more make obeisance to the previous teachers of the sect, rinse his mouth, bow down to the Mantra-mirti, place Him in his heart, place the external Idol in the basket and finish.
(3) Dravya-yajfia means worshipping the Lord by means of various kinds of dravyas or upacdaras, i.e. ingredients such as flower, sandal-paste, lamp perfume, ornaments and so on, in accordance with Scripture and the practice of the sect.‘ ।
(4) Jfiana-yajfia means discussing the meaning of texts like “Thou art that’, etc. as stated by the teachers of the sect, and studying and teaching the Upanisads, the Brahma-sitras, the Bhagavad-gita and the rest.
(5) Yoga-yajiia means controlling the mind by means of breath- exercises meditating on the Lord and His qualities.
The proper performance of any one of these five kinds of yajiias leads one to release. Hence the followers of the sect should daily perform one or two or three or all of them, just as they perform samdhya 5 and the rest. Although those who perform the Atma- yajfia, have no more duties to perform, since they have had complete resort to the Lord, yet they should perform other kinds of yajfias too in order to teach mankind and obey the mandates of their sect.
So far for the internal marks of a Vaisnava. The external marks of & Vaisnava consist in putting on a garland of tulasi-beads, stamping
1 Viz. sandal-paste, flowers, incense, lamp and offering of food, etc. D.P., introduc., p. 2.
2 i.e, water for the washing of feet. 3 i.e. offering of food, etc.
५ See below under “Practical mode of worshipping the Lord: the idol’’.
5 Op. cit., for details.
17B
FIVE-FOLD PURIFICATIONS 259
the marks of conch-shell, disc, etc. on the body and putting on the caste-mark or tilak on the forehead. No vaigsnava should omit to put on a garland of tulasi-beads which purifies his whole being and destroys all his sins. It should be put on over the sacred thread at all times and under every circumstance.! It should not be taken out even when one is answering the call of nature, or bathing or eating. He who bathes with the garland of tulsi-beads on his neck gets all the fruits of bathing in holy rivers, even though he may be bathing in an ordinary pond; and he who eats with this garland hanging on his neck gets all the fruits of an Asva-medha sacrifice.?
The garland of tulasi-beads is to be first consecrated by the pafica-gavyas,8 and offered to the Lord with flowers and perfume, and then worn on the neck.4 The process of purifying the garland © is as follows: First the garland is to be thoroughly washed with the paiica-gavyas, mixed with the washings of the kuéa-grass. After that it is to be placed on an Aévattha-leaf, and fifty letters, beginning with om, hrim, am, am, etc. are to be mentally appropriated ® to it; and is to be besmeared with sandal-paste, and perfumed with incense together with the recitation of proper mantras. Further every bead of the garland too is to be consecrated with mantras. Finally the garland should be worshipped with five ingredients 7 and the devotee is to meditate on the Lord, mutter the mantra learnt from his pre- ceptor, perform breath-exercise and place the garland on his head.8
The last two, viz. putting the signs of conch-shell, etc. and putting the tilaka are considered below in connection with the patfica- samskaras.
The pafica-samskaras or the five-fold purificatory ceremonies which make one fit for the service, etc. of the Lord are—tapa, pundra, nama, mantra, and yaga.°
(1) Tapa means putting on the marks of Visnu’s conch-shell, disc, club, and lotus on the body, either branding them on the skin with red- hot iron, or stamping them with gopi-candana or white clay.10 The
1 D.P., pp. 46ff.; Sv.S., 3rd taranga, pp. 40ff.
2 Sv.S., 3rd taranga, pp. 40-43. 3 See above. 4 Op. cit., 3rd taranga, p. 43.
5 Mala-samskara-vidhi. 6 Nyasa.
7
Viz. sandal-paste, etc. See above, footnote 1, p. 258. § D.P., pp. 18-19. 9 Sv.8., 3rd taranga, p. 24; S.R., ए. 140; G.M., ए. 34. 10 Gop!-candana is a species of white clay said to be brought from Dvaraka. Vide Svadhar. MS., Fol. 1; Sv.8., 3rd taranga, pp. 31-32; 8.R., ए. 141; G.M., ए. 35.
260 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
former is called ‘tapta-mudra’, the latter ‘éitala-mudra’. The former’ is to be adopted in four places, viz. Naimisa, Mathura, Dvaravati and Sudaréanasrama, the latter in other places.1
(2) Pundra or irdhva pundra means putting the tilaka or caste- mark, 1.6. drawing two perpendicular lines on the forehead, with a spot in the middle. The lines must be drawn from the tip of the nose tight to the end of the forehead. They are said to represent the temple of Hari, and the spot the place of Hari accompanied by Laksmi. Hence one should never omit to put on the spot in the middle of the two lines, since just as a temple is worthless, unless the Lord be in it, 80 the lines are of no value unless there be the spot between them.2
The pundra is to be drawn with gopi-candana. But if it be not available, then it may be drawn with the clay from the shores of the Ganges, or with the clay from the tulasi-pot.3
The pundra may be drawn by any of the four fingers, except the little one, but with different results. If it be drawn by the forefinger, then one attains salvation; if by the middle finger, long life; if by the third finger, objects of desire; and if by the thumb, prosperity.‘
The pundra is to be worn during the period of worship and oblation, and daily during morning and evening prayers.5 If a man performs sacrifices, oblations to gods and forefathers, daily prayers, etc., or practises charity and the rest or studies Scripture without putting on the pundra not only does he fail to obtain any fruit from these, but goes to hell as well.®
A Brahmin should put on twelve pundras, a Kgatriya, four, a vaisya two, and a Sidra and a woman, one.”
The method of putting on the twelve pundras is as follows: The first pundra is to be put on the forehead with the mantra “Om, obeisance to KeSava’’, the second on the belly with the mantra “Om, obeisance to Nariyana”, and in this manner the pundra is to be put successively, on the breast, cavity of the throat, right side of the
1 Sv.S., 3rd tarang’, pp. 32-40; D.P., pp. 47-49; S.R., p. 140; G.M., ए. 34.
It is claimed by the disciples of Nimbarka that he was the first to institute the ceremony of ‘tapta-mudra’ in Dvaraké in the Kali-yuga. See S.R., ए. 124; A.C., p. 84.
® Svadhar. MS., Fol. 1; Sv.S., 3rd taranga, pp. 25-28; cf. also D.P., pp. 48-49; 8.R., pp. 141-142; G.M., p. 35.
3 Sv.S., 3rd taranga, pp. 30-31; 8.R., p. 142; G.M., p. 35.
« Op. cit., 3rd taratga, ए. 29. ५ Op. cit.
6 Op. cit. . 7 Op. cit., p. 29.
DUTIBS OF A VAISNAVA 261
belly, right arm, right neck, left side of the belly, left arm, left neck, back and throat, with the mantras “Om, obeisance to Madhava, Govinda, Visnu, Madhusiidana, Trivikrama, Vaémana, Sridhara, Hrsikega, Padmanabha, and Damodara”’ respectively.1
One should not put on a pundra which is circular, horizontal or curved, or without any spot in the middle,? and should never use sandal-paste or ash for drawing it.8
(3) Nama consists in giving the names of the Lord such as “Haridasa” (servant of Hari) and so on to one’s self, to one’s children and disciples.¢
(4) Mantra means learning and teaching the Visnu-mantra handed down by the teachers of the sect.
(5) Yaga means worshipping and teaching the worship of the Lord and His idols and the rest.6 The idols of the Lord may be made of stone, wood, metals, such as gold or copper, clay, mind, i.e. mentally conjured by deep and earnest meditation, or be of the form of Salagrama or the black sacred stone.®
Every true Vaisnava should be consecrated by these five samskaras.
He should also perform the five-fold duties, viz. cleaning the temple of the Lord; collecting flowers, offerings and the like for Him; worshipping Him by scent and so on; and studying the hymns, eto. of the sect as taught by the preceptor.’
The following are some of the further duties of a Vaisnava.®
He should guard the Gopala-mantra and keep it secret with the same care as he keeps his body covered; revere his preceptor and other Vaisnavas and obey their commands; honour the garlands and the rest which he may find in the temple of the Lord, put them on with the greatest respect and afterwards throw them into a river; at once leave the place where the preceptor is being spoken ill of; and remember the mantra, taught by his preceptor more specially in the morning,
1 Sv.S., 3rd taranga, pp. 28-29; D.P., p. 24; G.P., given in S.R., ए. 8.
2 Svadhar. M.S., Fol. 1; Sv.S., 3rd taranga, p. 28.
3 Op. cit.
4 Op. cit., ए. 28; S.R., p. 142; G.M., p. 35.
5 Op. cit., 3rd taranga, p. 24; G.M., p. 38.
6 Op. cit., 7th taranga, pp. 82ff.
7 Op. cit., 10th taranga, p. 108; A.C., footnote 1, p. 108. The five duties are: abhigamana, upédana, ijyaé, yoga and svadhyaya.
8 D.P., pp. 35ff. See further details there,
262 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
and when he is in a foreign country, or is about to begin a journey or is making a donation. Further, he should wear new and clean clothes offered to the Lord; besmear his body with sandal-paste, keep a tuft of hair on his head; eat the food and betel-leaves supposed to be eaten by the Lord and drink the washings of His feet; worship the tulasi-plant and eat its leaves; finally if he should happen to see some wonderful workings of the Lord in dreams, he is to reveal them to his preceptor only and to none else.
The following are some of the prohibitions to which a Vaisnava must adhere.!
He should not sleep in the evening; rinse his mouth standing; seat on the seat of his preceptor; precede, but follow him; touch even his shadow with his feet or cross it; omit to take the daily bath and perform the daily worship of the Lord; forget to stand in presence of the Lord and the preceptor; attempt to show off his learning to his preceptor; rinse his mouth or put on the caste-mark without uttering suitable mantras; and wear a blue dress. Further, he should not take intoxicating liquors, fish, meat, lentil, spinach and gourd, and should not eat from a brass plate or from the leaf of a banyan tree 3; spit in the temple of the, Lord and enter there with shoes‘; practise magical rites like hypnotism and so on; worship the Lord from a wooden seat; conduct the ceremony. frivolously; talk indecently while engaged in the ceremony ; offer scentless flowers, unconsecrated objects and stale food to the Lord; make obeisance with one hand; see Him at a time not prescribed; let the proper time of worship pass and mutter mantras without counting, and so on.
He should also avoid with care thirty-two kinds of sins.5
The practical mode of worshipping the Lord ~ the Idol.6
I. (1) The devotee should rise very early in the morning, remember the name of his preceptor, and the names of the Swan, the Four Kumaras, Narada, Nimbarka, and twelve preceptors like Srinivasa and the rest, and after that Lord Krsna, reciting prescribed verses. He should bow down to the earth goddess and ask her to forgive the touch of his feet on her, and get down from the bed.”
1 D.P., pp. 39-41. See further details there.
2 Op. cit., p. 39. 8 Op. ctt., p. 36. 4 Op. cét.
8 Sv. S., 10th taranga, p. 109.
6 Op. cit., 9th taranga, pp. 97ff. 7 This is utthapana-vidhi.
00.-णऽष्ाए 263
(2) Then he should go out to answer the call of nature, uttering suitable mantras, as enjoined by Scripture.!
(3) Next, he should brush his teeth, with a stick of khadira, karafija, kadamba, vata (1.6. banyan), 4mra (ie. mango) or nimba tree. He should take up the stick, praying to the tree to give him long life, strength, fame, energy and so on; first rinse his mouth sixteen times; then brush his teeth with the stick; and finally, rinse his mouth sixteen times once more.2
(4) Next, he should go to the river for bath; first wash his hands and feet and rinse his mouth; then besmear himself with mud from head to feet and plunge into the water. He should look at the sun and pray to it to make the water holy for him; make the amkusa- mudra,8 and pray to the seven holy rivers‘ to meet together in the water of that particular river; utter the principal mantra5; make kumbha-mudréa; and sprinkle himself with water eleven times. Then he should put on the caste-mark with water; rinse his mouth; offer libations of water thrice to the Lord; and get up.®
(5) On reaching the shore, he should consecrate his clothes by uttering the principal mantra, make dhenu-mudra’ and put them on.8
(6) After that, he should put on twelve tilaks,® and perform the samdhya ceremony as follows: He should take some water in his right palm, cover it over with his left, consecrate it by uttering principal mantra and drink it. Then he should rinse his mouth three times, and again take some water in his right palm, cover it over with the left, consecrate it as before, put that water in his left palm and sprinkle his head with it. For the third time, he should take some water as before in his right palm, cover it with the left and consecrate it as before, and smell it with his right nostril. He should imagine that by his act of smelling the water has gone down into his body through the right nostril, has washed off all sins therein, and has again come
1 This is 6auca-vidhi. Vide also Sv. S., 6th taranga, pp. 70ff.
2 This is danta-praksalana-vidhi.
3 A mudra is the name of a particular position or intertwining of the fingers, commonly practised in religious worship and supposed to possess an occult meaning and religious efficacy.
For amkuéa-mudra, 866 K.D., appendix, p. 1.
4 Viz. Ganga, Yamuna, Godavari, Sarasvati, Narmada, Sindhu, Kavert.
5 T.e. the Gopala-mantra. । 6 This is snéna-vidhi.
7 Vide K.D., appendix, p. 1.
$ This is vastra-paridhana-vidhi.
9 Of course if he be a Brahmin and not otherwise. See above.
264 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
out in his hand through the left nostril in a blackened form. Imagining this, he should shake it with the astra-mantra and throw it off. Thereby, he should think himself thoroughly washed off and cleaned. This is the first part of the samdhya-ceremony.
The second part consists in offering libations of water to the Lord three times with the recitation of the Gayatri-mantra as modified by the school!; making the kara-nyasa, i.e. assigning the different parts of the palm, viz. the forefinger, etc. to the different parts of the Gayatri-mantra?; and finally, reciting the mantra twenty-eight or hundred and eight times. This is the Vaignavite process of performing the samdhya ceremony, whether in the morning, midday or evening.®
(7) Next, he should draw a lotus with eight petals in water; offer libations of water to his preceptor, to other great preceptors, to Narada and other divine sages, to previous holy ones and to the Bhagavatas; meditate the Lord Krsna in the seed-vessel of the lotus; utter the principal mantra; and offer libations of water to Krsna twenty-eight times.4
(8) After that, he should return home, reciting verses or in silence.
So far his preliminary consecratory ceremonies. Next his duties in the temple of the Lord.
II. (1) Before entering the temple of the Lord, he should wash his hands and feet and rinse his mouth once more. Having entered there, he should spread a seat; make dhenu-mudra 5; pray to the earth goddess to purify his seat; touch the ground with the forefinger with the utterance of the prescribed mantra; strike the ground thrice with the small finger of his left foot; and seat himself facing the east or the north,® in a padmasana or svastiké posture.”
(2) Then he should bow down to his preceptor and other previous teachers; and proceed to consecrate his hands by repeating the astra-
1 Om. Gopalaya vidmahe Gopivallabhaéya dhimahi tan nah Krsnah pracodayat.
9 Thus: Om. Gop@léya astangibhyam namah, vidmahe tarjanibhyaém namah, Gopivallabhiya madhyamébhyam namah, etc.
8 This 18 samdhyé-vidhi. 4 This is tarpana-vidhi.
5 See K.D., appendix, p. 1.
$ The rule is to face the east. But if that be not possible, e.g. during the night, one may face the north. See the commentary on K.D., Ist patala, verse 7, p. 6.
7 For the explanation of these postures, see the commentary on K.D., Ist patala, vorse 6, p. 5. This is dsana-vidhi.
CONSECRATION OF BODY 265
mantra! eight times, by rubbing sandal-paste and flowers in his palms, by mentally assigning them to the Lord? and, finally, by clapping his hands three times repeating the same astra-mantra. Next, he should bind the ten quarters, as it were, by snapping his thumb and forefinper together and uttering the same astra-mantra, and surround himself, as it were, with a fire-rampart and water, with the same mantra.? That is, he should hereby regard himself as placed in a safe enclosure, where no harm can befall him, so long as he is engaged in the worship.
(3) After that, he should proceed to purify his elemental, i.e. material, body, for a non-god should not worship God. The process is as follows: He should first connect his soul, situated within the heart- lotus, with the Lord, situated in the lotus with a thousand petals over the head, through the susumna-nadi with the mantra “I am He”, and regard the twenty-five principles—viz. the earth and the rest, as absorbed therein. After that, he should begin the actual process of purifying his body thus: He should first draw in air through his left nostril with the recitation of the black vayu-bija “yam” sixteen times, hold forth his breath, reciting the same sixty-four times, and exhale it out through his right nostril, uttering the same thirty-two times. Thereby he should consider his body dried up. Secondly, he should draw in air through the right nostril along with the utterance of the red agni-bija “ram” sixteen times, hold forth his breath by uttering the same sixty-four times and emit it out through the left nostril, uttering the same thirty-two times. Thereby he should consider his earthly body destroyed. Thirdly, he should draw in air through ‘the left nostril with the recitation of the white candra-bija “tam’”’ sixteen times, thereby taking it to the moon in the head,5 and then recite the white varuna-bija “vam’’ sixty-four times. Thereby he should consider himself endowed with an immortal body,—fit for conducting the worship of the Lord,—in place of the destroyed earthly one. Finally, he should emit the air through the right nostril, reciting the yellow prithvi-bija “lam” thirty-two times. Thereby he should
1 Viz. ‘ Astraya phat’.
2 Kara-nyasa.
3 K.D., 1st patala, verse 7, p. 5; Sv. 8., 9th tarahga, p. 97; G.P., given in 8.R., pp. 8-9.
4 This 18 itma-rakgana-vidhi.
5 1.6. in the Brahma-randhrastha-candra.
266 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
regard the immortal body he has just got as easy to be seen as his former earthly one.1
(4) Thus, on getting a new immortal body, he should next bring down his soul, which he has previously sent up to the Brahma-randhra,? to the heart-lotus of this new body, by placing his hand on the heart and uttering the prescribed mantra,® and the pranava sixteen times.*
That is, the whole process consists of three steps. First, he should take his soul out of his earthly body, and keep it in the Lord, abiding in the Brahma-randhra. Next, he should destroy his earthly body, and get a new immortal body. Finally, he should install his soul, left intact so long in the Lord in the Brahma-randhra, in this new immortal body. The soul is the same and is not to be destroyed,— but only the body is changed. Of course, as evident, the entire process if only mental, and the earthly body is not really destroyed, but is simply supposed to be so for the time being.
III. After having thus purified his body and made it fit for the worship of the Lord by means of the inhaling and exhaling of air with mantras, he should next proceed to purify it further by means of a series of nydsas, 1.6. should mentally assign the various parts, etc. of his body to deities, etc. with suitable mantras.
(1) Thus he should first perform the kevala-matrka-nyasa, or assign the different parts of the body to different letters, the forehead to the letter “a”, the mouth to the letter “a”, the right eye to the letter “‘i’’, the left eye to the letter “i” and so on.5
(2) Next, he should perform the KeSavadi-matrka-nyasa, exactly like the first, with the additions of couples of deities.®
1 This is bhita-éuddhi-vidhi. K.D., Ist patala, verses 8-10, pp. 6-7; Sv. S., 9th tarahga, pp. 97-98; G.P., given in S.R., p. 8.
2 See above. ;
8 Thus: “Iam He. May my vital-breath, my sense-organs, my speech, mind, eyes, ears and nose come here and stay here for ever for the worship of the Lord. Svaha.”’ क ,
५ This is prina-pratisthé. K.D., lst patala, verse 10 and commentary, p. 7; Sv. S., 9th taranga, p. 98; G.P., given in S.R., pp. 8-9.
5 Thus: Om namah lalate, 4m namah mukha-vrtte, and soon. K.D., Ist patela, verse 11, ए. 8; Sv. S., 9th taranga, pp. 98-99; G.P., given in S.R., pp. 10-11.
9 Thus: Am namah Keéava-kirttai; 4m nameh Nardyandya kantai, and 80 on.
K.D., 18४ patala, verses 14-24, pp. 9-11; Sv. S., 9th taranga, pp. 99-100; G.P., given in 8.R., pp. 12-13.
NYASA 267
(3) Thirdly, he should perform the tattva-nyisa, or assign his whole body, heart, etc. to the supreme souls of the jiva, prana, etc.1
(4) Fourthly, he should perform the indriya-nyasa, or assign his sense-organs to different deities, viz. his ears to the quarters, his eyes to the sun and so on.2
(5) Fifthly, he should perform the pitha-nyasa, i.e. imagine his body to be a pedestal of worship.®
Next, he should perform the Sri-Gopdla-mantra-nyasa, i.e. mentally appropriate the mantra of eighteen syllables, consisting of the following five nyasas, viz.:—
(6) Rsyadi-nyasa, i.e. he should assign his head, etc. to the sage Narada, etc.5
(7) Next, he should perform the kara-nyasa, 1.6. assign the fingers and the palm and back of the hand to the different words of the mantra of eighteen syllables.é
(8) After that he should perform the anga-nyasa, 1.6. assign the various parts of his body to different words of the mantra of eighteen syllables.”
(9) Next, he should perform the pada-nyasa, i.e. assign various parts of his body to the different words of the mantra of eighteen syllables.8
(10) Finally, he should perform the varna-nyasa, i.e. assign different parts of the body to different syllables of the mantra of eighteen syllables.®
1 Thus: Mam nameh paraéya jivitmane namah; bham namah pariya pranatmane namah, iti dvayam sakala-sarire, ete. K.D., Ist patala, verses 28-31, pp. 13-15; Sv. 8., 9th taranga, pp. 101-102; G.P., given in S.R., pp. 13-14.
2 G.P., given in S.R., p. 15.
ॐ For details, seo K.D., lst patala, verse 41, p. 20; Sv. S., 9th taranga. pp. 102-103; G.P., given in S.R., p. 15.
4 For details, see Sv. S., 9th taranga, p. 103; G.P., given in S.R., p. 15; D.P., ए. 43.
5 Thus: Om Narada-rsaye namah Sirasi, etc. Sv.S., 9th taranga, p. 104; G.P., given in 8.R., p. 15; D.P., p. 43.
6 Thus: Klim angusthabhyam namah, Krsnaya tarjanibhyam namah, etc. Sv. 8., 9th taranga, p. 104; G.P., given in 8.R., p. 16; D.P., p. 43.
7 Thus: Klim hrdayaéya namah, Krgnaya 81886 svaha, etc. Sv. S., 9th taranga, p. 104; G.P., given in 8.R., p. 16; D.P., p. 43.
8 Thus: Klim namo mirdhani, Krsnaya namo vaktre, etc. Sv. 8., 9th taranga, pp. 104-105; G.P., given in 8.R., p. 16; D.P., p. 43.
9 Thus: Klim mirdhani, पपा bhale, snam bhruvoh, etc. Sv. 8., 9th taranga, p. 105; G.P., given in S.R., p.16; D.P., p. 43. This is nyasa-vidhi.
268 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
IV. After having thus purified his body, sense-organs, mind, etc. by the series of nydsas, he should next practise prinéyaéma or breath-control for finally purifying, adjusting and preparing them for the great task which he is about to commence, viz. the worship of the Lord.
Here is the procedure:
He should mutter klim sixteen times, draw in air through his left nostril, hold his breath, muttering it sixty-four times, and emit the air muttering it thirty-two times.
V. Being thus absolutely purified, he should begin the actual worship of the Lord. He should commence with the internal or mental worship. That is, he should meditate on the Lord as possessed of eyes like full-blown lotus, body blue like cloud, wearing a shining cloth, with two hands adorned with the symbol of silence, standing under the Heavenly Tree 2 and so on.
After that he should worship the Lord mentally with five objects.’
VI. He should now mutter prayers a thousand times or one hundred and eight times and dedicate them (i.e. the japas) to the Lord.4
VII. Next, he shoyld begin the external worship of the Lord, i.e. worship the idol. This should consist of the following successive steps :— .
(1) First he should properly arrange the necessary utensils, etc., placing the bowl for washing hands behind him, the pitcher of water on his left, sandal-paste, flowers, cloth and incense, etc. on his right, the pots near his left hand, the lamp of clarified butter on the right side of the Lord, and the lamp of oil on the left of the Lord.5
(2) Next, he should place and worship the conch-shell thus: He should draw round, triangular and quadrangular diagrams in his front on the left, worship these diagrams with sandal-paste and flowers; place a washed tripaédika flower there; and worship it with
2 This is prinaéyama-widhi. G.P., given in 8.R., ए. 16; D.P., pp. 43-44.
2 Sv. S., 9th taranga, p. 105. Cf. Baladeva above.
There are many other modes of dhyana. A long account is given in K.D., 8rd patala, verses 1ff., pp. 50ff. Cf. also G.P., given in S.R.,’p. 16; D.P., ए. 44.
8 See above, foot note 1, p. 258.
५ This 18 japa-vidhi. Sv.S., 9th taranga, p. 105; G.P., given in 8.R., p. 16; D.P., p. 44.
5 This is pétra-samsthapana-vidhi. Sv. 8., 9th taranga, p. 105; G.P., given in 8.R., ए. 17.
IDOL-WORSHIP 269
sandal-paste, flowers and unhusked barley-corns; then he should proceed to worship the conch-shell with the prescribed mantra; fill it with pure water, uttering the principal mantra; and worship the water He should next worship all the holy rivers, the Ganges and the rest make dhenu-mudra,! repeat the nectar-mantra thrice; and make the gada, padma, garuda, and matsya mudras2 successively. After that, he should hold the conch-shell on both sides with his thumb and third finger, touch the water within it with a japa flower or a petal of the tulasi-flower by his forefinger and middle finger, and utter the mantra eight times. He should dip a flower in the water and put it into the pitcher, sprinkle it over himself and on all the articles of worship.
Next, he should meditate on the conch-shell—as springing from the ocean, supported by the navel of Visnu, worshipped by all the gods, and 80 on.3
(3) After that, he should place the basin for washing the feet of the Lord + to the south of the conch-shell, and put Syamaka grass, durva grass and a lotus 5 in it. The vessel for the offering of flowers and grass 6 to the north of the conch-shell and put sandal-paste, flowers, unhusked barley-corns, the sharp point of the blade of kuéa- grass, sesamum, mustard and durva grass? in it; the basin for rinsing the mouth 8 to the east of the conch-shell and put nutmeg, cloves and kankola-plant 9 in it and the vessel for the offering of honey and milk 10 to the west of the conch-shell and put curd, honey and clarified butter in it. If the requisite objects be lacking, he should name a fragrant tulasi-flower for each object, and put it there in place of the actual object; he should fill up all the vessels with water from the pitcher; worship them with sandal-paste and flower; utter mantra over each of them; put some water from the conch-shell in them; make dhenu- and mahaé-mudras.!1
1 See K.D., appendix, p. 1. 2 Op. cit., pp. 2-3.
8 This is Sankha-pijana-vidhi. G.P., given in S8.R., p. 18. Cf. also Sv. 8., 9th taranga, pp. 202-203.
4 Paidya-patra.
5 Sv. 8. adds Vignukranta-plant. 9th taranhga, p. 106.
6 Arghya-patra.
7 Sv. 8. adds pipari-plant. 9th taranga, p. 106.
8 Acamana-patra.
9 Sv. 8. adds barley-corn. 9th taranga, p. 106.
10 Madhuparka-patra.
11 This is pédyaddi-pijana-vidhi. Sv. S., 9th taranga, p. 106; G.P., given in S.R., p. 19.
270 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
(4) Then he should draw a lotus with eight petals on the ground; put the throne of the Lord over it; offer flowers, uttering the Maha- pitha-mantra and meditate the Lord therein.!
(5) After that he should awaken the Lord with the prescribed mantra “Arise, arise, O Govinda! Arise, O Madhu-siidana! Arise, O Lord of Radha, the Saviour of the poor”’.2
(6) Next, he should place the idol of Krsna in a copper vessel, offer flowers to Him, and make pajicanga-nyAsa, 1.6. assign the different parts of his body to the Lord.’
(7) Then he should proceed to offer flowers, etc.,4 water for washing the feet,5 water for rinsing the mouth® and honey and milk? to the Lord successively, along with the utterance of the principal mantra. Thus, he should offer sandal-paste, flowers, unhusked barley-corn and kusa grass, placing them over the head of the idol; the pure water of the Ganges for the washing of His feet, putting them at its feet; the same for the rinsing of His mouth, placing them in its mouth; and finally, honey and milk and butter, putting them in the same.8
(8) Next, he should once more offer rinsing water of the Ganges scented with camphor to, the Lord, and bathe the idol with the water from the conch-shell with the utterance of suitable mantras.9
(9) After that he should proceed to dress and adorn the Lord. He should dress the idol in a fine yellow robe and adorn it with sandal- paste, garlands of fragrant flowers, sacred thread, and various costly ornaments like crown, ear-rings, necklace and anklets, reciting appro- priate mantras each time.1°
(10) Next, he should offer incense 11 and lamp 19 to the Lord, reciting mantras; and offer refreshment, consisting of milk and rice
1 This is pitha-pujé-vidhi. Sv. 8., 9th taranga, p. 106; G.P., given inS.R., p. 19. .
2 This is utthapana-vidhi. G.P., given in 8.R., p. 19.
3 Sv. S., 9th taranga, p. 106; G.P., given in S.R., p. 19.
५ Argha. 5 Ridya. 6 Acamana 7 Madhu-parka
8 This is pédy4di-arpana-vidhi. Sv. S., 9th taranga, pp. 106-107; G.P given in 8.R., pp. 19-20. See also K.D., 4th patala, verse 25, p. 89
This is snéna-vidhi. G.P., given in S.R., p. 20. See also Sv. 8., 9th
taranga, p. 107; K.D., 4th patala, verse 26, p. 89
10 This is vastra-paridhina-vidhi. G.P., given in S.R., p. 20. See also Sv. S., 9th taranga, p. 107; K.D., 4th patala, verse 26, p. 89.
11 Dhipa-dina. See K.D., 4th patala, verse 50, p. 98 for details.
12 Dipa-dina. See K.D., 4th patala, verse 51, p. 98 for details,
IDOL- WORSHIP 271
cooked together with pure white sugar.1 He should, first, worship the refreshment with sandal-paste and flowers, etc.; then absorb up all its impurities by muttering the vayu-bija “yam” eight times, destroy all its impurities by muttering the agni-bija “ram” eight times and, finally, make it nectar-like by muttering the varuna-bija “vam” eight times. Then he should make dhenu-mudra and maha- प्रता, protect the refreshment from harm by making the cakra- mudra and uttering the astra-mantra, and utter the mila-mantra over it. After having thus rendered the refreshment completely free from impurities, etc., he should put a little water from the conch-shell in the plate, make grasa-mudra, and make offerings to the five prinas. After that he should offer the refreshment to the Lord, muttering prayers, and think that He has partaken of it.?
(11) Next, he should make the Lord rinse His mouth and offer betel-leaves to Him.
(12) He should now wave the lamps around the Lord, four times round His feet, twice round His navel, once round His face, and seven times round His whole body.
(13) Next, he should wave the water-filled conch-shell over the idol, and sprinkle everyone present and himself with that water.
(14) He should then ask the forgiveness of the Lord for his unintentional mistakes in serving Him.°
(15) Finally, he should worship the washings of the feet of Krsna with sandal-paste and flowers, etc., uttering mantras; place the vessel containing the washings on his head; and put it on a prop and not on the ground. Then he should offer the washings of the feet of the Lord first to the stalwart Vaisnava of ancient days like Vali, Vibhisana, Bhisma, Kapila, Narada, Arjuna, Prahlada and so on, and then to the Vaisnavas present there. He should distribute among them also the sandal, flowers, etc. of the Lord and the remains of the refreshment offered to the Lord. Then, last of all, he himself should partake of the
1 Dipa-dana, verse 52, p. 98.
2 This is naivedya-pradana-vidhi. Sv. 8,, 9th taranga, p. 107; G.P., given in S.R., ए. 21; K.D., 4th patala, verses 53ff., pp. O9ff.
3 This is tambila-pradana-vidhi. G.P., given in S8.R., p. 22. See also Sv. 8., 9th taranga, p. 107.
4 This is niréjana-vidhi. G.P., collected in 8.R., p. 22. See also Sv. S., 9th taranga, p. 107.
5 This is aparaédha-ksamapana-vidhi. Sv. 8. 9th taranga, pp. 107-108; G.P., given in 8.R., p. 22.
272 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS. FOLLOWERS
food taken by the Lord and drink the washings of his feet. Finally, he should mutter suitable prayers, recite verses, walk round the Lord and bow down to Him, with the final prayer to Him to accept out of com- passion the leaves and flowers, fruits which have been offered to Him through devotion alone.! : Thus, the devotee has broadly seven-fold duties to perform viz. :— I. First, his daily duties—rising from the bed, brushing his teeth, bathing, performing oblations, and so on.
II. Next, purifying his earthly body and making it fit for the worship of the Lord, consisting in seating himself, protecting himself from harm and interruption, destroy- ing his present earthly body and assuming a new heavenly one.
Ill. Next, purifying his body further by a series of nyadsas, like Kevala-matrka-nyasa and the rest.
IV. Next, purifying his body still further by pranaéyama.
V. Next, performing the internal worship of the Lord, viz. meditation.
VI. Next, performing japas.
VII. And finally, performing the external worship of the idol, consisting in arranging the necessary utensils and objects properly, worshipping the conch-shell and so on, awakening the Lord, bathing and feeding Him and so on.
(3) SoME OF THE RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCES AND FESTIVALS OF THE SECT OF NIMBARKA.
(1) Ekadasi-vrata. Every Vaisnava should observe this vow, i.e. fast on the eleventh day of the moon, called the Lord’s day (Hari- vasara) during both the waning half and the waxing half.2 This vrata is the best of all and the most favoured by the Lord and hence its proper and regular performance conduces to both worldly well-being and salvation.’ =
Now, the ekada4i is to be observed in accordance with the kapiala- vedha method. The kapala-vedha or ardha-ratrodaya doctrine is that every tithi or lunar day really commences with midnight. Hence if the
1 G.P. (collected in 8.R.), pp. 22-23. Cf. also Sv. 8., 9th taranga, pp. 107-108. 9 Sv. 8., 13th taranga, pp. 148ff.; D.P., p. 10; 8.N.V.N., pp.1ff. ॐ Op. cit., 13th tarahga, pp. 150ff.
RITUALS OF NIMBARKA SECT 273
ekddasi does not commence with the midnight, but after that moment, this vow is not to be observed on that day, but on the following.1
This method of determining the actual tithi holds good not only in the case of the ekadasi vow, but is a general rule to be followed in the case of all religious observances and festivals.2
The kapala-vedha: or ardha-ratrodaya system is a peculiar tenet of the school of Nimbarka. There are generally three methods of determining tithis—viz. siryyodaya, arunodaya and ardha-ratrodaya (or kapala-vedha). According to the first, a tithi begins with sunrise. It is followed by non-Vaisnavas. According to the second, a tithi begins with the break of dawn (a few hours before sunrise). It is followed by Vaisnavas of other sects. And, according to the third, as pointed out above, a tithi commences with midnight.4
The following are the duties of a Vaisnava on the ekadasi tithi: He should get up early in the morning and brush his teeth. The prohibition with regard to the brushing of teeth when one is fasting does not apply to a Vaignava, since, in his case, the brushing of teeth is a daily obligatory duty and unless he does so, he is not fit to worship the Lord.
He should then take some water, consecrate it by uttering the Sri-Gopala-mantra of eighteen syllables thrice and drink it; resolve to fast on that day 5; and make offerings of flowers to the Lord. He should fast the whole day and night; avoid chewing betel-leaves, sleeping by day, having sensual enjoyment, and doing forbidden deeds ; and spend his time in muttering prayers, singing the name of the Lord, listening to His name, worshipping and meditating on Him. He should, further, keep awake the whole night, worshipping the Lord, and reading holy books and so on.é
Throughout the year, a number of ceremonies and festivals are to be observed every month. Thus, in the month of Vaisakha, the first month of the year, a Vaisnava
1 8v. S., 13th taranga, pp. 156ff.; D.P., pp. 50ff.; preface to S.N.V.N., pp. 18.
2 Op. cit., 13th taranga, p. 161; preface to S.N.V.N., p. 3.
> E.g. the sect of Baladeva. See p. 422 of the thesis, Part 1.
4 Sv. S., 18th taranga, pp. 151ff.; D.P., pp. 50ff; preface to 8.N.V.N., pp. 19.
5 Samkalpa-karana.
9 Sv.S., 13th taranga, pp. 203ff. For his duties on the Daéami and Dvadaél, 866 op. cit., pp. 201-203, 218-221.
18
274 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
(2) should perform the Aksayatrtiyaé-vrata, on the third day of the bright half of the moon.!
(3) He should further celebrate the birthday of Jahnavi, the river Ganges, on the seventh day of the bright half of the moon,? and
(4) perform the Nrsimha-jayanti-vrata on the fourteenth day of the bright half of the moon.3
(5) In the month of Jyestha, the second month, he should first perform the Jala-pija, i.e. worship the lord in water.4
(6) Then he should observe the ceremony of DaSahara on the tenth day of the bright half of the moon. He should bathe Radha and Krsna with cold water mingled with sandal-paste, camphor and saffron and offer them specially cold refreshment. This Vrata is called “Dashar&”’ because it removes ten kinds of sins, viz. three physical sins: theft, injuring others and violating the wife of another; four sins relating to speech: uttering harsh words, untruthfulness, backbiting and rambling; and three kinds of mental sins, viz.: hankering after the property of others, wishing them ill and attention towards improper objects.5
(7) In the month of Asidha, he should perform first the Kadamba- puspa-paja, 1.6. worship the Lord with the kadamba-flower.®
(8) He should observe the festival of Rathotsava or the ceremony of putting the Lord on a chariot on the second day of the bright half of the moon 7; and
(9) perform the festival of Sayanotsava or worship the Lord as lying on a snake on the ocean of milk 8 and so on.
(10) One of the chief festivals of the Vaisnavas is the festival of Janmastami or the birthday celebration of the Lord. It is held in the month of Bhadra, on the eighth day of the dark half of the moon. There are two kinds of Janmastami, kevala and jayanti. The former is to be performed every year, the latter only when the astam!-tithi
1 For details, sge Sv. 8., 8th taranga, pp. 263ff.
ॐ For details, see Sv. 8., 19th taradga, p. 265.
8 For details, 866 Sv. 8., 19th taranga, pp. 2668.
4 For details, see Sv. 8., 20th taranga, pp. 272ff.
5 Sv. S., 20th tarahga, p. 275.
6 For details, see Sv. 8., 218६ taraiga, pp. 277ff. `
7 For details, see Sv. 8., 218४ taranga, p. 278.
8 For details, see Sv. 8., 21st taranga, pp. 279ff.
For other religious observances and festivals, see Sv. ३, 22nd tarangas ff., pp. 2988; S.N.V.N., pp. 1ff.
188
CONCLUSION 275
comes to be connected with the star Rohini, which does not happen every year.! In accordance with the general rule, it is to be observed on the astami-tithi provided the tithi commences with midnight and not later than that.2 The process of performing the celebration is as follows: The devotee should rise early in the morning, brush his teeth, and resolve to fast throughout the day. Then in the midday having bathed in pure water of a river, he should set up a lying-in chamber (stitiké-grha) and strive to make it, as best as he can, like the original lying-in chamber of Devaki where Krsna was born. Within that chamber, he should place the eight kinds of idols of Krsna, viz. made of wood, metals, stone, gold, etc. and so on. The image of Devakf should be placed on the bed, and the new-born child Krsna should be represented as suckling her breasts. The images of Yasodé and Vasudeva too should be placed there. Then Nanda, the cowherd, the cowherdess Yasodé and Devaki should be worshipped with sandal, flowers, unhusked barley-corns, fruits and so on; after that the incarna. tions should be meditated on, and Aditi, the Mother of gods, should be worshipped, and so 0.3
CONCLUSION.
We have considered four Bhedabheda schools, viz.:— (1) Svébhavika bhedibheda-vada of Nimbarka. (2) Visistadvaita-vada of Ramanuja and Srikantha. (3) Aupadhika-bhedibheda-vada of Bhaskara. (4) Acintya-bhedaébheda-vada of Baladeva.
There is a general agreement among these philosophers with regard to the nature and qualities of Brahman, the sentient and the non-sentient. But the difference among them consists in their views regarding the relation between these three entities. All of them admit both difference and non-difference to be equally real, but the vital question is here: How are we to reconcile difference and non-difference, plurality and Unity? Nimbarka accepts them both to be equally natural (svibhavika) and perfectly compatible. Ramanuja and
1 Sv. S., 23rd taranga, p. 303. 2 Op. cit., 23rd taranga, pp. 307ff. ` 3 Op. cit., 23rd tarahga, pp. 319-321.
276 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Srikantha try to reconcile them on the analogy of soul and body, which, though different, yet form an integral whole. Bhaskara regards them to be equally real, but he takes difference to be non- lasting though real (aupadhika) and non-difference to be both lasting and real. Baladeva frankly gives up the problem as inconceivable (acintya) and engages himself with religion rather than philosophy. He seems to suggest that instead of wasting our time and energy in trying to think out problems which are really unthinkable, it will be far better for us to accept what Revelation tells us, and engage ourselves with what lies within our own powers—viz. devotion and worship.
The problem of the relation between the One and the many, God and the world, is an eternal one, and hundreds of views have been advanced on this point. On the one hand, we have strict Non- dualistic doctrines of the type of Samkara’s Advaita-vida, which completely identify the One and the many (i.e. assert that the One denies the many), and on the other hand, we have strict Dualistic doctrines of the type of Madhva’s Dvaita-vada which completely differentiate the One from the many. And between these two extreme types, there are various kinds of grades of doctrines which try to reconcile the One with the many.
The questions how and why the One becomes many and in what relation does it precisely stand to the many, are questions which will perhaps be never satisfactorily answered. But considering all things, the explanation given by Nimbarka seems to be very reasonable. Nimbarka elucidates his point, as we have seen, by the analogy of the cause-effect relation. The effect (or the part) is different from the cause (or the whole), since it has a peculiar nature and some peculiar functions of its own. The earthen pot, for example, is different from a mere lump of clay, in the sense that it has a peculiar shape of its own which the lump lacks, it has some peculiar functions of its own, viz. fetching water and so on, which the mere lump cannot perform, But, on the other hand, the effect is non-different from the cause, since it, as a modification of the cause, is nothing but the cause; for example, the earthen pot is non-different from the lump of clay, because after all it is nothing but clay, and depends for its very existence upon it.
The cause, on its side, is different from the effect, because the effect is not the whole of it, i.e. because it has a peculiar nature of its own which is not exhausted in the effect, but is something over and above it. The lump of clay e.g. is different from the pot, because it is
RELATION BETWEEN ONE AND MANY 277
not only the pot, but hundred other things, cups, pitchers and so on. But, again, the cause is non-different from the effect, because it 25 the effect, so far as it goes. The lump of clay e.g. is non-different from the pot, because it is clay like the pot.
Thus, the cause-effect (or whole-part) relation is a relation of difference-non-difference, both of which are equally true.
The very same is the case with Brahman and the universe. The universe is different from Brahman, because it has a peculiar nature of its own, possessing as it does certain qualities which Brahman lacks (like non-intelligence, grossness and so on), and not possessing certain qualities which Brahman possesses (like all-pervasiveness and so on); while it is non-different from Brahman, because it is after all nothing but Brahman, arising from, sustained by, and reabsorbed in Brahman. Brahman, on His side, is different from the universe, because He is not exhausted in it, but possesses a transcendental nature of His own; while He is non-different from the universe because He is immanent in it, which, as His effect, is nothing but Brahman. Thus, Brahman is different from the universe as transcendent, non-different from it as immanent.
If we understand difference and non-difference in this sense of transcendency and immanency, no contradiction will be involved in taking difference and non-difference to be equally real and compatible. Non-difference does not mean here “absolute identity’, like that between one pea and another, but it simply means “essential de- pendence of the universe on Brahman and the immanence of Brahman in the universe”’, while difference means “difference of nature between the universe and Brahman and the transcendence of Brahman over the universe”. Hence everything is reconciled.
The second question: Why the One should become the many, is not a less puzzling one. Nimbarka points out that the creation of the world is but a mere sport (lila) on the part of Brahman, and does not arise from any want on His part, since He is ever-satisfied and has His desires eternally fulfilled. But this cosmic sport is not absolutely purposeless or arbitrary, but it serves the purpose of justice, although it serves no purpose of Brahman Himself. It is regulated by moral demands, and the universe which is created by Brahman in mere sport is really created in strict accordance with the karmas of individuals themselves.
This seems to be the only possible explanation, if the Creator be admitted to be both self-sufficient and just. Of course, this solution,
278 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
too, if logically pushed farther lands us in a dilemma: Who is respon- sible for the first karmas of individuals which are responsible for their varying lots? God cannot be held to be responsible, for then He becomes partial. Nimbarka (in common with others) tries to get out of the difficulty by pointing out that the karmas are beginningless, and so is the creation of the world, in accordance with the maxim of seed and shoot (vijankura-nyaéya). The seed gives rise to the shoot, the shoot to the seed, the seed to the shoot and so on to infinity. It cannot be said whether the seed is the prior or the shoot and hence both are taken to be beginningless. In the very same manner, the karmas give rise to the world, the world to the karmas and so on to infinity, hence they must be taken to be beginningless.
Strict logic may demur at this way of solving the question, but it is doubtful whether such questions can be answered on the ground of strict logic alone. In any case, Nimbarka’s explanation is a rational and creditable attempt at solving one of the most difficult problems of life, though he might not have the last say on the subject.
The third question is: How does the One become the many. Nimbarka points out that the One becomes the many through the projection of its powers, without losing its own Unity, integrity and essential nature, just as the spider weaves its web out of itself, yet itself remains unmodified. This is indeed an ingenious solution.
We find, therefore, that the doctrine of Nimbarka is a valuable contribution to the history of thought from the point of view of philosophy, and honestly tries to answer some of the fundamental questions of human existence.
From the point of view of religion also, the doctrine of Nimbarka scored no small a triumph, as is evident from a large number of followers it has even now in North India and Bengal. Of the four systems considered above, Bhiaskara has no place for a personal religion or bhakti, Raémanuja and Srikantha emphasise aisvaryya-pradhana bhakti, or a distant relation of awe and reverence, while Nimbarka and Baladeva emphasise madhuryya-pradhana bhakti or an intimate relation of love and sweet comradeship. Although a man is at first overwhelmed by the grandeur and majesty of the Lord, yet he cannot remain at a distance from Him for long, but is irresistibly drawn nearer by ® bond of mutual love and living companionship. Hence it is that the doctrine of Nimbarka has captured the hearts of thousands.
From the ethical point of view also, we find Nimbarka to be very broad-minded and rational. He insists not only on the external per-
MERITS OF NIMBARKA’S SYSTEM 279
formance of sacrifices and ceremonies, but equally on the inner purity and cultivation of the mind, and the ethical virtues of self-control, charity and the rest. He does not insist that in order to attain salva- tion one must give up society and one’s stage of life or drama. He lays the greatest emphasis on the spirit with which one performs one’s duties. A man who performs his duties in a disinterested and unselfish spirit is able to attain salvation, whether he be a householder or an ascetic,
We conclude, therefore, that the doctrine of Nimbarka has much to recommend itself from the points of view of philosophy, religion and ethics, as it tries to tackle the eternal problem of difference and non-difference from a new point of view, and encourages a relation of faith, love and intimacy between God and man.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A
Acarya-carita. By Purugottama II. Ed. by Kiéoralala Gosvamin. Ist vol., Brindaban, 1916, lst Ed.
Acarya-parampara-stotra. By Dampatisarana. See Laghu-stavavall, pp. 9-11.
Acirya-pranémavali. By Syamanandaéarana. See ditto, pp. 11-13.
Adhyaétma-karikavalf. (Also called Vedanta-karikavali.) (See Vedinta-karikaé- vali.)
Adhy&tma-sudha-tarangini. By Purusottamaprasida Vaisnava II. (See Vedanta-kaérikavall.)
Aitareya-upanigad. With the commentary of Samkara and Dipika of Vidya- ranya. Ed. by the Pandits of the Anand&Srama. Anandaésrama Sans. Series, No. 11, Poona, 1889-90.
Anantaréma. See:
1. Sri-Krsna-carana-bhiisana-stotra. Sri-Mukunda-Saranagati-stotra. Vedanta-ratna-maéla, Vedianta-saira-padya-mala. Vedanta-tattva-bindu. Tattva-siddhanta-bindu.
cape
Appayya Diksita. Sivarka-mani-dipika. See Brahma-sitras: Srikantha- bhasya.
Audumbara-samhité. By Audumbara Rsi. Sce Acarya-carita, pp. 33-37. Cf. also pp. 62ff. Cf. also Stotra-ratnaévall, pp. 124-125.
Babaji, Laladisa. See Bhakta-mala. Badarayana. Seo Brahma-sitras, with commentaries. Baladeva. See:
1. Govinda-bhésya. See Brahma-sitras with commentaries. 2. Prameya-ratnavali. 3. Siddhanta-ratna. By Baladeva.
Bhagavad-gité with commentaries.
1. Bhagavad-gité-bhasya. By Raménuja with the tika called “Tat- paryya-candriké” by Venkatanaétha. Ed. by 3. R. Marulkara. Anandaérama Sans. Series, No. 92, Poona, 1923.
2. Tattva-prakasiké. By KeSavakaémiribhatta. Ed. by Baladeo Prasada. Reprint, Brindaban, 1908.
Bhagavad-gitaé-bhagya. By Raménuja. See Bhagavad-gité with commen- taries.
281
282 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Bhakta-maélé, By Laladaésa Babaji. Ed. by Balaicaranadas Gosvémin, 2nd Ed., Calcutta, 1912-13,
Bhémati. By Vacaspati Miéra. See Brahma-sitras with commentaries: Sariraka-mimAmsi-bhasya.
Bhaskara. Bhaskara-bhisya on the Brahma-siitras. See Brahma-siitras with commentaries.
Bhaskara-bhasya on the Brahma-siitras. By Bhaskara. See ditto.
Brahma-bindu-upanisad. See Upanigadim samuccayah, pp. 337-344.
Brahma-sitras of Badaréyana with commentaries:
1. Bhaskara-bhésya. By Bhaskara. Ed. by VindhyeSvariprasida Dvivedin. Chowkhamba Sans. Series, Nos. 79, 185 and 209, Benares, 1903-1915.
2. Govinda-bhagya. By Baladeva. With gloss. by the author. Ed. by Krsnagopala Bhakta, Calcutta, 1894.
3a. Sariraka-mimAmsi-bhasya. By Samkara. With “Ratna-prabha” commentary by Govindénanda. Ed. by Dhundiraja Sastrin. Kasi Sans. Series, No. 71, 2 vols., Benares, 1929-31.
3b. With “Ratna-prabhé” by Govindananda, “ Bhamati” by Vacaspati Miéra, and “Nydya-nirnaya” .by Anandagiri. Ed. by Chatupati Sastrin, Bombay, 1913-14.
4. Siddhanta-jahnavi. By Devacarya. With commentary “Dvaita- dvaita-siddhanta-setuka” by Sundarabhatta, 3 parts. Ed. res- pectively by Daémodara Lala Gosvaémin, Ratna Gopéla Bhatta and Gopila Sdstrin Nene. Chowkhamba Sans. Series, Nos. 94, 99 and 358, Benares, 1906-1927.
69. Sri-bhagya. By RA&m4nuja. Ed. by A. V. Narasimhacari. 2nd vol., Madras, 1909-10.
5b. Ed. by Vasudeva Sastrin Abhayankara. Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series, No. LX VIII, Bombay, 1914.
6. Srikantha-bhasya. By Srikantha. With commentary ‘“Sivarka- mani-dipika” by Appayya Diksita. Ed. by Halasyandtha Sastrin. Bharat! Mandira Samskrta Granthavali, No. 1, Bombay, 1903-1918.
7a. Vedinta-kaustubha. By Srinivisa, the immediate disciple of Nimbarka. Ed. by Dhundirija Sastrin. Kaéi Sans. Series, No. 99, Benares, 1932.
7b. Ed. by Nityasvartipa Brahmacérin. 2 vols., Brindaban, 1905.
8. Vedanta-kaustubha-prabhé, By Keéavakaémiribhatta. Ed. by Nitya- svarupa Rrahmacirin. 2 vols., Brindaban, 1905.
9a. Vedanta-parijéta-saurabha. By Nimbarka. Ed. by Dhundiraja Sastrin. Kadi Sans. Series, No. 99, Bonaros, 1932.
9b. Ed. by Nityasvaripa Brahmacarin. 2 vols., Brindaban, 1905.
9c. Ed. by VindhyeSvari Prasida Dvivedin. Chowkhamba Sans. Series, No. 152, Benares, 1910.
9d-g. Soe Manuscripts.
Brhad-dranyake-upanigad. With the commentary of Ratgaramanuja. Ed. by Samkera Sdstrin. Anand&érama Sans. Series, No. 64, Poona, 1890.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 283
Chandogya-upanigad. With Samkara-bhaésya and Anandagiri-tiké. Ed. by KA&éinatha Sastrin 48.86. Anandaérama Sans, Series, No. 14, Poona, 1890.
Ciliké-upanigad. See Upanisadim samuccayah, pp. 229-234,
Dampatiéarana. Acarya-parampara-stotra. See Laghu-stavavali, pp. 9-11. Daéa-Sloki of Nimbarka with commentaries (also called Siddhinta-ratna). 1. Laghu-mafijisé. By Giridhara Prapanna. Ed. by Dhundiraja Sastrin, Chowkhamba Sans. Series, No. 358, Benares, 1927. 2. Siddhénta-kusuméfijali. By Harivyésadeva. Ed. by Vasudeva Sarman. Bombay, 1925. 3. Vedanta-ratna-mafijisi. By Purusottamal. Ed. by Ratna 6000818 Bhatta. Chowkhamba Sans. Series, No. 113, Benares, 1907.
Davacarya. Siddhanta-jahnavi. See Brahma-sitras with commentaries. Dharmarajadhvarindra. See Vedanta-paribhasa. Dikga-tattva-prakaséa, Compiled by Dulara Prasdda Sastrin. Brindaban, Muttra, 1924. Dulara Prasdda Sastrin, compiler. See: 1. Diksaé-tattva-prakaga. 2. Laghu-stavavall.
Dvaitaédvaita-siddhanta-setuké. By Sundarabhatta. See Brahma-stitras with commentaries, Siddhanta-jahnavi.
Eleven Atharvana upanigads (containing Kalagni-rudra-upanisad, etc.). Ed. by G. A. Jacob. Bombay Sans. Series, No. XL, Bombay, 1891.
Gaudapada. Gaudapada-karika. See Mandikya-upanigad.
Giridhara Prapanna, Laghu-maijiga. See Daga-éloki with commentaries.
Gopéla-paddhati. See Stotra-ratnavall, pp. 3-23.
Gopala-pirva-tapani-upanisad. See Upanisgadim samuccayah, pp. 185-205.
Govinda Bhattécaérya. Krama-dipiké-vyaékhyaé. See Krama-dipika,
Govinda-Bhégya. By Baladeva. See Brahma-siitras with commentaries.
Govindiénanda. JRatna-prabhé. See Brahma-sitras with commentaries Sariraka-mimims4-bhisya.
Guru-bhakti-mandakini. By Purusottamaprasida Vaisnava II. See Laghu- stava-raja-stotra.
Harivyasadeva. See: 1, Prema -bhakti-vivardhini. See Sri - Nimbarkéstottara -éata-nama- stotra, 2. Siddhanta-kusumaiijali. See Daéa-Sloki, with commentaries.
Indian Philosophy. By S. Radhakrgnan. Vol. 2, London, 1927. Ié4-upanigad. With Samkara-bhagya and Anandagiri-tik’. Ed. by Bala astrin Agase. Anand&érama Sans. Series, No. 5, Poona, 1888-89.
284 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS Jabala-upanisad. See Upanigadim samuccayah, pp. 235-253.
Kalagni-rudra-upanisad. See Eleven Atharvana-upanisads, pp. 17-21. Kalyaénadasa, compiler. See Stotra-ratnavall. Kantimalé. See Prameya-ratnévall. : Katha-upanigad. With Samkara-bhagya. Ed. by Vaijanatha Sarman, Anan- daSrama Sans. Series, No. 7, Poona, 1888. Kausitaki-upanisad. See Upanisadim samuccayah, pp. 113-143, Kena-upanisad. With Samkara-bhasya and Anandagiri-tiké. Ed. by Bala Sastrin Agase. Anandaérama Sans. Series, No. 6, Poona, 1888. Kofgavakasmiribhatta. See: 1. Krama-dipika. Tattva-prakasikaé. See Bhagavad-gité with commentaries. S$ri-Govinda-Saranagati-stotra. See Stotra-ratnavali, pp. 70-71. Yamuné-stotram. See Stotra-ratnaévali. pp. 73-76. 5. Veda&nta-kaustubha-prabhé. See Brahma-siitras with commentarios.
+~ &
KeSavaéaranadeva, compiler. See $ri-Nimbarka-vratotsava-nirnaya ५ 180१888. See:
1. $ri-Nimbarka-mah&-munindra. 2. Sri-Nimbarkas tan matafi ca.
Krama-dipiké. By KeSavakaémiribhatta. With Vyakhya of Govinda Bhatta- carya. Ed. by Dev! Prasida Sarman Kavi. Chowkhamba Sans. Series, Nos. 233, 236, Benares, 1917-19.
Krama-dipikaé-vyékhy&. By Govinda Bhattacaérya. See Krama-dipika.
Kysnastaka. By Nimbirka. See Ac&rya-carita, pp. 130-133.
Laghu-mafjisé. By Giridhara Prapanna. See Dasga-sloki with commentaries.
Laghu-stava-raja-stotra. By Srinivasa, the immediate disciple of Nimbarka. With the commentary “Guru-bhakti-mandakini’’. Ed. by Devi Pras&ida Sarman Kavi. Chowkhamba Sans. Series, No. 254, Bombay, 1919.
Laghu-atavavali. Compiled by Dulara Prasdda Sastrin. Muttra, 1925.
M&dhava Acarya. See Sarva-daréana-samgraha.
Mahé-upanigad. See Simanya-Vedanta-upanisad, pp. 234-344.
Mahé-naérayana-upanisad, With the Dipiké of Naréyana. Ed. by G. A. Jacob. Bombay Sans. Series, No. XXXV, Bombay, 1888.
Mandikya-upanisad. With Gaudapdda-kariké, Samkara-bhasya and Ananda- giri-tiké. Ed. by Abaji Sarman. Poona, 1890.
Maitri-upanisad. Seo Upanisadim samuccayah, pp. 345-475.
Mantra-rahasya-sodaéi. By Nimbarka. A part of Rahasya-mimamsaé by the same author. With the commentary “Mantrartha-rahasya’’, By Sundara- bhatta, Caloutta, 1931-32,
Mantraértha-rahasya. Sundarabhatta. See Mantra-rahasya-sodasi.
Manuscript. See Svadharm&dhvabodha. By Nimbarka.
Mudgala-upanigad. See Saminya-Vedanta-upanigad, pp. 378-387.
Muktika-upanigad. See ditto, pp. 345-377.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 285
Mundaka-upanisad. With Samkara-bhasya and Dipikaé of Narayana. Ed. by the Pandits of the Anandasrama. Anandaérama Sans. Series, Poona, 1888.
Navada-paiica-ratra, Ed. by K. M. Banerjea. Published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Bibliotheca Indica, No. 38, Calcutta, 1865.
Naraéyana-upanigad. See Vaignava Upanisads, pp. 167-173.
Nimbarka. See: :
Daéa-Sloki with commentaries. (Also called Siddhanta-ratna.)
2. Krenastaka. Seo Acirya-carita, pp. 130-133.
3. Mantra-rahasya-sodasi.
4. Prapanna-kalpa-valli. See Stotra-ratnévali, pp. 108-111.
5. Pratah-smarana-stotra. See Stotra-ratnavall, pp. 71-72.
6
vi
~
Radhastaka. Seo Laghu-stavavali, pp. 32-34. Rahasya-mimaémsé. See Mantra-rahasyn-sodasi and Prapanna- kalpa-valli, 8. Savisesa-nirvisega-Sri-Krsna-stava-raja with commentaries. 9. Voedanta-parijita-saurabha, See Brahma-siitras with commentaries. 10. Sva-dharmadhva-bodha.
Nrsimha-purva-tapani-upanisad. See Vaisnava Upanisads, pp. 174-222. Nrsimha-uttara-tapani-upanisad. See ditto, pp. 223-343.
Paficadhati-stotra. By Visvicirya. Ed. by Dulara Prasida Sastrin. Muttra, 1901. See also Stotra-ratnavali, pp. 125-126.
Pajica-daéil. By Vidyaranya. Ed. by Anandacandra Vedantavagisa. Calcutta, 1860.
Pramoeya-ratnavali. By Baladova. With an old commentary “ Kanti-mala”. Ed. by Krsnadeva Vedantavagisa. Calcutta, 1927.
Prapanna-kalpa-valli. By Nimbarka. A part of Rahasya-mimémsi by the same author. See Stotra-ratnavali, pp. 108-111.
Prapauna-sura-taru-mafjari. An old anonymous commentary on Prapanna- kalpa-vallf by Nimbarka. Published by Kiforidésa. Brindaban, Muttra, 1915.
Pratah-smarana-stotra. By Nimbarka. Soo Stotra-ratnavali, pp. 71-73.
Prema-bhakti-vivardhini. By Harivyaésadeva. Seo Sri-Nimbarkastottara- Sata-naima-stotra.
Pragéna-upanisad. With Samkara-bhasya and Dipika ofSamkarananda. Ed. by the Pandits of the Anand&érama. Anand&Srama Sans. Series, No. 8, Poona, 1888-89.
Purusottama I (third after Nimbarka). See Vedénta-ratna-manjusa.
Purugottama II. See Acarys-carita.
Purusottamapraséda Vaisnava I. See Sruty-anta-kalpa-valll. See Savisesa- nirviéega-Sri-Krsna-stava-raja with commentaries.
Purugottamaprasdda Vaisnava II. See:
1. Adhydtma-sudhé-taraigini. See Vedanta-karikavall. 2. Guru-bhakti-mandakini. See Laghu-stava-raja-stotra. 3. Sri-Mukunda-mahimakhya-stava. See Stotra-ratnavali.
286 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
4. Sruty-anta-sura-druma. See Saviéesa-nirvisesa-Sri-Krsna-stava-rija with commentaries.
Raédhakysnan, 8. See Indian Philosophy. Radhisgtaka. By Nimbarka. See Laghu-stavavali, pp. 32-34. Rahasya-mimémsé. By Nimbarka. Two parts preserved. See Mantra-rahasya- 8०१९ and Prapanna-kalpa-valli. Raémanuja. See: 1. Bhagavad-gitaé-bhagya. See Bhagavad-gita with commentaries. 2. Sri-bhagya. See Brahma-sitras with commentaries. 3. Vedanta-dipa. 4. Vedanta-sara.
Ratna-prabhé. By Govindaénanda. See Brahma-stitras with commentaries: Sariraka-mimamsi-bhasya.
Sadananda Bhattacarya. See Sri-Nimbarkastottara-4ata-nima-stotra.
Sakalacérya-mata-samgraha. Ed. by Ratnagopaila Bhatta. Benares Sans. Series, No. 133, Benares, 1907.
Sa4m4nya-Vedanta-upanigad. With the commentary of इष Upanigad-Brahma- yogin. Ed, by A. Mahadeva Sastrin. Adyar, Madras, 1921.
Samkara. 866:
1. Sarfraka-mimimsa-bhasys. See Brahma-siitras with commentaries.
2. Samkara-bhagya, On the Gaudapaéda-kériké. See Mandikya- upanisad. ,
3. Samkara-bhasya on the Katha-upanigad. See Katha-upanigad.
Sarva-daréana-samgraha. By Madhava Acarya, Ed. by Hari Narayana Apte, assisted by the Pandits of the Anandiérama. Anandasrama Sans. Series, No. 61, Poona, 1906.
Savisesa-nirvisega-Sri-Krgna-stava-raja. By Nimbarka, with commentaries.
1, Sruti-siddhinta-mafjarl. By Vrajesaprasada, Ed. by Ratna Gopala Bhatta. Chowkhamba Sans. Series, No. 141, Benares, 1908.
2, Sruty-anta-kalpa-valli. By Purusgottamaprasada VaisnavalI. Ed. by Gopala Sastrin Nene. Chowkhamba Sans. Series, Nos. 356, 357, Benares, 1927.
3. Sruty-anta-sura-druma. By Purugottamaprasaéda Vaignava II. By Ratna 00816 Bhatta. Chowkhamba Sans. Series, No. 135, Benares, 1907.
Siddhinta-kusuméijali. By MHarivyasadeva. See Daga-sloki with com- mentaries, iz
Siddhénta-ratna. By Baladeva. Published by Syémalala Gosvamin. Calcutta, 1897-98,
Siddhénta-ratna. By Nimb&rka. (Also called Daéa-slok!.) See Daga-Sloki with commentaries.
Sivarka-mani-dipika. By Appsyya Dikgita. See Brahma-sitras with com- mentaries: Srikantha-bhasya.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 287
Skanda-upanisad. See Samanya-Vedanta-upanisad, pp. 508-512. Sri-bhasya. By Ramanuja. See Brahma-sitras with commentaries, Sri-bhasya-vartika. Ed. by Ratna Gopila Bhatta. Benares Sans. Series, No. 123, Benares, 1907. Sribhatta. Sri-Kygna-éaranapatti-stotra, See Stotra-ratnavali, pp. 68-70. Sri-Govinda-éaranagati-stotra. By Keéavakaésmiribhatta. See Stotrd-ratnavali, pp. 70-71. Sri-Gurupati-vaijayant!. See Stotra-ratnavali, pp. 127-136. Srikantha. Srikantha-bhasgya. See Brahma-sutras with commentaries. Srikantha-bhasya. See Brahma-sitras with commentaries. Sri-Kysna-carana-bhigana-stotra. By Anantarima. See Stotra-ratnavali, pp. 38-51. Sri-Krgna-Saranagati-stotra. By Sribhatta. See ditto, pp. 66-70. $ri-Mukunda-mahimakhya-stava. By Purusottamaprasida Vaisnava 11. See ditto, pp. 51-65. Sri-Mukunda-saranadgati-stotra. By Anantaraéma. Seo ditto, pp. 65-67. Sri-Nimbarkastottara-Sata-nima-stotra. By Sadénanda Bhattéicarya. With the vyaékhy& ‘“Prema-bhakti-vivardhini”. By MHarivyaésadeva. Printed by Jayakrsnea Daésagupta, Benares, 1925. Sri-Nimbarka-mah4-munindra. By Kiéoridisa. Brindaban, 1915. Sri-Nimbarkas tan matafi ca. By Kiéoridisa. Etwah, 1922. $ri-Nimbarka-vratotsava-nirnaya. Compiled by Kesavasaranadeva, Muttra, 1915. Srinivasa (the immediate disciple of Nimbarka). Soe: 1. Laghu-stava-raja-stotra. 2. Vedanta-karikavali. (Also called Adhyaétma-karikavali.) 3. Vedanta-kaustubha. See Brahma-sitras with commentaries,
Srinivasa (of the school of Ramanuja). See Yatindra-mata-dipiké. (Also called Yati-pati-mata-dipika.)
Sruti-siddhanta-mafijari. By Vrajeéaprasida. See Savisesa-nirvigesa-Sri- Kysna-stava-raja with commentaries.
Sruty-anta-kalpa-valli. By Purusottamapragida Vaignava I. See Savisesa- nirvisega-Sri-Krana-stava-raja with commentaries.
Sruty-anta-sura-druma. Purusottama Vaisnava II. See ditto.
Stotra-ratnavali. Compiled by Kalyaénadaésa, Muttra, 1925.
Subéla-upanisad. See Samanya-Vedanta-upanisad, pp. 460-501.
Sukadeva. See Svadharmampta-sindhu.
Sundarabhatta. See:
1. Dvaitaédvaita-siddhadnta-setuké. See Brahma-stitras with commen- taries: Siddhanta-jahnavi. 2. Mantrartha-rahasya. See Mantra-rahasya-sodasi.
Sva-dharmaédhva-bodha. By Nimbarka. (Manuscript.) Catalogue of Sans. MSS. in the Library of India Office, Part IV, 1894, 2486.
Sva-dharmémpsta-sindhu. By Sukadeva. Ed. by Dhundiraja Sastrin. Brinda - ban, 1924.
288 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Svetésvatara-upanisad. With Samkara-bhasya, Dipika of Samkarananda, ete, Ed. by the Pandits of the Anandaéérama. Ananda4rama Sans. Series, No. 17, Poona, 1889-90.
Sy&mnandaéarana. Acarya-prandmavall. See Laghu-stavavall, pp. 11-13.
Taittiriya-upanisad. With Samkara-bhasya and Dipika of Samkarananda and Vidydranya. Ed. by the Pandits of the AnandéSrama. Anand- Aérama Sans. Series, No. 12, Poona, 1889-90.
Tattva-prakaéika. By KoSavakaSmiribhatta. See Bhagavad-gitaé with com- mentaries. ^ Tattva-siddhanta-bindu. By Anantaréma. Published by Kiéoridasa.
Benares, 1913.
Upanigadirn samuccayah (containing thirty-two Upanigads). Ed. by the Pandits of the Anandasrama. Anandaérama Sans. Series, No. 29, Poona, 1895.
Upanigads. See:
1. Aitareya-upanigad. 2. Brhadéranyaka-upanigad. $. Brahma-bindu-upanigad. 4, Cha&ndogya-upanisad. 5. Ciiliké-upanigad. 6. Gopala-piirva-tapani-upanisad. 7. Jabéla-upanigad. 8. Kélagni-rudra-upanisad. 9. Kantha-Sruti-upanisad. See list B. 10. Katha-upanigad. 11. Kausitaki-upanigad. 12. Kena-upanisad. 13. Mahaé-upanigad. 14. Mahanérayana-upanigad. 15. Maitri-upanigad. 16. Mandukya-upanisad. 17. Mudgala-upanisad. 18. Muktika-upanigad. 19. Mundaka-upanigad. 20. Narayana-upanigad. 21. Nysimha-pirva-tapani-upanisad. 22. Nrsaimha-uttara-tapan!-upanigad. 23. Pragna-upanisad. 24. Skanda-upemigad. 25. Subéla-upanisad. 26. Svetaéévatara-upanigad. 27, Taittiriya-upanigad. 28. Vasudeva-upanisad.
Vacaspati Miéra. Bhamati. Seo Brahma-sitras with commentaries: SAriraka- mima&msa-bhasya.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 289
Vaisnava-upanisads (containing seventeen Upanigads). With the commentary of Sri-Upanigad-Brahmayogin. Ed. by A. Mahadeva Sastrin. Madras, 1923.
Vasudeva-upanigad. See Vaisnava Upanigads, pp. 375-382.
Vedanta-dipa. By Ramiénuja. Ed. by Bhattanatha Svaémin. Benares Sans. Series, No. 69, Benares, 1902.
Vedanta-kérikaval! (also called Adhyatma-karikivali). By Srinivasa (the immediate disciple of Nimbarka). With tho commentary “Adhyatma- sudha-tarangini” by Purugottamaprasida Vaignava II. Ed. by Devi- prasada Sarman Kavi. Chowkhamba Sans. Sories, Nos. 169, 170 and 202, Benares, 1913.
Vedanta-kaustubha. By Srinivaya (the immediate disciple of Nimb&rka). See Brahma-siitras with commentaries.
Vedanta-kaustubha-prabha. By Keéavakaéémiribhatta. Sec Brahma-siitras with commentaries.
Vedanta-paribhigi. By Dharmarajidhvarindra. Ed. by Krsnanitha Nyaya- paiicanans. Calcutta, 1930-31.
Vodinta-parijita-saurabha. By Nimbarka. Sea Brahma-sitrays with com- mentaries.
Vedénta-ratna-maéla. By Anantarama. Published by Kisoridésa. Brindaban, Mathura, 1916.
Vedanta-ratna-mafijuisa. By Purugottama I. See Dasga-sloki with com- mentaries.
Vedanta-séra. By Raménuja. Ed. by Bhagavata Aocarya. Brindaban, Mathura, 1905.
Vedénta-séra-padya-maélaé. By Anantarima. See Stotra-ratnavali, pp. 91-06.
Vidyaranya. See Paficadasi.
Viévacarya. See Paficadhati-stotra.
Vrajesaprasida. Sruti-siddhanta-mafjari. Seo Saviseya-nirvisesa-Sri-Kryna- stava-raja with commentaries.
Yamuné-stotra. By Kesavakaéémiribhattu. See Stotra-ratnavali, pp. 73-76.
Yatindra-mata-dipikaé. (Also called Yati-pati-mata-dipikaé.) By Srinivasa (of the school of Ramaénuja). Ed. by Ratna Gopaéla Bhatta. Benares Sans. Series, No. 133, Benares, 1907.
Yati-pati-mata-dipika. See Yatindra-mata-dipika.
B Books consulted in connection with quotations, etc.
Agni-purana. Ed. by Rajendralala Mitra. “Bibliotheca Indica, No. 65, 3 vols., Calcutta, 1873-79.
Aitareya-adranyake. Ed. by A. B. Keith. Anecdota Oxoniensia, Oxford, 1909. \
Aitareya-brahmans. With the commentary called =“ Vedanta-prakaééa”? by Saéyana. Ed. by Satyavrata Samaéramin. Bibliotheca Indica, 4 vols., 1895-1906.
19
290 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Aitareya-brahmana. With the commentary of Séyana. Ed. by Kaéin&tha Sdstrin. Anandaérama Sans. Series, No. 32, Poona, 1896.
Amara-kosa. By Amarasimha. Ed. by Guruna&tha Vidyanidhi. Calcutta, 1906-07.
Amarasimha. See Amara-koga.
Apastamba-dharma-sitra. Ed. by Georg Buhler. Part I, Bombay, 1868.
Apastamba-érauta-siitra. With the commentary of Rudradatta. Ed. by Richard Garba. 3 vols., Bibliotheca Indica, No. 92, Calcutta, 1882—1902.
Aranyakas. See:
1. Aitareya-aranyaka. 2. Taittiriya-dranyaka.
Asvalayana-grhya-siitra. With Haradatta’s commentary. Ed. by T. Ganapati Sastrin. Trivandrum Sans. Series, No. 78, Trivandrum, 1923.
Atharva-veda-samhité. Ed. by R. Roth and W. D. Whitney. Berlin, 1924.
Atri-smpti. See Smrtiném samuccayah, pp. 28-34.
Aufrecht, Theodore. See Catalogus Catalogorum.
Badaréyana. Brahma-sitras. See list A.
Bala-manorama. See Siddhanta-kaumudi.
Barnett, L.D. See Supplementary Catalogue of the Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit Books in the Library of the British Museum, A.
Bhagavad-gité. See list A.
Bhagavata-purina. With the tika called “Bhavartha-dipika”. By Sridhara Svamin. Ed. by Pafi¢inana Tarkaratna. Calcutta, 1906-09.
Bhandarkar, 2. ७, See Report on the Search for Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Bombay Presidency during the years 1884-87.
Bhattoji Diksita. See Siddhanta-kaumudi.
Bhima Acarya Jhélakikara. Seo Ny&ya-kosa or Dictionary of the technical terms of the Nyaéya Philosophy.
Bloomfield, Maurice. See Vedic Concordance, A.
Brahmanas. See:
1. Aitareya-bréhmana.
2. Kaugitaki-brahmana. (Also called Samkhayana-brahmana.) $, Paiica-viméa-brahmans. See Tandya-mahé-brihmana.
4. Samkhayana-brahmana. See Kausitaki-brahmana,
5. Satapatha-brahmana.
6. Taittirlya-brahmana.
7.
Tandya-mahé-bréhmana. (Also called Paiica-vimsa-brahmana.)
Brahma-stitras of Badarayana. See list A.
Brahma-vaivarta-purina. Kd. by Jivananda Vidydsigara. 2 vols., Calcutta, 1886.
Brahma-vaivarta-purana. Ed. by Paficinana Tarkaratna. Calcutta, 1905-06.
Candriké. By Naéraéyanatirtha. See Samkhya-karika. Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office. Part IV- By Ernest Windsich and Julius Eggeling. London, 1894. 19B
BIBLIOGRAPHY 291
Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in Private Libraries of the North-West Provinces, A. Compiled by order of Government, N.W.P. Part I. Benares, 1874.
Catalogues. See:
1. Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office.
2. Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in Private Libraries of the North- West Provinces, A.
8. Catalogus Catalogorum.
4. List of Sanskrit Manuscripts discovered in Oudh during the year 1877.
5. Report on the Search for Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Bombay Presi- dency during the years 1884-87. By R. G. Bhandarkar.
6. Report on the Search for Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Bombay Presi- dency during the years 1891-95. By Abaji Visnu Kathavate.
7. Supplementary Catalogue of the Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit Books in the Library of the British Museum, A.
Catalogus Catalogorum. An alphabetical register of Sanskrit works and authors. By Theodore Aufrecht. 3 parts, Leipzig, 1891-1903. Chandoga-mantra-brahmana. (Also callod Chandogya-mantra-braéhmana, Séma- veda-mantra-brahmana, and Mantra-bréhmana.) Ed. by Jivananda Vidyasagara Bhatticarya. Calcutta, 1873. Chronological Tablets containing corresponding dates of different areas used in India. By Girisa Candra Tarkalankara. Calcutta, 1883. Collection of the Oriental Works, A. Ed. by Ramayana Tarkaratna. Published by tho Asiatic Society of Bengal, Now Series, No. 249, Calcutta, 1873. Concordance to the principal Upanisads and Bhagavad-gité, A. See Upanisad- vakya-koga. Concordances. See: 1. Concordance to the principal Upanisads and Bhagavad-gitaé, A. See Upanigad-vakya-kosa. 2. Vedic Concordance, A. See also Index.
Dakga-smpti. See Smrtinaém samuccayah, pp. 72-84. Daréana-siitras. See Sitras—Daréana. Daéa-SlokI. By Nimbarka. 866 list A. Devaprasida. Seo List of Sanskrit Manuscripts. Dharma-séstra. Text containing Yajiiavalkya-smrti, etc. Vol. I, Part I. Ed. by Manmatha Nath Dutt. Caloutta, 1908. Dictionary of the technical terms of the Nyéya Philosophy. See Nyaya-koga. Dictionaries. See: 1. Amara-kosa, 2. Ny&ya-kosa. 3. Sanskrit-English Dictionary, A. By A. Monier-Williams, 2nd Ed., Oxford, 1899.
Dharma-sitras. 8९66 Siitras—Dharma.
Eggeling, Julius. See Windsich, Ernest and Eggeling, Julius.
292 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Gaudapa&da. Gaudapada-bhisya on the Saémkhya-kérikié. See Samkhya. kariké,
Gautama-dharma-sastra. Ed. by Adolf Friedrich Stenzler. London, 1876.
Grhya-sitras. See Siitras—Grhya,. ५
Hiranyakegi-srauta-sitra. See Satyigidha-srauta-sitra. Hari-vaméa. See Mahabharata.
Index to the names in the Mahabharata. By the late S. Sérensen. London, 1904. Indexes. See: 1. Index to the names in the Mahabharata. 2. Vedic Index of Names and Subjects. See also Concordance, Tévarakpsna. 866 Samkhya-karika,
Jacob, G. A. See: 1. Laukika-nyayaijali. 2. Upanisad-vakya-kosa. Jaimini. Soe Mimamsa-sitras,
Kanada. See Vaisegika-siitras.
Kantha-Sruti-upanisad. See Collection of Oriental Works, A, pp. 281-294.
Kaéthaka-samhité. Ed. by Leopold von Schréder. Leipzig, 1900.
Kathavate, Abaji Visnu. See Report on the Search for Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Bombay Presidency during the years 1891-95.
Kausitaki-brahmana. (Also called Samkhayana-brahmana.) Ed. by Gulab. rayu Vajesamkara. Anandaérama Sans, Series, No. 65, Poona, 1911.
Keith, A. B. See Macdonell, A. A. and Keith, A. B.
Kullukabhatta. Manv-artha-muktavali. See Manu-smrti.
Kirma-puriéna. Ed. by Nilamani Mukhopadhyaya. Bibliotheca Indica, No. 15, Calcutta, 1890.
Laukika-nyéyaéfjali. By G. A. Jacob. 3 parts, Bombay, 1900-04.
List of Sanskrit Manuscripts discovered in Oudh during the year 1877. Prepared by Devi Praséda. Allahabad, 1878.
Macdonell, A. A. and Keith, A. B. See Vedic Index of Names and Subjects.
Mahabharata (including Hari-vaméa). Ed. by the learned Pandits attached to the establishment of tho Education Committee. Published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal. % vols., Calcutta, 1834-39.
..Do. With the तार of Nilakantha. Ed. by Paficinana Tarkaratna Bhattacérya. 2 parts. Vangavasi Press, Calcutta, 1908-09, 2nd ed. ५
Do. With the त्राह of Nilakantha. 5 vols., Bombay, 1878.
Maitrayani-samhité. Ed. by Leopold von Schréder. Leipzig, 1881.
Manu-smrti. With the commentary called “Manv-artha-muktaivali” by Kullukabhatta. Ed. by Vasudeva Sarman. Bombay, 1929, 8th Ed,
Manv-artha-muktavali. By Kullukabhatta. See Manu-smrti,
BIBLIOGRAPHY 293
Mimamasi-stitras of Jaimini. With tho commentary of Sabara Svamin. Ed. by Mahesh Chandra Nydyaratna. 2 vols., Bibliotheca Indica, No. 46, Calcutta, 1873-89.
Monier-Williams, Monier. See Sanskrit-English Dictionary, A.
Naréyanatirtha. Candrikaé. See Samkhya-kérika,
Nimbarkea. Dasa-Sloki. See list A.
Nyaya-koga or Dictionary of the technical terms of the Nyaya Philosophy. By Bhima Acarysa Jhalakikara. 3rd Ed. Revised and re-edited by Vasudeva Sastrin Abhayankara. Published by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1928.
Panini. P&énini-sitras. See Siddhanta-kaumudi. Pataiijali. See Yoga-sitras. Puranas. See:
1. Bhagavata-purana.
2. Brahma-vaivarta-puréna. 3. Kurma-purana.
4. Visnu-purana.
Pirva-mimamsa-sitras. See Mimamsa-sitras.
Report on the Search for Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Bombay Presidency during the years 1884-87. By R. G. Bhandarkar. Bombay, 1894. Report on the Search for Sanskrit Manuscripts in tho Bombay Presidency during the years 1891-95. By Abaji Visnu Kathavate. Bombay, 1901. Rg-veda-samhitaé. Pada text. Ed. by ए. Max Miller. London, 1873. ; Sabara Svamin. Sabara-bhasya. See Mimimséa-sitras. Samhités—Vedas. See:
1. Atharva-veda-samhita. 2. Rg-veda-samhita. 3. Kathaka-samhita. 4. Maitréyani-samhita. 3 व 6. Taittiriya-samhita. (Yajur-veda-samhita.) 6. Vajasaneyi-samhita.
Samhitas—Smytis. Soe Smptis.
Samkara Miéra. Commentary on the Vaiéegika-siitras. See Vaisesika-siitras.
Samkhya-kaériké. By Iévarakpgna. With Gaudapida’s commentary and an exposition called “Candriké” by Narayanatirtha. Ed. by Becanaréma Tripathin. Benares Sans. Series, No. 9, Benares, 1883.
Saikhyayana-brahmana. Soe Kausitaki-bréhmana.
Sanskrit-English Dictionary, A. By Monier Williams. 2nd Ed., Oxford, 1899.
Satapatha-brahmans. Ed. by Albrecht Weber. Berlin and London, 1855.
Satyasadha-srauta-sittras. (Also called “Hiranyakedi-érauta-sitras.) With the commentary called “Jyotsna’’ by Gopinathabhatta. Ed. by Kaééinitha Sastrin Agééo. Vol. 2. Anandasrama Sans. Series, No. 53, Poona, 1898.
294 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Siddhénta-kaumudi. By Bhattoji Diksita, commentary on the P&nini-sitras. With the commentary “Bala-manorama”’ by Vasudeva Diksita. 2 vols. Ed. by S. Candraéekhara Sastrigal. Trichinopoly, 1910-11.
Smrtiném samuccayah (containing 27 smrtis, viz. Atri-smpti, Daksa-smrti, Vaéigtha-smrti, etc.). Ed. by the Pandits of the Ananda&érama. Anand- &érama Sana. Series, No. 48, Bombay, 1905.
Smrtis. See:
Atri-smrti. See Smrtiném samuccayah, pp. 28-34. Daksa-smfti. See ditto, pp. 72-89.
Gautama-smrti. See Gautama-dharma-éastra. Manu-smrti.
Vasigtha-smrti. See Smrtinaém samuccayah, pp. 187-235. Yajiavalkya-smrti. See Dharma-éastras. Text, pp. 1-89.
न
® © ए ९०
36678611, 8. See Index to the Names of the Mahabharata.
Supplementary Catalogue of the Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit Books in the Library of the British Museum. Acquired during the years 1906-28. Compiled by Dr. L. D. Barnett. London, 1928.
Sitras—Daréanas. See:
Brahma-sttras of Badaréyana. See list A.
Pirva-mimaimsa-stitras of Jaimini. See Mimamsé-sitras.
Samkhya-sitras of Kapila.
Yoga-siitras of Patajfijali.
Vaisesika-siitras of Kanada.
eee ee
Siitras—Dharma. See Apastamba-dharma-siitra. Sitras—Grhya. See Aévalaéyana-grhya-sitra. Siitras—Srauta. See: 1. Apastamba-érauta-siitra, 2. Hiranyakesi-srauta-sitra, See Satyasidha-srauta-siitra. 3. Satyasidha-érauta-sitra. (Also called Hiranyakesi-srauta-sitra.)
Taittirlya-dranyaka. With the commentary of Séyana. Ed. by Babu Sastrin Phadke. Anandaérama Sans. Series, No. 36, Poona, 1897.
Taittirlya-brihmana. With the commentary “Vedaénta-prakaééa” by Sayana. Ed. by Rajendralala Mitra, Bibliotheca Indica, No. 31, 3 vols., Calcutta, 1859-90.
Taittirilya-samhita. Transliterated in roman characters. Ed. by Albrecht Wober. Indische Studien Series, Nos. 11 and 12, 2 vols, Leipzig, 1871-72.
Tandya-mahé-brahmans. (Also called Paiica-viméa-brahmana.) With the commentary of Séyana. Ed. by Anandacandra Vidyavagiéa. Biblio- theca Indica, No. 62, 2 vols., Caloutta, 1870-74.
Upanigads. See list A. Upanisad-vakya-koga, or Concordance to the principal Upanisads and Bhagavad- gita, A. ByG.A.Jacob. Bombay, 1891.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 295
Vajasaneyi-samhité. With the commentary of Mahidhara. Ed. by Albrecht Weber. Berlin and London, 1852.
Vaiéegika-sitras of Kanada. With the commentary of Samkara Migra. Ed. by Jayanaérayana Tarkapaficinana. Bibliotheca Indica, New Series, Calcutta, 1861.
Vaéigtha-smrti. See Smptiném samuccayah, pp. 181-235.
Vasudeva Diksita. Bala-manoramé. See Siddhanta-kaumudi.
Vedic Concordance, A. By Maurice Bloomfield. Harvard Oriental Series, No. 10, Harvard, 1906.
Vedic Index of Names and Subjects. By A. A. Macdonell and A. B. Keith. 2 vols., London, 1912.
Vignu-puréna. With the commentary “Sva-prakaééa” by Sridhara Svamin. Ed. by Jivananda Vidyasaigara Bhattacarya. Calcutta, 1882.
Windisch, Ernest. See Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Library of India Office. ध
Yajiiavalkya-smrti. See Dharma-sastra. Text, pp. 1-89.
Yoga-sitras of Patafijali. With the tiké of Vacaspati Misra and bhasgya of Vyasa. Ed. by Kashinatha Sastrin Agase. Anandasrama Sans. Series, No. 47, Poona, 1904.
ABBREVIATIONS USED
A.C. ce .. Acarya-carita.
A.K. as .. Amara-koga.
A.S. sa .. Audumbara-samhita.
A.S.T. os .. Adhy&tma-sudha-taranginl!.
A.Sm. i .. Atri-smrti.
Agni. ar .. Agni-purana.
Ait. ie .. Aitareya-upanisad.
Ait.Ar, रु .. Aitareya-dranyaka.
Air.Br. a .. Aitareya-brahmana.
Ap.D.S. .. .. Apastamba-dharma-sitra.
Ap.S.8. ५ .. Apastamba-srauta-sitra.
As.G.S. ४ .. Aévalayana-grhya-siitra.
Athar.V... .. Atharva-veda-samhita.
B. Quoted by Baladeva.
B.M. ५४ .. Béla-manoraméa.
B.M.C. oa .. British Museum Catalogue.
B.M.G. ren .. Bhakta-mala.
Bh. ४ , ^ Quoted by Bhaskara.
Bh.B. ०५ .. Bhaskara’s Commentary on the Brahma-siitras,
Bh.P. an + Bhavigya-purana.
Bha.P. ४ .. Bhagavata-purana.
Br.8u. a .. Brahma-siitra.
Br.V.P. as .. Brahma-vaivarta-purana.
Brahma B. .. .. Brahma-bindu-upanigad.
Brh. os .. Brhadéranyaka-upanigad.
C.M.B. 4 .. Chandoga-mantra-bréhmana.
C.S.8. oe .. Chowkhambas Sanskrit Series.
C.U. ० .. A Concordance to the principal Upanigads and Bhagavad-gita.
Cat.Cat. aes .. Catalogus Catalogorum.
Chand. 25 .. Chandogya-upanigad.
Cul. on <° Caliké-upanigad.
D.P. He .. Dikgé-tattve-prakass.
7.8. a -- Daéa-Sloki.
D.Sm. a .. Daksa-smrti.
G.B. श .. Govinda-bhasya.
G.D.S. aay, .. GQautama-dharma-éastra.
G.K. 9 .. Geudapaida-karika,
‘ 296
ABBREVIATIONS USED 297
G.M. sie .. Guru-bhakti-mandakinl.
G.P. ae .. Gopéla-paddhati.
G.P.T. a .» Gopéla-pirva-tapani-upanisad.
Gita. ae .. Bhagavad-gita.
Hari V. me .. Hari-vaméa.
I.0.C. ie .. India Office Catalogue.
LP. ve ~. Indian Philosophy, Vol. 2.
Isa. 0 .. Téa-upanigad.
Jabala. aa .. Jabaéla-upanisad.
K.D. oe „= Krama-dipika.
KF. न .. Kurma-purana.
K.R. Se .. Kélagni-rudra-upanisad.
K.S.S, ९४ .. Kasi Sanskrit Series,
K.VS. ass .. Kéatyayana-vartika-sitra.
Katha. we .- Katha-upanisad.
Kath. Sam... .. Kéthaka-samhita.
Kaus. ६3 .. Kausitaki-upanisad.
Kena. ae .. Kena-upanisad.
L.M. a .. Laghu-manjisa.
L.N. प .. Laukika-nyayanjali.
LS. ६4 .. Laghu-stava-raja-stotram.
L.S.V. wt .. Laghu-stavavali.
M.R. ae . «+ Mantrartha-rahasya.
M.R.S. we .. Mantra-rahasya-sodaéi.
M.Sam. ५ .. Maitrayani-samhita.
M.W. as .. Sanskrit-English Dictionary.
Maha. Ae .. Mahabharata, Asiatic Society edition.
Maha. Up. .. .. Mahé-upanigad.
Mahanar. .. .. Mahanarayana-upanigad.
Maitri. Pes .. Maitri-upanisad.
Mand. Ae .. Méandikya-upanisad.
Manu. oe +, Manu-samhita.
Mudg. Be .. Mudgala-upanisad.
Mukti. 44 .. Muktika-upanigad.
Mund. = .. Mundaka-upanisad.
Nar. = .. Néarayana-upanisad.
N.B. ee .. Number of sitras according to Nimbarka’s com- mentary.
Nr.Pur. oe .» Nrsimha-pirva-tapani-upanigad.
Nr.Ut. ५६ .. Nrsimha-uttara-taépani-upanisad.
20
298 DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
N.W.P. .. A Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Private Libraries of the North-West Provinces,
‘Oudh. Mss, .. .. List of Sanskrit Manuscripts discovered in Oudh.
P.K. as .. Prapanna-kalpa-valli.
P.R. wa .. Prameya-ratnévali.
P.8.M. a .. Prapanna-sura-taru-mafijari.
Pan. Panini-siitra.
Prasna. PraSna-upanisad.
Pu.Mi.Su. Pirva-mimamsa-sitra,
R, ee ~ + Quoted by Ramanuja.
Rep. Bh. Report on the Search for Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Bombay Presidency. (Bhandarkar.)
Rep. Kath. .. .. Report on the Search for Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Bombay Presidency. (Kathavate.) ध
Rg. V. Reg-veda-samhita.
8. eg .. Quoted by Samkara.
8.A.M. a .. Suklécdrya-mata-samgraha.
3.8. a wd Samkara’s commentary on the Brahma-sitras, Kasi Sans. Series.
S.J. .. Siddhdnta-jahnavi.
8.K. ais .. Sraty-anta-kalpa-valli.
S.N. é .. Srl-Nimb&rkdoaryas tan mataii ca.
S.N.K.S. .. aft Saviéega-nirvisesa-Sri-Krsna-stava-raja.
S.N.K. ats .. Srl-Nimbarka-maha-munindra.
पपत. .. .. $ri-Nimbarka-vratotsava-nirnava.
8.R. Stotra-ratnavali.
8.8. an .. Sruty-anta-sura-druma.
8.8. ies + + Siddh&nta-setuka. #
Sab. 8. धि .. Sabara’s commentary on the Parva-mimamsa-sitra,
Sam. Ka. .. .. Sa&mkhya-karika.
Sam. घ, .. .. Samkhya-sitras.
Sat. Br. os ५ Satapatha-brahmana.
Sat. 8. 3 .. Saty&sidha-érauta-sitra,
Sd. K. ०० .. Siddhénta-kaumudi.
$a.R ४ .. Siddh&nta-ratna, By Baladeva.
SK. ta .* Quoted by Srikantha.
SK. B. we .. §$rlkantha’s commentary on the Brahma-sitras.
Skanda ae .. Skanda-upanigad.
Sri. B we .. Sri-bhagya. Madras edition.
8v.S ae .. Sva-dharmémrta-sindhu.
Svadhar. MS. .. Sva-dharmadhva-bodha. Manuscript.
8५७४, ae .. Svet&ésvatara-upanisad.
Subala. Subéla-upanigad.
20B
T.P.
Tait.
Tait. Ar. Tait. Br. Tait. Sam. .. Tand. Br. ..
V.C.
V.D.
V.K.
V.K.P. V.K.V.
V.M.
vV.P.
V.P.S. V.R.M.
V.8.
V.Sm.
V.Su.
Vasu.
Ved. In.
Ved. Pari. .. vj. 8. as
श. a Y.M.D. ७ Yaj.Sm...
ABBREVIATIONS USED
Tattva-prakasika. Taittirlya-upanigad. Taittirlya-dranyaka. Taittirlya-brahmana. Taittirlya-samhita. Tandya-maha-bréhmana.
A Vedic Concordance. Vedanta-dipa. Vedanta-kaustubha. Voedanta-kaustubha-prabha. Vedanta-karikavali. Vedaénta-ratna-méla. Visnu-purana. Vedanta-parijata-saurabha, Vedanta-ratna-madijisa. Vedanta-sara. Vaséistha-smrti. Vaisesika-siitras, Vasudeva-upsanisad.
Vedic Index of Names and Subjects. Vedanta-paribhasa. Vajasaneya-samhita.
Yoga-sitra. Yatindra-mata-dipikaé, Yajiavalkya-smrti.
299
Caxoutra :—Published by the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1 Park Street,
and Printed by G. E. Bingham, Baptist Mission Press,
414 Lower Circular Road.
GENERAL INDEX
Abheda-vada, criticism of, III. 173.
Abheda and Bheda Vakyas, recon- ciliation of, IIT. 99.
Abhipratarin, Ksatriya, I, 199.
Acit, three kinds of, III. 87; Baladeva’s doctrine of, III. 228; views of Nimbarka contrasted with those of Bhaskara on, ITI. 192.
Action, knowledge being a subsidiary element of, IT, 715.
Adhvaryu, meaning of, I. 77 fn.
Adhvaryu, IT. 624.
Adhyatma-sudhatarangini, a work of Purusottamaprasada I, IIT, 174.
Adhyasa, doctrine of, I. 443.
Adhyasa-vada, criticism of, ITI. 136.
Adhyfisa-vada, Purusottamaprasada’s criticism of, ITT. 163. `
Adhyasa-vada, criticism of, III, 144
Aditi, the mother of gods, III. 275
Advaita doctrine of Iévara, criticism of, III. 155
Advaita-vada, Nimbarka during an age of, III. 9.
Advaita view, criticism of, III. 153.
Advaita view of moksa, criticism of, IIT. 130.
Advaita view of the jagat, criticism of, III. 127.
Advaita view, Purusottamaprasaida’s criticism of, ITI. 175.
Adrsta (the unseen principle) Gltimate cause of difference among souls, 1. 446ff.
Agni, sacrifices of animals to, II, 503.
Agni-hotra, IT. 519.
Agni-rahasya, title, I. 76 fn.
Air, origin of, I. 395f.; one of the tive elements first created by God, TI. 93.
Aitareya, IT, 658.
Aitihya-tattva-raddhanta, a work of Nimbarka, IT. 12.
Ajatasatru (King), dialogue between Balaki and, I. 24
Ajiiéna, having no substratum, III 146; having no object and existence, TIT. 149.
Akartrtva-vada, criticism of, III. 127.
Aksara-vidya, IIT. 701
Aksaya-trtiyd-vrata, ITI. 274 nantaraima, IIT. 178
Anga-nyasa, III, 267
flourishing
Animals, killing of sacrificial animals beneficial to themselves, IT. 503.
क waa origin of, I. 383; reference to.
न meaning forbidden deeds, II. 490.
Anirvacanlya, outside the sphere of all pramanas, IIT. 177.
Anuyaja, II. 715.
Anyathabhedanupapatti, IT. 655.
Aprakrta, meaning and nature of, 1. 14ff.; a kind of the non-sentient dif- ferent from prakrti and kAla, IIT. 59.
Aprameyatva-vada, criticism of, III. 78.
Aptrva-vidhi, meaning of, I. 10 fn.
Aruna, acc. to one account the father’s name of Nimbarka, IIT. 2.
Asampradiayikas, one kind of Vaisnava, IIT. 255.
Asatkaryavada, doctrine of, I. 288f.
Atoms, doctrine of causality of, 1. 338f.; four kinds of, I. 339; non- activity of, I.341ff.; relation of inherenco between, I. 343f.; non- eternity of, I. 345f.; colour, etc. of, 1. 345f.; qualities of, I. 346f.
Atomism, refutation of the doctrine of, 1. 313f.
Atyanta-bheda-vada, criticism of, III. 173.
Audulomi, teacher, individual soul denoting Brahman acc. to, I, 254f.; suggesting the performance of the subsidiary parts of sacrifice by the officiating priest, II. 767.
Aupadhika, acc. to Bhaskara difference of the soul from Brahman as such, IIT. 189.
Avaccheda-vada, criticism of, III. 86, 126.
Avakirni-pasu, II. 761.
Avataras, various kinds of, III. 77.
Aveéivataras, II. 613.
Acarya-carita, a work of Anantarima, III. 179
Acaryapada, the father’s name of Srinivasa, III
Aditya, III. 89.
1 a-vidya, II. 701
Aruni, . 3. See also भव hee Haripriya, Havirdhana, Sudar-
( 301 )
21
302 DOOTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Aémaratha, sage, view of, I. 138; individual soul denoting Brahman acc. to, I. 258f.; IIT. 6.
Atharvana. two kinds of knowledge
mentioned in, I. 128. Atreya, the teacher, IT. 766.
Bahvrca, meaning of, I. 77.
Baladeva, interpretation of ‘Gati’ acc. to, I. 52; enquiry into Brahman according to, I. 21; nature of creator according to, I. 45, 47, 49.
Bauddha, IIT. 42.
Badaraiyana, possibility of _ Brahma worship by gods considered by, I. 179f.; reference to, II. 574.
B&adari, teacher, view of, I. 139.
Badari-asrama, III. 7.
Baléki, sage, dialogue between Ajata- fatru and, I, 242.
Bhaktas, kinds of, III. 242.
Bhakti, nature and pre-requisites of, III. 233; modes and kinds of, III. 238; Sadhanaripika, ITT. 102; phala- rapa, III. 102.
Bhakti-yoga, ITT. 102.
Bhékta and ‘Abhakta’ explanations of, I. 408.
Bhaskara, enquiry into Brahman ac- cording to, I. 19; II. 491; IT. 510. Bhedabheda doctrine, Nimbarka the
firat systematic propounder of, IIT. 6.
Bhiiman, meaning 0 tt I. 151.
Bhima-vidy4, IT. 701.
Bhir-loka, occupying > space of fifty Koti Yojanas, ITI. 92.
Bhuvar-loksa, inhabited by perfected souls, III. 92.
Bliss, Brahman with relation to, I, 54.
Body, earthly nature and worthless- ness of, I. 472,
Brahmacarya, meaning of, I. 118. Brahmaloka, attainment of, I. 160; going of individual souls to, I. 167.
Brahma-mimaémséa, I. 19.
Brahman—difference between indivi- dual soul and, I. 61ff., 91ff.; desire of, I. 60, 62ff.; free from dependence, I. 62ff.; individual soul unites with bliss in, 1, 64ff.; qualities of, I. 67ff.; difference between Vella and, I. 69 fn.; ether referred as, I. 71f.; as that which consists of, I. 91ff.; appro- priateness of attributes of, I. Q5ff.; designation of object and agent with reference to, I. 97f.; celebrity of teaching regarding, I. 91ff.; different words denoting individual soul and, I. 98; Smrti text on difference bet- ween individual soul and, I. 99f.;
28
individual soul controlled by, I. 384f.; abode of, I. 113f.; same as pleasure, I. 114ff.; path of wor- shipper of, I. 116f.; difference between sphere of matter and that of, I. 120; individual soul’s entrance into, I. 50f.; reasons for enquiry into, I. 6 fn.; as that which consists of bliss, I. 54ff.; difference between Prakrti and, I. 126; invisibility of, I. 127ff.; imperishability of, I. 128f.; Vedanta-parijata-Saurabha on cha- racteristics of, I. 22ff.; as inner con- troller, I. 121ff.; as object of medita- tion, I. 100ff.; abode of, I. 100ff.; attributes and difference of, I. 130; form of, I.131; VaiSvanara an epithet of, I. 132ff.; doctrine of causality of, I. 267ff., 307ff.; origin of, I.22ff.; consideration of works of individual souls by, I. 319ff.; ap- propriateness of all attributes of, I. 32. ; transformation of, I. 305ff.; independent of actions of individual soul, I, 439ff.; as material cause of ether, I.394; as becoming the ‘enjoyer’, I. 285ff.; transformation of, I. 261ff.; relation between in- dividual soul and, I. 85ff.; 297ff.; as source of beings, I. 263; as object to be seen, I. 251f.; concordance of scriptures with regard to, I. 31ff.; requisite qualities for enquiry into, I. 6f.; sense-organs of, I. 316f.; rela- tion between universe and, I. 372f.; difference between individual soul and, I. 436ff.; creator of names and forms, I.471ff.; concordance of scriptural texts with regard to, I. 261 ट; Atharvanika conception of, I. 436; non-separation of universe from, I. 392f.; doctrine of causality of, I. 325ff.; difference between individual soul and, I. 208, 224, 247; as limitary support, I. 167; nature of, I. 1; non-origination of, I, 397f.; desire of creation of, I. 304, 400; knowledge and kind in relation to, I. 404; concordance of Vedas and Vedintas with regard to, I. 264; non-difference between world and, I. 297; Vital-breath as referred as, I.73; designation of, I. 206; as ‘person within’, I. 111; universality of knowing, I. 51; relation between elements and, I. 389, 404; resolution of, I. 260; as ‘Eater’, I. 105; re- membrance of, I. 139; dependence of
on, 1, 218; cause of universe, 1, 6, 50, 91; as cause of
GENERAL INDEX 303
bliss of individual soul, I. 58; scriptural support of causality of, I. 52; difference between individual soul and, I. 247; as material cause and efficient cause, I. 257, 268, 274; referred as, ‘Unborn One’, I. 228; three-fold meditation on, I. 87; same as Iévara, I. 27; same as self, I.8; knowledge of, I. 6; enquiry into, I. 1; as the plenty of, I. 150; manifestations of, I.138; as an object to be approached by the freed, I. 145; Smrti texts with reference to, I. 266; as ‘what is measured’, I, 175; as ‘small’ (ether), I. 163; ‘non- existent’ refers to, I.239f.; an ‘object which one sees’, I, 159; light referred as, I. 74; same as Krsna, I. 8; pre-requisites to the enquiry into, I.19; meaning of, I.1, 16; source of, I, 27; distinction between individual soul and, I. 419; absence of external implements in, I. 302; command of, I. 158; identification of, I. 140; creation of, I. 304, 318; omnipotence of, I.315; ultimate cause of universe, I. 237; 96 of, 1. 179; as the imperishable,
150; difference between individual soul and, 1.149; as support of heaven, earth and so on, I. 143; immediate place of deep sleep, II. 518; both savisesa and nirvisega, TI. 524; possessed of difference, devoid of difference, II. 624; Nira- kéra-updsané of, II. 527; possessed of two-fold characteristics, II. 529, 540, 532; two forms of, II. 542; incessant repetition of the Sédhanas resulting in the direct vision of, II. 647; & relation of natural difference non-difference between the soul and, TI. 555; an absolute non-difference between individual soul and, IT. 556; no equal and no superjor of, II. 568; ‘all-pervasiveness’ of, IT. 569; eight attributes of, II. 662; freed soul attaining distinctionless form of, II. 668; people deviating from their stages of life not entitled to the knowledge of, II. 764; attaining Him by a knower dying at night, IT. 831; sole cause of creation, maintenance and destruction of the universe, III. 18; both the material and effi- cient cause of the universe, III. 18; doctrine of causality of, IIT. 19; both transcendent and immanent, TIT, 19, 24; cause of the universe and its soul, IIT. 23; nature and qualities
of, ITI. 71; forms and manifestations of, ITI. 75; knowledge through scrip- ture alone, III. 110; criticism of the Advaita views of, ITI. 124; unlike Ramanuja, Nimbarka identifying it with Krsna, ITI. 180; Karana-rapa and Karya-ripa of, III. 183; wor- shipp ed, as a formless and distinc- tionless entity, III. 186; essential nature, attributes, and powers of, III. 216; forms and manifestations of, IIT. 220.
Brahmana-mendicant, II. 488. Brahma-sitras, interpretation of, II.
476.
Brahma-vidy&, exclusion of Siadras
from, I. 194; rights of gods in, I. 190.
Brahma-vaivarta-purana, IIT. 14. Brahma, legond regarding the name
‘Nimbarka’ given by, ITI. 4.
Brahmanda, proof of endlessness of,
III. 93.
Buddhi, absence of agentship of, I. 430. Buddhism, refutation of views of,
I. 348; doctrine of aggregation in, I. 348; doctrine of causality accord- ing to, I. 348; four schools of, I. 349; doctrine of momentariness in, I. 351, 353, 366; doctrine of destruction in, I, 356; salvation according to, I. 358; four-fold truths in, I. 358.
Brhadaéranyaka, II. 507; II. 542; II.
647.
Brhadaranyaka Upanigad, self accord-
ing to, I. 8.
Caitraratha, Ksatriya, I. 198f. Céndriyana, penance
practised in seeing & fallen Brahmana, II. 764.
Carana—meaning not work lent con-
duct; designation in the Veda of; metaphorical connotation of work; meaning good and bad deeds; TI. 487.
Cause—difference between effect and,
I. 326 fn.; relation between effect and, I. 326 fn.; conception of, I. 26; discourse on two souls entering into, I. 107ff.
Cakrayana, teaching of, I. 73f. Carvakas, regarding the relation bet-
ween the soul and the body the view of the, IT. 692.
Caturmasya, sacrifice, I. 5, 36. Chandogya, II. 525; meaning of, I.
77 fn,
Cit, nature, size and kind of, III. 78;
views of Nimbarka contrasted with those of Bhaskara on, III. 187; Baladeva's doctrine of, III, 226.
304
Citragupta, II. 493.
Consciousness, reality of, I. 362ff.
Creation, vital breath and the rest prior to, 1. 296; non-existence of effect prior to, I. 293ff.; nature of universe prior to, IT. 296; individual soul in relation to, I. 307; effected through mere wish of Brahman, I. 304f., 400f.; inconsistencies in atomic theory of, I. 3398. ; order of, I. 389ff., 40490.
Creator, conception of, I. 54; golden- coloured, II. 550.
Cyavana, Brahma-sage, I, 311.
power of,
Dahara, II. 673.
Dahara-vidya, II. 640.
Dandin, a legend regarding the name ‘Nimbarka’, given by, III. 4-5.
Daréanopésané, IT. 794.
Daéa-6lok!, a small work by Nimbarka,
II. 8. Daéshara-vrata, III. 274. Devakdi, ITI. 275. Devanadi, Sudaréana-dérama situated on the bank of, ITI. 1. Devacarya, III. 107. Devotion, a ge reme sadhana, III, 53. Dharmadasa, III. 178. Dharmadeva, III. 174. Dhrstadyumna, IT. 496. Dik, a presiding deity of organ of knowledge, ITI. 89. Dikg&, discourse on, III. 255. Divinity, powers of, I. 314f. Dogs, people attaining the birth of, . 486,
Dreams, TI. 506.
Dream-chariots, supreme soul creating, TI. 511.
Dream-cognitions, distinct from wak- ing co ene I. 364f.
Dream-object, created by the Lord alone, IT. 511, 515. :
Drona, for the destruction of, IT. 496.
Drysti-Sreti-vada, criticism of, ITI. 171.
individual soul creating,
Earth, origin of, I. 399; one of the first created elements by God, ITI. 98.
Effect, doctrine of pre-existence of,
छ I. ae ig 1 of, - 326 fn. egeling, . 3; FIT. 182.
Eka-jiva-vada, criticiam of, III. 87, 127
Ekamevadvitiyam, criticiem of, III. 166. (०६1०8, devotion of, IT. 589.
DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Elements, order of origin of, I. 389ff.; order of dissolution of, I. 402f.;
Entity, origin of, I. 360f.; remembrance of, 1. 360f.
Ether, Brahman denoted by, I. 71f., 156, 166, 168ff.; non-distinction of, I. 359f.; origin of, I. 389ff.; one of the five elements first created by God, IIT. 93.
Evolution, order of, I. 4071.
Fire, knowledge of, II. 493; six in Brhadaranyaka, II. 579; mystery of, II. 610; one of the five elements first created by God, III. 93.
Food not restricted to a knower of Brahman or to non-knower in event of danger of life, II. 748; no restric- tion in taking on the part of the person knowing vital-breath in time of danger to life, II. 746; same as earth, I. 399ff.
Forms, identity of Vidyas due to non- difference of, IT. 662.
Freed Soul, attaining relatives and so on at will, II. 869; having power of realizing its wishes, II. 874; declared as omniscient, II. 876; no mention of it as the creator in the texts designating creation, II. 877.
cent, five different views regarding,
Gantavya, five different views 76. garding, II. 856. Gargi, IT. 646.
Garuda, II. 850. Gaudapida-Kariké, III. 14. Gautama, father of Svetaketu,
II. 477; Jabala initiated and taught by, I. 202.
Gavamayana, IT. 590.
Gayatri, two-fold implication of, I. 76 fn., प.
Glory of Raédh&-Krsna, the central point of Nimb&rka’s doctrine, IIT. 6.
Ghytarnava, ITT. 92.
Gods, corporality of, I. 179ff.; worship of Brahman, 7. 179ff.; non-eternity of, 1. 183ff.; rights to Madhu-vidya on the part of, I. 190ff.
God possessed souls, IT. 616.
Golden-coloured creator, II. 714.
Gopiala-mantra, ITI. 256.
Gopala-pirva-tapant, IT. 659.
Gopéla-uttara-taépant-upanisad, IT, 681,
Grace, theory of, TIT. 105.
Gunas, three kinds of, I. 14.
Gurjara, III. 6, 7
GENERAL INDEX
Guru, intermediary between the in- dividual soul and the Lord, IIT. 55.
Guru, qualifications of, IIT. 118
Guripasatti, general nature of, ITT. 55 adhikarins of, III. 66; according to Sundarabhatte, general nature of, III. 117; successive stages of, III. 119.
Hamsavatara, Lord Vignu’s manifesta- tion as © swan, I. 6.
Haripriya, a name of Nimbarka, III. 3. See also Aruni.
Harivyasadeva, a staunch supporter of non-violence, IIT. 133
Havirdhina, a name of Nimbarka, III. 3. See also Aruni
a thes THI, 174 seven according to अपप, IT. 492.
Highest Person, II. 507; meditation on Highest Person as one’s own self, II. 786.
Highest Reality, according to Nim- barka Brahman, III. 18; not termed as Krsna by Bhaskara, III. 182; Ramanuja’s conception of it exactly similar to that of Nimbarka, III. 180.
Highest self, not subject to Karmas, TI. 520 and 522; the freed soul realizing itself as non-distinct from II. 863; the merging of the speech and the rest in IT. 826.
Hiranyagarbha, IT. 604.
Hita, II. 517.
Hoty, IT. 707.
Householder, ‘sacrifice study’ indicat- ing the stage of a, II. 731.
Householder, view of Jaimini on the adoption of the stage of a, II. 729.
Hrdyapeksaya, explanation of, I. 177ff.
Iksurasarnava, IIT. 92
Immortality, one standing on Brahman attaining, II. 731
Imperishable, declaration of YaAajiia- valkya regarding,
a ar eae the primary agent of,
6
Indicatory mark, a nirapeksa devotee better than a man belonging to an aé4rama on account of, II. 758.
Individual soul,—cause of bliss of, I. 58ff.; unification of, I. 64ff.; dis- tinct from ‘Inner controller’, ‘Invisi- ble’, ‘Imperishable’, and the rest, I. 121ff.; bearer of vital-breath, I. 147ff.; ‘Small one’ distinct from, I. 169ff.; different from Brahman, I, 208ff., 224ff., 2470, ; characteristic
305
marks of, 1, 246f.; creation of, I. 307; various forms of, I. 310f.
nature of, I. 407ff.; non-origin and eternity of, I. 408ff.; as knower and eternal consciousness, I. 411f.; scrip- tural mention of ‘departure’, etc of, I. 413ff.; atomicity of, I. 413ff.; size of, J. 413, 415; abode of, I. 416f.; relation between knowledge and, I. 423, 417f.; attribute of, I. 417, 419ff.; distinction between Brahman and, I. 419ff.; defects in doctrine of all-pervasiveness of, I. 420, 424f.; com) 2 between Buddhi and, I 424ff.; as agent, I. 426ff.; taking by, I. 428; non-restriction of actions on the part of, I. 429f.; compared with carpenter, 1. 423f.; control of agent- ship of, I. 433ff.; as 4 part of Brah- man, I, 486ff.; difference between Brahman and, I. 436ff.; reasons for injunction and prohibition on, I. 442f.; non-extension of, I. 443f.; non-acceptance of doctrines of all pervasiveness, etc. of, I. 444ff.; organs of, I. 450ff.; relation between sense-organs and, I. 4661. ; trans- migration from one body to another of, II. 475; an implement of enjoy- ment of gods, II. 484; entering into itself during deep sleep, II. 567; attaining Lord through the path beginning with light manifested in its own undeveloped and natural forms, II. 859; not only jiiana but also jnata, ITI. 27; when in bondage neither omniscient not omnipotent, IL. 29; oP art of Brahman due to upadhis, . 188.
Indra, vital-breath and, 1. 8lff.; dialogue between Pratardana and, I. 81ff.; Brahman denoted by, I.81ff
Indriya-nyasa, III. 267.
Inner Controller, II, 526, 538.
Jagannaétha, according to one account father’s name of Nimbarka, IIT. 2;
Jagadhari, birthplace of Purusottama- prasida (II), tir 174,
Jaimini, teacher, view of, I. 138; difference between individual soul and Brahman according to, I. 247ff., reference to, II. 672.
Jaina, IIT. 42.
Jainism, refutation of views of, I. 369; seven categories according I 369; PaSupata doctrine of, I, 376ff.
Jala-puja, III. 274
Jambu, one of the seven islands as the Bhirloka consisted of, III, 92
306
Janaka, II. 717.
Jana-loka, abode of Brahman’s sons, TIT. 93.
Janmastam!, one of the chief festivals of Vaisnavas, III. 274.
Jayanti, according to one account the mother’s name of Nimbarka, III. 2.
J&yanteya, a name of Nimbarka,
.3. See also Aruni.
Jabéla, II. 668.
Jahnavi, a ceremony on the birthday of, TIT. 274.
J&amadagnya-shina sacrifice, IT. 645.
Kadamba-puspa-pija, ITT. 274.
Kahola, answer to the question of, II. 647.
818, second kind of the acit, IIT. 94.
K&lamukhas, doctrine of, I. 376.
Kanada, doctrine of causality accord- ing to, I. 348.
K&ftcana-bhimi, ITT. 93.
K&pilas, doctrine of, I. 376.
Kapala-vedha, III. 272.
Kapila, same as Hiranyagarbha, I. 271; view of, I. 337, 339.
Kara-nyasa, ITI. 267.
Karma, Harivyésadeva substituting ‘aprakrta’ by, III. 134.
Karma-KaAanda, II. 678. #
Karma-mimémsa, study é6f Brahma- mimamaa and, I. 19.
Karma, relation of vidyé to, IIT. 46.
Karmas, beginninglessness of, I. 320; nature and fruits of, I. 5, 20; in case of exhaustion by enjoyment, TI, 485; the decay of, IT. 629; at the time of the soul’s separation from the final body all these decaying, TI. 636; contradictory views of Nimbarka and others regarding the decayance of II. 638; Vidya indepen- dent of and separate from, III. 48.
Karma-Yoga, IT Ei 101.
Karmangopasana, IT. 794.
Kargnajini, II. 487.
Ka&rtika or Vaisakha, in which ‘Nim- barka was born, III. 2.
Ké&rya-Brahman, II. 637; the soul at- taining the supreme Brahman through the, H. 637.
Kaéakrtma, teacher, individual soul denoting Brahman according to,
Kausitaki, IT. 590.
Kavasa, descending from, IT. 721. Tre 699.
Kesavakéémiribhatta, III. 122.
DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Kevala-matrkanyasa, III. 266.
Keéavadi—matrkinyasa, IIT. 266.
Knowledge, existence of, I. 418; attri- bute of soul, I. 423; austerity alone the second branch of, II. 731; attainment of Brahman through, II, 713; a student dwelling in the house of a preceptor being the third branch of, IT. 731; not subservient to work, II. 724; destruction of work by, II. 727; three branches of, IT. 731; sacrifice, study, and charity being the third branch of, IT. 731; attainable through the grace of scripture and spiritual teacher, etc., II. 742; usefulness of works for giving rise to, II. 743; depending on the co-operation of works, II. 743; combined with works fit for leading to salvation, II.743; calmness essential on the part of the seeker of, II. 745; taking of improper food by a knower of Brahman in case of obligation not detrimental to, II.747; taking of improper food obstructing the full manifestation of, II, 747; removal of obstructions giving rise to, II. 776; immediate cessation of all obstructions on the rise of, II. 795; chart of the sources of, III. 99.
Krsna, an abode of an infinite number of auspicious qualities, ITT. 25; know- able from scripture alone, III. 26.
Krta, name of die, I. 78.
Kesarodakarnava, ITI. 92.
Kstirarnava, IIT. 92.
Kumiaras, four in number produced by Brahma out of his mind, ITI. 5.
Kunti, sons of, I. 180.
Life, voluntary giving of it by a house- holder, II. 727.
Light, Brahman denoted by, I. 74ff., 206; origin of, I. 3978. ; conductor of the path towards salvation, II. 844.
Lokamati, mother’s name of Srinivasa, TIT. 67.
Lord, practice mode of worshipping the, ITI. 262; different from indi- vidual soul just as the sun differing from its image, ITI. 537; manifesting in different forms, IT. 566; two ways of meditating upon the, II. 631; everything being a manifestation of, TI. 656; identity of Sri with the, II. 666; different devotees following different paths coming to have different intuitions of the, II, 687; vision of the Lord depending on the grace of, IT. 690; contemplation on
GENERAL INDEX
Him as producing the sun from his eyes, IT. 790.
Madhava Mukunda, ITI. 177. Madhura-jalarnava, ITI. 92. Madhu-vidya, II. 640; import of, I. 193. Madhva-mukha-mardana, a work of Nimbarka, ITI. 12.
Madhyamikas, doctrine of, I. 349; refutation of views of, I. 367.
‘ha, month in which Srinivasa was born, III. 67.
Mahabharata, story of Matanga in, I. 377. ¢
Mahé-narayana, II. 663.
Mahar-loka, inhabited by Bhrgu and other saints, III. 93.
Maheévaras, doctrine of, I. 376, 379.
Majestic, Brahman as such, IT. 566.
Man, destiny of, III. 142.
Manana, III. 115.
Mandala-vidya, II. 615.
Mandukya-Upanisad, IT. 528.
Manu, IT. 630.
Matanga, story of, I. 377.
Matter, difference between world Brahman and world of, I. 120.
Maya, hindrance to salvation, I. 12; doctrine of, I. 377.
Maya-vada, criticism of, ITI. 167.
Meditation, three kinds of, I. 88; going to Brahman through, IT. 630; diver- sity of, II. 702; four ends of men arising from, II. 714; carried on in a sitting posture, II. 793; continuance of it until death, II. 794; the mode of, IIT. 50; posture of, ITI. 50; place of, III. 50; time of, fruits of, kinds of, TIT. 51; three kinds of, III. 52; adhikarins of, III. 53; Br&ébmanas living the life of, II. 722.
Mind, origin of knowledge and, I. 404; purified through the mutterings of prayers giving rise to knowledge, II. 755; relation between food and, I, 473. ;
Moksa, doctrine of Nimbarka of, III. 43; virodhins to, III. 68; Deva- c&rya’s views of, IIT. 113; Sundara- bhatta’s views of, III. 116; Hari- vyasadeva's views of, III, 138; views of Nimbarka 91 with those of Bhaskara of, ITI, 195; Baladeva’s views compared with Nimbarka’s on, ITI. 231.
Mokgadharma,' difference between spheres of Brahman and matter in, I. 120.
Moon, resort of people performing sacri- fices, II, 494; soul attaining, II. 495.
307
Mukundamashimé-stava, a work of
Purusottamaprasada, III, 175. Mukundaéaranamantra, III. 266. Mundaka, IT. 690.
Naciketas, dialogue between Yama and, I. 107., 222ff.; reference to, II. 776.
Naimisaranya, III. 6.
Neves meaning and duty of,
. 118.
Naisthika-brahmacarin, Nimbiarkalead- ing the life of, IIT. 6.
Name and form, evolution of, I. 470ff.
Nanda, III. 275.
Narada, Nimbarka’s guru but a tradi- tional figure, III. 5; Nimbarka call- ing him his guru to show the anti- quity of his own doctrine as well as to glorify it, III. 6; reference to, III. 616.
Niaraéyanaprasida, father of Puru- sottamaprasada (II), III. 174.
Niarayana-Sarovara, III. 6.
Nididhyasana, III. 115.
Nigada, a treatise on Veda by Srini - vasacarya, IIT. 66.
Nilakantha, IT. 665.
Nimbarka, author of Vedanta-parijata- saurabhe I. 3ff.; interpretation of Srutatvat according to, I. 53 fn.; re- ference to, II. 491.
Nirapekga devotee, never deviating from his vow and entering worldly life, II. 760; attaining knowledge through the special grace of Lord, II. 756.
Nirguna-vada, criticism of, IIT. 77,
Nirrti, a religious student deviating from vow of chastity sacrificing an ass to, II. 761.
Nirvisesa-vada, criticism of, III. 77, 124, 143.
Niyamananda, always referred to as such by his followers, III. 3.
Nrsimha-jayanti-vrata, III. 274.
Pada-nyasa, IIT. 267. Paftcadhati-stotram, a work of Viéva- carya, ITT. 69. Paficadhyay! treatise, Pasupati, I. 376. Paficigni-vidya, II. 579. Paficaratra doctrine, I. 383. Pajica - Samskara - pramana-vidhi, a work of Nimbarka, III. 12. Paficikarana, III. 91, 93. Para-paksagiri-vajra, III. 177. Paraéara, father of Vyasa, I. 2; II, 492. Parna-wood, II, 670; II. 715.
composed by
criticism of,
308
Paéu peti doctrine of, I. 376; body and sense organs of, I. 379; finitude and non-omniscience on the part of, I. 381; relation between Pradhéna etc. and, I. 378.
Paurnamaaa, I. 699.
Paiicajanya, ITT. 66.
P&icalas, II. 497.
P&Sipata vow, people practising this vow attaining salvation, II. 773.
Perception, external objects and, 1. 362, 365.
Person, हः ^ remacy of the, IT. 602.
Personal God, IIT. 18.
Pitha-nyasa, ITI. 267.
Plaksa, ITI. 92.
Plenty, desire for enquiry into the, II. 702.
Points of dissimilarity, between Nimbiarka and Bhaskara, III. 251; between Nimbarka and Srikantha, III, 252; between Nimbarka and Baladeva, III. 254; between Nim- barka and Ramfgnuja, ITI. 249.
Points of similarity, between Nim- barka and Ramanuja, III. 250; between Nimbaérka and Baladeva,
II. 255; between Nimbfarka and rikantha, III, 253; between Nim- barka and Bhaskara, ITI. 252.
Pradhana, doctrine ,of causality of, I. 325; common cause of world and, I. 326; cause of creation, I. 376; dis- tinct from ‘Invisible Imperishable’ and the rest, I.127; difference between self and, I. 42; distinct from ‘Inner controller’, I. 124; trans- formation of, 1.331; meaning and nature of, I. 42; doctrine of, 1, 41; distinct from cause of the world, I. 41; scriptural mention of, I. 212; knowability of, I. 220; ‘unmanifest’ as attribute of, I. 217, 220; depen- dence of, I. 218; doctrine of, I. 282; similar of body with reference to, I. 213; ‘Imperishable’ distinct from, I. 156; ‘support of heaven, earth’, eto. distinct from, I. 143; transforma- tion of, I. 308; non-dependence of, I. 330; absence of purpose for activity on f, I. 332; parts of, 1. 313; impossibility of activity on the part of, I. 328; impossibility arrangement of obj jects to be created on the part of, 1. 325; motion of, 1. 388; objects of inference, I. 146; absence of power of being a knower on the part of, I. 386; impossibility of being preponderant on the part of, I. 385.
DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Pradyumna, origin of, I. 383; III. 75.
Prajapati, doctrine of ‘Small one’ taught by, I. 170; creation of, I. 183; sense-organs created by, I. 468; II, 508; gods and demons offspring of, II, 585.
Prakrti, distinct from ‘Unborn one’, I. 226; reasons for existence of, I. 326; proximity between Puruga and, I. 334.
Pralaya, meaning of, I. 188.
Pranava, II. 588.
Prapatti, adhikarins of, IIT. 56; general nature and factors of, ITI. 54.
Prapatti-yoga, ITI. 103.
Prastava, meaning of, I. 73.
Prastotr, meaning of, I. 73.
Pratardana-vidya, I. 81; teaching of Indra to, I. 81.
Pratibimba-vada, criticism of, IIT. 84, 126; Purugottamaprasada’s (I) cri- ticism of, III, 157.
Pravahana, the King, II. 477.
Prayaja, IT. 715.
Pracinaéala, IT. 699.
Prakrta, discussion on, 111. 88; twenty- four principles of, IIT. 90.
Prana, difference between apina and, I. 76; having five different modes, TIT, 90.
Prana-vidya, II. 702. Pranagni-hotr, IT. 665. Prérabdha-Karmas, destruction of it through the grace of vidyé, II. 804. Praitah-Smaranastotra, a work of Nimbarka, ITT. 11.
Primary Inner Soul, IT. 657.
Puradas, IT. 645.
Purity of life, depending on the purity of food, IT. 747.
Purusa, connexion between sakti and, I. 383, proximity of Prakrti to, 334;
Puruga and Prakrti, Samkhya view of, I. 242; Simkhya interpretation of, I. 326; mover of Pradhina, I. 334; sense organ of, I. 383.
Purusottamaprasaéda Vaisnava (I), III. 140.
Purugottamapraséda Vaisnava (II), III. 174.
Purva-mimamsé, pre-requisite to the study of, I. 5, 19; Il. 678; IIT. 49. Pirva-tantra, II. 676; meaning of the Veda attainable by investigation into
the, IT. 724.
Rahasys-mimimsé, a book written by Nimbarka, ITI. 11.
Raikva, sage, I. 197f.
Rathoteava, ITI. 274.
GENERAL INDEX
Raurava, II. 492. Raémanuja, enquiry into Brahman according to, I. 19ff.; interpretation of‘ gati’ according to, I. 52; reference to, II. 491.
Ranayaniyas, II. 616.
Reals, trinity of, IIT. 71.
Reality, three kinds of, I. 11ff.
Release, meditation on Lord as having a form also leading. to, IT. 611; meditation leading to, II. 666.
Religion, Ramanuja’s system on it more intellectual while that of Nimbarka more devotional, IIT. 181.
Religious duties, enquiries into, I. 5.
Retah-sig-yoga, II. 504.
Rituals, discourse on, IIT, 248.
Resyadi-nyasa, III. 267.
‘Sa’, meaning Lord, II. 660.
Sacred Mantra, person entitled to, III. 122.
Sad-vidya, II. 651.
Saguna, II. 577.
Saiva, III. 42; refutation of views of, I. 376.
Sakti, doctrine of causality of, I. 382; origin of universe of, 1. 382; con- nexion between puruga and, I. 383; existence of intelligence, etc. in, I. 384; reference to, II. 644; IIT. 42.
Salvation, attainment of, I. 10; mean- ing of, I.11; means to, I. 222; man performing in a disinterested and unselfish spirit attaining, IIT. 279; dhyana most direct and imme- diate cause of, III.114; grace of Lord an essential prerequisite of, III. 115; obstacles preventing one from attaining, III. 58; attainable after the destruction of earthly body, III. 195; direct and indirect means to, II. 673; vidya alone being the cause of, IT. 683; vidya alone leading to, II. 740; no use of combination of vidya and karmas for leading to, II. 740; no fixed rule for attaining, II. 774; meaning attainment of similarity with Lord, II. 780; com- plete faith in scripture and spiritual teacher essential on the part of men desiring, III. 57.
Samacara, IT. 581.
ara, enquiry into Brahman ac- cording to, I.18; reference to, TI. 491.
Samkarsana, origin of, I. 383, 385; reference to, III. 75.
Sampita, meaning work, II. 485.
309
Samsara, I. 320.
Samvargavidya, meaning of, I. 78.
Samvyoma, II. 656.
Samyadvama, meaning of, I. 113.
Sanatkumara, II. 711.
Sankhavatara, III. 66.
Sannyasin, meaning and duty of, व. 117
Sarasvati, according to one account the mother’s name of Nimbarka, III. 2.
Sariraka-mimaémsa, III. 504.
Sarva-gatatma-vada, criticiam of, IIT.
beginninglessness of,
Sataudana, IT. 581.
Sattva-traividhya-vada, criticism of, III. 168.
Satya-loka, abode of Brahma, III. 93.
Saunaka-kaipoya, Brahmana, I. 199.
Saunska, the view that knowledge of the soul not created by the removal of faults upheld by, IT. 861.
Savisesa-nirvisesa-Sri-Krsna-Stavaraja, a hymn of twenty-five verses com- posed by Nimbarka, III. 10.
Sautrantikas, doctrine of, I. 349, 311.
Sayanoteava, III. 274.
‘S&’, meaning vidya, meaning para- éakti of the Lord, IT. 660.
Sadhanas, views of Nimbarka com- pared with those of Bhaskara’s on, III. 196; Purugottamaprasida’s (I) views on, IIT. 142; saha-karins to, ITI. 57; each of them leading to salvation in its own way, III. 61; Harivyasadeva’s views on, III. 139; Deviacarya’s views on, III. 114; variety of, III. 100.
Saktas, refutation of views of, I. 382.
Sémkhyas, salvation according to, I. 220; principles of, I. 234; relation between Brahman and world ac- cording to, I. 282; doctrine of causality according to, I. 308; doc- trine of creation according to, I. 326; inconsistencies in, I. 337.
Samkhya-Smyti, refutation of, I. 232;
¢ refutation of views of, I, 267.
Saémkhya view of creation, accepted by Nimbarka, ITI. 40.
Saémpradiyikas, one kind of Vaignava, Tit. 256.
Sandilya, II. 609.
Sandilya-vidya, IT. 640-42.
Sariraka-mimaimsi, composed by Vyésa, son of Paraéara, I.2; re- ference to, II. 573.
Sastra-yoni, interpretation of, I. 28,
310
Sastra, significance of, I. 78.
Scripture, source of Brahman, I. 27; nothing but the product of mature reflection and stained thinking of inspired prophets and sages, IIT. 26.
Sect, succession list of the high priests of the, IIT. 67.
Self, ‘Seeing’ as attribute of, T. 41; Pradhina differing from, I. 42.
Self-surrender, generating devotion, TIT. 61.
Sense-organs, origin of, I. 450; number of, 1.455; atomicity of, I. 457; activity of, I. 464; difference bet- ween vital-hreath and, I. 468; having unity with mind, TI. 809.
Setu-bandha, ITT. 6.
Siddhas, meaning and attributes of, I. 373,
Siddhanta-jahnavi, a work of Deva- earya, IIT. 108.
isya, qualifications of, III. 118.
Slayer of himself, no expiation purify- ing the man slaying himself, IT. 752.
Smrti, ‘non-contradiction of scripture and, IT. 639.
Soma, the sacrificing of animals to, TI. 503; the king, IT.-477, 482.
Soul, real nature of, I, 12; doctrine of size of, I. 373; specification of, I. 110; different from ‘Inner con- troller’, T. 125; doctrine of parts of, I. 374; remaining similar to the ether and the rest for short while, II. 501; attaining Brahman 10४ subjected to rebirth, ITI. 883; de- pending on the fifth ablation for obtaining a body, TT. 495; composed of all the elements, IT. 813; a self- conscious ego, TII.28; has five stages, IIT. 30; essentially atomic in size and ever remaining so, ITT. 32; two classes in bondage, TIT. 34; knowledge by nature, knower, doer, enjoyer and dependent on nature, III. 84; atomic in size, TIT. 84; endless in number, ITI. 84; “eh the substratum of Ajfiana, ITT.
Souls, infinite in number, and of two kinds, III. 32; different kinds of, III. 84; plurality of, IIT. 87.
Southern progress of the sun, dying when 8 knower attains Brahman, TI, 833.
Speech, created by Brahman, I. 31.
Srf, meaning the eternal consort of the Lord, IT. 663.
Sribhatta, III. 132.
Srigop&la-mantra-nyésa, III. 267.
22B
TIT. 84; |
DOCTRINES OF NIMBARKA AND HIS FOLLOWERS
Srikantha, enquiry into Brahman according to, I. 20f.; interpretation of ‘gati’ according to, I. 52.
Srikrsna-éarandpatti-stotra
n Srt- bhatta, IIT. 132.
of
Srikrsna - carana - bhisanastotra, by Anantaraima, III. 179. $ri-Mukunda-saranapAttistotra of
Anantarama, III. 179.
Sruty-anta-kalpavalli of Purusottama- prasdda Vaisnava (I), IIT. 140.
rutyanta-sura-druma of Purusottama- prasida (II), IIT. 174.
Sruti-siddhanta-ratnamala of Ananta- rama, ITI. 179.
Stava-paficaka-mahatmya of Srinivasa, III. 68.
Subtle body, disappearance of, IT. 637; disappearing only when the soul attains the Supreme Brahman, II. 637.
Sudarféana, २ name of Nimbarka, TII. 3. See also Aruni.
Siidras, rights to Brahmavidya on the part of, I. 194f.; prohibition for, I. 203.
Sulabha, female mendicant, I. 196 fn.
Sundarabhatta, ITI. 115.
Supreme soul, controller of the soul,
. W512.
Supreme Brahman, subjoct to no changes unlike individual souls, II. 548; designated a bridge, II. 561; meaning the self consisting of bliss, II. 604.
Supreme Deity, Vignu as such, ITT. 73.
Surarnava, IIT. 92.
Suryaputri or Yamuné, IIT. 2.
Svabhavika-bhedaébhedavada and Visigstadvaita-vida, III. 180; and Aupadhika-Bhedibheda-vada, ITI.
182; and Viéista-Sivadvaita-vada, III. 201; and Acintya-Bhedabheda- vada, III. 215.
Svanistha, devotion of, IT, 589.
Svar-loka, extending from the orb of the sun up to the Dhruva, IIT. 92.
vetaketu, reference to the story of,
1. 473 fn. a
Svetasvataras, II. 793.
Svetaévatara Upanisad, doctrine of causality according to, I. 26.
Tad-bhava-bhavitvat, interpretation of, I. 408.
Tad-daréanat, interpretation of, I. 423.
Taittirilya Upanisad, four sheaths mentioned in, I. 55f.
Tal-lingdt, explanation of, I. 405.
GENERAL INDEX
Tapoloka, abode of deified vairagins, TTI. 92.
Tattvamasi, interpretation of, IIT. 100.
Tattva-nyasa, ITI. 267.
Tattva-siddhanta-bindu, Anantarama, III. 179.
Telinga, birth-place of Nimbarka, III. 1
9 work of
Time, nature of, I. 16.
Trivikrama, epithet of Vignu, I. 178.
Tuccha, Purusottamaprasada (I) de- signating Brahman as such, IIT. 144.
Udgitha, meditation mentioned in the Chandogysa different from that men- tioned in the Vajasaneyaka, IT. 592.
Uktah, meaning of, I. 77 fn.
Uma, II. 665.
Unborn one, discussion about, I. 226ff.
Universe, pre-existent, nature of,
I, 296; recurrence of, I. 187ff.; com- mon cause of, I. 326ff.; not a part actually cut off from Brahman, TII.22; a transformation of Brahma, III. 19; generated by perception only, III. 171.
Upakoéala-vidya, II. 639, 401.
Upanisads, difference in respect of subject matter between Vedanta- Sutras and, I. 9 fn.; three in number according to Srikantha, two in number, according to Nimbarka, TI, 663.
Upadhi, Samkara’s doctrine of I. 43; sense of, I. 427; doctrine of, I. 443. Upasanas, various kinds of, III. 199,
213 Usasta, answer to the question of, TI. 647.
Vaibhasikas, doctrine of, I. 349, 361. Vaisakha, II. 2. See Kartika. Vaiéesikas, refutation of cause-effect theory of, I. 288; doctrine of cause and effect according to, I. 288; doctrine of causality of, I. 338; refutation of views of, I. 338. Vaisesika theory, reasons for unten- ability of, I. 338. Vaisnava religion, Nimbarka believed to be born to preach, III. 1. Vaisévanara, meditation on the, IT. 699. Vaisvanara-vidya, II. 576; IT. 641. Vaisvanara, meaning of, I. 132. Vaisyariipa, same as Viévaripu, I. 326, Vajasaneyaka, II. 576, 584, 661. vo great grandson of Krsna,
311
Vamadeva, knower like him taking rebirth, II. 777.
Vanamali Misra, III. 178.
Vanaprastha, meaning and duty of, 1. 117.
Varna-nyasa, II. 267.
Varuna, IT. 89; placed above lightning, II, 841.
VaSistha, devouring of hundred sons of, II. 644; power of cow of, I. 311.
Vasudeva, Lord, II. 509; I. 383, 385. same as Brahman, I. 18; IIT. 275, 75,
Vayu, Aditya, Asvini, Varuna, pre- siding deities of organ of knowledge, III. 89.
Veda, six parts of, I. 1; five kinds of texts included in, I. 35.
Vedanta, pre-requisite to study of, I.5, 19; departure taking place through a special view of the knower of, IT. 829.
Vedanta-Karikavali, a work of इव. nivasa, IIT. 68.
Vedinta-Kaustubha, composed by Srinivasa, I. 3; IIT. 67.
Vedanta-Kaustubha, origin of Brah- man according to, I. 23.
Vedanta-parijata-Saurabha, composed by Nimbarka, I.1; 9 short com- mentary on Brahma-Sitras by Nimbarka, ITT. 8.
Vedinta-mala, a work of Anantarama, III. 178.
Vedanta-séra-padya-malé, a work of Anantarama, ITI. 179.
Vedanta-siddhanta-Samgraha, III. 178
Vedianta-tattva-bodha, a work of Anantarama, III. 178; a work of Nimbarka, ITT. 12.
Vedantins, transformation of Brahman according to, 1.308; reasons for refuting views of opponents adduced by, I. 325.
Vedas, eternity of, I. 186; origin and nature of, I. 189; seeking to teach Brahman as all of them enjoin meditation on Brahman, IT. 577.
Vidura, son of Vyasa, I. 196.
Vidyé, destruction of praérabdha- karmas by, II.727; nature of, III. 46; adhikarins of, ITI. 48; the rise of, III. 50; teaching of, I. 363.
Viraja, II. 628.
Visistidvaita-vada, criticism of, ITI. 173.
Visnu-mantra, various kinds of, III. 256.
Visvacarya, III. 67.
Viévamitra, IT. 644,
disciple of Srinivasa,
Vital-breath, Brahman denoted by, |
I. 81, 205; significance of, I. 162; characteristic mark of, I. 246; view of Jaimini regarding, I. 247; origin
of, I. 458; air and function of sense- |
organs in relation to, I. 459; nature of, 1..469 ; five modes of, I. 460, 463; atomicity of, I. 464; difference between sense-organs and, I. 468; evolute of water, 1. 473.
Vivarta-vada, criticism of, III. 96; neither reason nor scripture sup- porting, III. 97; criticism of, III. 127.
Vivasvat, son of, II. 490. Void, criticism of doctrine of, I. 367. Vrndavana, believed to be the birth- place of Nimbarka, III. 2. Vyasa, author of Brahma-Sastras, ब, 2. eae dialogue between Jaigisa and, . 120.
Water, origin of, 1. 398f.; consisting of three elements, II. 477; bodies generating from, II. 496; dress of vital-breath, II.667; one of the ave ८ £ first created by God,
, 9३.
Whole, meditation on the, II. 701.
Works, making knowledge direct cause of the destruction of, II. 631; no time at the disposal of a parinistha devotee for performing ordinary, II. 736. ॥
World, cause of, I. 315ff.; Brahman creating it out of fullness of His nature, III.20; not absolutely separate and different from Brahman TIL. 22; fourteen in number, III. 92; not generated by perception, III. 173.
Yama, Naciketé instructed by, I. 107ff.; Naciketas taught by, I. 222ff.; reference to, II. 490.
Yaéoda, III. 275.
Yajiias, five kinds of, III. 257.
Yajfiavalkya, Maitreyi taught about soul by, I. 262; reference to, II. 646, 823.
Yogins, IT. 546.
Yoga-Smrti, refutation of, I.273f,. refutation of views of, I. 273f.
Yogacéra, refutations of doctrine of, I. 362ff.; doctrine of, I. 349.