SARVA-DARSANA-SAMGRAHA OR REVIEW OF THE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF HINDU PHILOSOPHY - 4

THE

SARVA-DARSANA-SAMGRAHA

OR

REVIEW OF THE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS

OF HINDU PHILOSOPHY.

BY

MiDHAVA iCHiBYA.

TRANSLATED BT

K B. COWELL,

68 THE SARVA-DARSANA-SANGRAHA.

"Non-entity is but another entity by some kind of

relation. Non-entity is but another entity, naught

else, for naught else is observed."

They deny any non-entity ulterior to entity. Nonentity

being cognisable by the sixth instrument of kno^fledge

(anupalabdhi), and knowledge being always an object

of inference, the absence of knowledge cannot be an object

of perception. If, again, any one who maintains non-entfty

to be perceptible should employ the above argument (from

the perceptions, I am ignorant, I know not myself, and

other things); it may be replied: "Is there, or is there

not, in the consciousness, I am ignorant, an apprehension

of self as characterised by an absence, and of knowledge

as the thing absent or non-existent ? If there is such

apprehension, consciousness of the absence of knowledge

will be impossible, as involving a contradiction. If there

is not, consciousness of the absence of knowledge, which

consciousness presupposes a knowledge of the subject and

of the thing absent, will not readily become possible. Inasmuch

(the $aftkaras continue) as the foregoing difficulties

do not occur if ignorance (or illusion) be entitative,

this consciousness (I am ignorant, I know not myself, and

other things) must be admitted to be conversant about an

entitative ignorance.

All this (the Eamanuja replies) is about as profitable as

it would be for a ruminant animal to ruminate upon ether ;

for aij entitative ignorance is not more supposable than

an absence of knowledge. For (we would ask), is any

self-conscious principle presented as an object and as a

subject (of ignorance) as distinct from cognition ? If it is

presented, how, since ignorance of a thing is terminable by

knowledge of its essence, can the ignorance continue ? If

none such is presented, how can we be conscious of an

ignorance which has no subject and no object ? If you say:

A pure manifestation of the spiritual essence is revealed

only by the cognition opposed to ignorance (or illusion),

and thus there is no absurdity in the consciousness of ignorTHE

RAMANUJA SYSTEM. '

69

ance accompanied with a consciousness of its subject

and object ; then we rejoin : Unfortunately for you, this

(consciousness of subject) must arise equally in the absence

of knowledge (for such we define illusion to be), notwithtanding

your assertion to the contrary. It must, therefore,

be acknowledged that the cognition, I am ignorant,

I know not myself and other things, is conversant about

an absence of cognition allowed by us both.

Well, then (the ^afikaras may contend), let the form of

cognition evidentiary of illusion, which is under disputation,

be inference, as follows : Eight knowledge must have

had for its antecedent another entity (sc. illusion), an entity

different from mere prior non-existence of knowledge,

which envelops the objects of knowledge, which is terminable

by knowledge, which occupies the place of knowledge,

inasmuch as it (the right knowledge) illuminates an

object not before illuminated, like the light of a lamp

springing up for the first time in the darkness. This argument

(we reply) will not stand grinding (in the dialectic

mill); for to prove the (antecedent) illusion, you will

require an ulterior illusion which you do not admit, and a

violation of your own tenets will ensue, while if you do

not so prove it, it may or may not exist ; and, moreover,

the example is incompatible with the argument, for it cannot

be the lamp that illumines the hitherto uuillumined

object, since it is knowledge only that illumines; and an

illumination of objects may be effected by knowledge

even without the lamp, while the light of the lamp is only

ancillary to the visual organ which effectuates the cognition,

ancillary, mediately through the dispulsion of the

obstruent darkness. We dismiss further prolixity.

The counterposition (of the Eamanujas) is as follows :

The illusion under dispute does not reside in Brahman,

who is pure knowledge, because it is an illusion, like the

illusion about nacre, &c. If any one ask: Has not the

self-conscious entity that underliea the illusion about

nacre, &c., knowledge only for its nature? they reply:

70 THE SARVA-DARSANA-SANGRAHA.

Do not start such difficulties ; for we suppose that consciousness

by its bare existence has the nature of creating

conformity to the usage about (i.e. t the name and notion

of) some object ; and such consciousness, also called knowledge,

apprehension, comprehension, intelligence, &c., constitutes

the soul, or knowledge, of that which acts and

knows. If any one ask: How can the soul, if it consists

of cognition, have cognition as a quality? they

reply: This question is futile; for as a gem, the sun,

and other luminous things, existing in the form of light,

are substances in which light as a quality inheres for

light, as existing elsewhere than in its usual receptacle,

and as being a mode of things though a substance, is still

styled and accounted a quality derived from determination

by that substance, so this soul, while it exists as a selfluminous

intelligence, has also intelligence as its quality.

Accordingly the Vedic texts : A lump of salt is always

within and without one entire mass of taste, so also this

soul is within and without an entire mass of knowledge ;

Herein this person is itself a light ; Of the knowledge of

that which knows there is no suspension ; He who knows,

smells this ; and so also, This is the soul which, consisting

of knowledge, is the light within the heart; For this person

is the 'seer, the hearer, the taster, the smeller, the

thinker, the understander, the doer ; The person is knowledge,

and the like texts.

It is not to be supposed that the Veda also affords

evidence of the existence of the cosmical illusion, in the

text, Enveloped in untruth (anrita) ; for the word untruth

(anrita) denotes that which is other than truth (rita).

The word rita has a passive sense, as appears from the

words, Drinking rita. Rita means works done without

desire of fruit ; having as its reward the attainment of the

bliss of the Supreme Spirit through his propitiation. In

the text in question, untruth (anrita) designates the scanty

fruit enjoyed during transmigratory existence as opposed to

that (which results from propitiation of the Supreme Spirit),

THE RAMANUJA SYSTEM. 71

which temporal fruit is obstructive to the attainment of

supreme existence (brahman) ; the entire text (when the ,

context is supplied) being : They who find not this supreme

sphere (brahma-loka) are enveloped in untruth. In

iuch texts, again, as Let him know illusion (mdyd) to be

the primary emanative cause (prakriti), the term (mdyd)

designates the emanative cause, consisting of the three

" cords

"

(guna), and creative of the diversified universe.

It does not designate the inexplicable illusion (for which

the fSaftkaras contend).

In such passages as, By him the defender of the body of

the child, moving rapidly, the thousand illusions (mdyd) of

the barbarian were swooped upon as by a hawk, we observe

that the word "illusion" (mdyd) designates the really

existent weapon of a Titan, capable of projective diversified

creation. The Veda, then, never sets out an inexplicable

illusion. Nor (is the cosmical illusion to be inferred from

the "grand text," That art thou), inasmuch as the words,

That art thou, being incompetent to teach unity, and indicating

a conditionate Supreme Spirit, we cannot understand

by them the essential unity of the mutually exclusive

supreme and individual spirits ; for such a supposition (as

that they are identical) would violate the law of excluded

middle. To explain this. The term That denotes the

Supreme Spirit exempt from all imperfections, of illimitable

excellence, a repository of innumerable auspicious

attributes, to whom the emanation, sustentation, retractation

of the universe is a pastime ;

x such being the Supreme

Spirit, spoken of in such texts as, That desired, let me be

many, let me bring forth. Perhaps the word Thou, referring

to the same object (as the word That), denotes the

Supreme Spirit characterised by consciousness, having all

individual spirits as his body; for a "reference to the

same object" designates one thing determined by two

modes. Here, perhaps, an Advaita-vadin may reply : Why

1 Of. the dictum of Herakleitus : p. 803) : Man is made to be the

Making worlds is Zeus's pastime ; plaything of God.

and th*t of Plato (Law*, Book vii.

72 THE SARVA-DARSANA-SANGRAHA.

may not the purport of the reference to the same object

in the words, That art thou, be undifferenced essence, the

'unity of souls, these words (That and thou) having a

(reciprocally) implicate power by abandonment of opposite

portions of their meaning ; as is the case in the phrase^,

This is that Devadatta. In the words, This is that Devadatta,

we understand by the word That, a person in relation

to a different time and place, and by the word This,

a person in relation to the present time and place. That

both are one and the same is understood by the form of

predication ("reference to the same object"). Now as

one and the same thing cannot at the same time be known

as in different times and places, the two words (This and

That) must refer to the essence (and not to the accidents

of time and place), and unity of essence can be understood.

Similarly in the text, That art thou, there is implicated

an indivisible essence by abandonment of the contradictory

portions (of the denotation), viz., finite cognition (which

belongs to the individual soul or Thou), and infinite cognition

(which belongs to the real or unindividual soul).

This suggestion (the Eamanujas reply) is unsatisfactory,

for there is no opposition (between This and That) in the

vexample (This is that Deva-datta), and consequently not

the smallest particle of

"

implication

"

(lakshand, both This

and That being used in their denotative capacity). The

connection of one object with two times past and present

involves no contradiction. And any contradiction supposed

to arise from relation to different places may be

avoided by a supposed difference of time, the existence in

the distant place being past, and the existence in the near

being present. Even if we concede to you the "implication,"

the (supposed) contradiction being avoidable by supposing

one term (either That or Thou) to be implicative, it

is unnecessary to admit that both words are implicative.

Otherwise (if we admit that both words are implicative),

if it be granted that the one thing may be recognised,

with the concomitant assurance that it differs as this and

THE RAMANUJA SYSTEM. 73

as that, permanence in things will be inadmissible, and

the Buddhist assertor of a momentary flux of things will

be triumphant.

We have, therefore (the Eamanujas continue), laid it

flown in this question that there is no contradiction in the

identity of the individual and the Supreme Spirit, the

individual spirits being the body and the Supreme Spirit

the soul. For the individual spirit as the body, and therefore

a form, of the Supreme Spirit, is identical with the

Supreme Spirit, according to another text, "Who abiding

in the soul, is the controller of the soul, who knows the

soul, of whom soul is the body.

Your statement of the matter, therefore, is too narrow.

ALL words are designatory of the Supreme Spirit. They

are not all synonymous, a variety of media being possible;

thus as all organised bodies, divine, human, &c., are forms

of individual spirits, so all things (are the body of Supreme

Spirit), all things are identical with Supreme Spirit.

Hence

God, Man, Yaksha, PLSacha, serpent, Eakshasa, bird,

tree, creeper, wood, stone, grass, jar, cloth, these and all

other words, be they what they may, which are current

among mankind as denotative by means of their base andits

suffixes, as denoting those things, in denoting things of

this or that apparent constitution, really denote the individual

souls which assumed to them such body, and the

whole complexus of things terminating in the Supreme

Spirit ruling within. That God and all other words whatsoever

ultimately denote the Supreme Spirit is stated in

the Tattvamuktavali and in the Chaturantara

"

God, and all other words, designate the soul, none else

than That, called the established entity,

"Of this there is much significant and undoubted

exemplification in common speech and in the

Veda;

"Existence when dissociated from spirit is unknown;

in the form of gods, mortals, and the rest

74 THE SARVA-DARSANA-SANGRAHA.

"When pervading the individual spirit, the infinite

has made a diversity of names and forms in the

world/'

In these words the author, setting forth that all words,

God, and the rest, designate the body, and showing in th

words,

" No unity in systems," &c., the characteristic of

body, and showing in the words,

" By words which are substitutes

for the essence of things," &c., that it is established

that nothing is different from the universal Lord, lays down

in the verses, Significant of the essence, &c., that all words

ultimately designate the Supreme Spirit. All this may be

ascertained from that work. The same matter has been

enforced by Eamanuja in the Vedartha-safigraha, when

analysing the Vedic text about names and forms.

Moreover, every form of evidence having some determinate

object, there can be no evidence of an undetermined

(unconditionate) reality. Even in non-discriminative perception

it is a determinate (or conditioned) thing that is

cognised. Else in discriminative perception there could

not be shown to be a cognition characterised by an already

presented form. Again, that text, That art thou, is not

sublative of the universe as rooted in illusion, like a sentence

declaratory that what was illusorily presented, as a

snake is a piece of rope ; nor does knowledge of the unity

of the absolute and the soul bring (this illusory universe)

to an end ; for we have already demonstrated that there

is no proof of these positions.

Nor is there an absurdity (as the 6afckaras would say),

on the hypothesis enunciatory of the reality of the universe,

in affirming that by a cognition of one there is a cognition

of all things : for it is easily evinced that the mundane

egg, consisting of the primary cause (prakriti), intellect,

self-position, the rudimentary elements, the gross elements,

the organs (of sense and of action), and the fourteen worlds,

and the gods, animals, men, immovable things, and so

forth, that exist withitt it, constituting a complex of all

forms, is all an effect, and that from the single cognition

THE RAMANUJA SYSTEM. 75

of absolute spirit as its (emanative) cause, when we recognise

that all this is absolute spirit (there being a tautology

between cause and effect), there arises cognition of all

things, and thus by cognition of one cognition of all. Betides,

if all else than absolute spirit were unreal, then all

being non-existent, it would follow that by one cognition

all cognition would be sublated.

It is laid down (by the Eamanujas) that retractation

into the universe (pralaya) is when the universe, the body

whereof consists of souls and the originant (prakriti),

returns to its imperceptible state, unsusceptible of division

by names and forms, existing as absolute spirit the emanative

cause ; and that creation (or emanation) is the gross

or perceptible condition of absolute spirit, the body whereof

is soul and not soul divided by diversity of names and

forms, in the condition of the (emanative) effect of absolute

spirit. In this way the identity of cause and effect laid

down in the aphorism (of Vyasa) treating of origination,

is easily explicable. The statements that the Supreme

Spirit is void of attributes, are intended (it is shown) to

deny thereof phenomenal qualities which are to be escaped

from by those that desire emancipation. The texts which

deny plurality are explained as allowed to be employed

for the denial of the real existence of things apart from

the Supreme Spirit, which is identical with all things, it

being Supreme Spirit which subsists under all forms as

the soul of all, all things sentient and unsentient being

forms as being the body of absolute Spirit.

1

What is the principle here involved, pluralism or monism,

or a universe both one and more than one? Of these

alternatives monism is admitted in saying that Supreme

Spirit alone subsists in all forms as all is its body ; both

unity and plurality are admitted in saying that one only

Supreme Spirit subsists under a plurality of forms diverse

as soul and not-soul ; and plurality is admitted in saying

1 " Whose body nature is, and God the soul" Pope.

76 THE SARVA-DARSANA-SANGRAHA.

that the essential natures of soul, not-soul, and the Lord,

are different, and not to be confounded.

Of these (soul, not-soul, and the Lord), individual

spirits, or souls, consisting of uncontracted and unlimited

pure knowledge, but enveloped in illusion, that is, in

works from all eternity, undergo contraction and expansion

of knowledge according to the degrees of their merits.

Soul experiences fruition,. and after reaping pleasures and

pains proportionate to merits and demerits, there ensues

knowledge of the Lord, or attainment of the sphere of the

Lord. Of things which are not-soul, and which are objects

of fruition (or experience of pleasure and pain), unconsciousness,

unconduciveness to the end of man, susceptibility

of modification, and the like, are the properties.

Of the Supreme Lord the attributes are subsistence, as

the internal controller (or animator) of both the subjects

and the objects of fruition ; the boundless glory of illimitable

knowledge, dominion, majesty, power, brightness, and

the like, the countless multitude of auspicious qualities ;

the generation at will of all things other than himself,

whether spiritual or non-spiritual; various and infinite

adornment with unsurpassable excellence, singular, uniform,

and divine.

Vefikata-ndtha has given the following distribution of

things :

"Those who know it have declared the principle to

be twofold, substance and non-substance ;

" Substance is dichotomised as unsentient and sentient ;

the former being the unevolved (avyakta), and

time.

" The latter is the ' near '

(pratyafy and, the * distant '

(jpardfc);.the 'near' being twofold, as either soul

or the Lord ;

"The 'distant* is eternal glory and intelligence; the

other principle some have called the unsentient

primary."

Of thesesTHE

RAMANUJA SYSTEM. 77

"Substance undergoes a plurality of conditions; the

originant is possessed of goodness and the other

cords ;

" Time has the form of years, &c. ; soul is atomic and

cognisant; the other spirit is the Lord ;

"Eternal bliss has been declared as transcending the

three cords (or modes of phenomenal existence),

and also as characterised by goodness ;

" The cognisable manifestation of the cognisant is intelligence;

thus are the characteristics of substance

summarily recounted."

Of these (soul, not-soul, and the Lord), individual

spirits, called souls, are different from the Supreme Spirit

and eternal. Thus the text: Two birds, companions,

friends, &c. (Big -Veda, i. 164, 20). Accordingly it is

stated (in the aphorisms of Kanada, iii. 2, 20), Souls are

diverse by reason of diversity of conditions. The eternity

of souls is often spoken of in revelation

"The soul is neither born, nor dies, nor having been

shall it again cease to be ;

"

Unborn, unchanging, eternal, this ancient of days is

not killed when the body is killed

"

(Bhagavadgita,

ii. 20).

Otherwise (were the soul not eternal) there would follow

a failure of requital and a fruition (of pleasures and pains)

unmerited. It has accordingly been said (in the aphorisms

of Gautama, iii. 25): Because no birth is seen of one who

is devoid of desire. That the soul is atomic is well known

from revelation

"If the hundredth part of a hair be ir

divided a hundred times,

" The soul may be supposed a part

capable of infinity."

And again

" Soul is of the size of the e

wheel. Spirit is to be reco

as atomic."

78 THE SARVA-DARSANA-SANGRAHA.

The visible, unsentient world, designated by the term

not-soul, is divided into three, as the object, the instrument,

or the site of fruition. Of this world the efficient

and substantial cause is the Deity, known under the

names Purushottama (best of spirits), Vasudeva (a patrony-*

mic of Krishna), and the like.

" Vasudeva is the supreme absolute spirit, endowed with

auspicious attributes,

" The substantial cause, the efficient of the worlds, the

animator of spirits/'

This same Vasudeva, infinitely compassionate, tender to

those devoted to him, the Supreme Spirit, with the purpose

of bestowing various rewards apportioned to the

deserts of his votaries in consequence of pastime, exists

under five modes, distinguished as

" adoration

"

(arck&\

"emanation" (vibhava), "manifestation" (vy&ha), "the

subtile" (stilcshma), and the "internal controller." (i.)

"Adoration" is images, and so forth. (2.) "Emanation"

is his incarnation, as Kama, and so forth. (3.) His " manifestation"

is fourfold, as Vasudeva, Saftkarshana, Pradyumna,

and Aniruddha. (4.)

" The subtile

"

is the

entire Supreme Spirit, with six attributes, called Vasudeva.

His attributes are exemption from sin, and the

rest. That he is exempt from sin is attested in the Vedic

text: Passionless, deathless, without sorrow, without

hunger, desiring truth, true in purpose. (5.) The "internal

controller," the actuator of all spirits, according to

the text : Who abiding in the soul, rules the soul within.

When by worshipping each former embodiment a mass of

sins inimical to the end of the soul (i.e. t emancipation)

have been destroyed, the votary becomes entitled to practise

the worship of each latter embodiment It has, therefore,

been said

"

Vasudeva, in his tenderness to his votaries, gives, as

desired by each,

"According to the merits of his qualified worshippers,

large recompense.

THE RAMANUJA SYSTEM. 79

" For that end, in pastime he makes to himself his five

embodiments ;

"

Images and the like are ' adoration ;

*

his incarnations

are * emanations ;

'

"As Saftkarshafia, Vasudeva, Pradyumna, Aniruddha,

his manifestation is to be known to be fourfold ;

' the subtile '

is the entire six attributes ;

" That self-same called Vasudeva is styled the Supreme

Spirit ;

" The internal controller is declared as residing in the

soul, the actuator of the soul,

"Described in a multitude of texts of the Upanishads,

such as ' Who abiding in the soul/

" By the worship of c adoration/ a man casting off his

defilement becomes a qualified votary ;

"By the subsequent worship of 'emanation/ he becomes

qualified for the worship of ' manifestation ;

'

next,

" By the worship thereafter of ' the subtile/ he becomes

able to behold the ' internal controller/

"

The worship of the Deity is described in the. PaJacharatra

as consisting of five elements, viz., (i.) the access, (2.)

the preparation, (3.) oblation, (4.) recitation, (5.) devotion.

Of these, access is the sweeping, smearing, and so forth,

of the way to the temple. The preparation is the provision

of perfumes, flowers, and the like appliances of worship.

Oblation is worship of the deities. Recitation is the

muttered ejaculation of sacred texts, with attention to

what they mean, the rehearsal of hymns and lauds of

Vishnu, the commemoration of his names, and study of

institutes which set forth ihe truth. Devotion is meditation

on the Deity. When the vision of the visible world

has been brought to a close by knowledge accumulated by

the merit of such worship, the infinitely compassionate

Supreme Spirit, tender to his votaries, bestows upon the

votary devoted to his lord and absorbed in his lord, his

own sphere infinite and endless, marked by consciousness

So THE SARVA-DARSANA-SANGRAHA.

of being like him, from which there is no future return

(to the sorrows of transmigratory existence). So the

traditionary text

"When they have come to me, the high-souled no

longer undergo future birth, a receptacle of paiift

transitory, having attained to the supreme consummation.

"

Vasudeva, having found his votary, bestows upon him

his own mansion, blissful, undecaying, from whence

there is no more return."

After laying up all this in his heart, leaning upon the

teaching of the great Upanishad, and finding the gloss on

the Vedanta aphorisms by the venerated Bodhayanacharya

too prolix, Eamanuja composed a commentary on the

^arfrakamfmansa (or Vedanta theosophy). In this the

sense of the first aphorism, "Then hence the absolute

must be desired to be known," is given as follows : The

word then in this aphorism means, after understanding the

hitherto-current sacred rites. Thus the glossator writes :

" After learning the sacred rites/' he desires to know the

absolute. The word hence states the reason, viz., because

one who has read the Veda and its appendages and understands

its meaning is averse from sacred rites, their

recompense being perishable. The wish to know the

absolute springs up in one who longs for permanent

liberation, as being the means of such liberation. By the

word absolute is designated the Supreme Spirit, from whom

are essentially excluded all imperfections, who is of illimitable

excellence, and of innumerable auspicious attributes.

Since then the knowledge of sacred rites and the performance

of those rites is mediately through engendering dispassionateness,

and through putting away the defilement

of the understanding, an instrument of the knowledge of

the absolute; and knowledge of sacred rites and knowledge

of the absolute being consequently cause and effect,

the former and the latter Mimansa constitute one system

of institutes. On this account the glossator has described

THE RAMANUJA SYSTEM. 81

this system as one with the sixteenfold system of Jaimini.

That the fruit of sacred rites is perishable, and that of the

knowledge of the absolute imperishable, has been laid down

in virtue of Vedic texts, such as : Scanning the spheres

gained by rites, let him become passionless ; Not wrought

by the rite performed, accompanied with inference and disjunctive

reasoning. Revelation, by censuring each when

unaccompanied by the other, shows that it is knowledge

together with works that is efficacious of emancipation, in

the words : Blind darkness they enter who prefer illusion,

and a greater darkness still do they enter who delight in

knowledge only ; knowledge and illusion, he who knows

these both, he passing beyond death together with illusion,

tastes immortality by knowledge. Conformably it is said

in the Pancharatra-rahasya

"That ocean of compassion, the Lord, tender to his

votaries,

"For his worshipper's sake takes five embodiments

upon him.

" These are styled Adoration, Emanation, Manifestation,

the Subtile, the Internal Controller,

"

Eesorting whereto souls attain to successive stages of

knowledge.

"As a man's sins are worn away by each successive

worship,

"He becomes qualified for the worship of each next

embodiment.

" Thus day by day, according to religion, revealed and

traditional,

" By the aforesaid worship Vasudeva becomes propitious

to mankind.

"Hari, when propitiated by devotion in the form of

meditation,

" At once brings to a close that illusion which is the

aggregate of works.

"Then in souls the essential attributes, from which

transmigration has vanished,

F

82 THE SARVA-DARSANA-SANGRAHA.

"Are manifested, auspicious, omniscience, and the

rest.

" These qualities are common to the emancipated spirits

and the Lord,

" Universal efficiency alone among them is peculiar to

the Deity.

"

Emancipated spirits are ulterior to the infinite absolute,

which is unsusceptible of aught ulterior;

"

They enjoy all beatitudes together with that Spirit."

It is therefore stated that those who suffer the three

kinds of pain must, for the attainment of immortality,

investigate the absolute spirit known under such appellations

as the Highest Being. According to the maxim : The

base and the suffix convey the meaning conjointly, and of

these the meaning of the suffix takes the lead, the notion

of desire is predominant (in the word jijftdsitavya), and

desired knowledge is the predicate (in the aphorism, Then

hence the absolute must be desired to be known). Knowledge

is cognition designated by such terms as meditation,

devotion; not the merely superficial knowledge derived

from verbal communication, such being competent to any

one who hears a number of words and understands the

force of each, even without any predication ; in conformity

with such Vedic texts as : Self indeed it is that is to be

seen, to be heard, to be thought, to be pondered ; He should

meditate that it is self alone ;

- Having known, let him

acquire excellent wisdom ; He should know that which

is beyond knowledge. In these texts " to be heard "

is

explanatory, hearing being understood (but not enounced)

in the text about sacred study (viz., shadangena vedo 'dhyeyo

jfteyaScha, the Veda, with its six appendages, is to be

studied and known) ; so that a man who has studied the

Veda must of his own accord, in acquiring the Veda and

its appendages, engage in "

hearing," in order to ascertain

the sense by examining it and the occasion of its enouncexnent.

The term "to be thought" (or "to be inferred")

is also explanatory, cogitation (or inference) being underTHE

RAMANUJA SYSTEM. 83

stood as the complementary meaning of hearing, according

to the aphorism: Before its signification is attained the

system is significant. Meditation is a reminiscence consisting

of an unbroken succession of reminiscences like a

Utream of oil, it being revealed in the text, in continuity

of reminiscence there is a solution of all knots, that

it is unintermittent reminiscence that is the means of

emancipation. And this reminiscence is tantamount to

intuition.

" Cut is his heart's knot, solved are all his doubts,

" And exhausted are all his works, when he has seen

the Highest and Lowest/'

because he becomes one with that Supreme. So also in

the words, Self indeed is to be seen, it is predicated of this

reminiscence that it is an intuition. Eeminiscence becomes

intuitional through the vivacity of the representations.

The author of the Vakya has treated of all this in

detail in the passage beginning Cognition is meditation.

The characters of this meditation are laid out in the text :

This soul is not attainable by exposition, nor by wisdom,

nor by much learning ; Whom God chooses by him God

may be attained. To him this self unfolds its own

nature. For it is that which is dearest which is choiceworthy,

and as the soul finds itself most dear, so the Lord

is of Himself most dear, as was declared by the Lord

Himself

" To them always devoted, who worship me with love,

"I give the devotion of understanding whereby they

come to me."

And again

"That Supreme Spirit, Arjuna, is attainable by faith

unwavering."

But devotion (or faith) is a kind of cognition which

admits no other motive than the illimitable beatitude, and

is free from all other desires ; and the attainment of this

devotion is by discrimination and other means. As is

said by the author of the Vakya: Attainment thereof

4

' THE SARVA-DARSANA-SANGRAHA.

results from discrimination (viveka), exemption (vimofta),

practice (abhydsa), observance (kriyd), excellence (kalydna),

freedom from despondency (anavasdda), satisfaction (anuddharsha),

according .to the equivalence (of the definition),

and the explication (of these terms). Of these meanfc,

discrimination is purity of nature, resultant* from eating

undefiled food, and the explication (of discrimination) is

From purity of diet, purity of understanding, and by

purity of understanding the unintermittent reminiscence.

Exemption is non-attachment to sensuous desires ; the

explication being, Let the quietist meditate. Practice is

reiteration ; and of this a traditionary explication is quoted

(from the Bhagavad-gfta) by (Eamanuja) the author of

the commentary : For ever modified by the modes thereof.

Observance is the performance of rites enjoined in revelation

and tradition according to one's ability ; the explication

being (the Vedic text), He who has performed rites

is the best of those that know the supreme. The excellences

are veracity, integrity, clemency, charity (almsgiving),

and the like ; the explication being, It is attained

by veracity. Freedom from despondency is the contrary

of dejection ; the explication being, This soul is not attained

by the faint-hearted. Satisfaction is the contentment

which arises from the contrary of dejection ; the explication

being, Quiescent, self-subdued. It has thus been

shown that by the devotion of one in whom the darkness

has been dispelled by the grace of the Supreme Spirit,

propitiated by certain rites and observances, which devotion

is meditation transformed into a presentative manifestation

of soul, without ulterior motive, as incessantly

and inimitably desired, the sphere of the Supreme Spirit

(Vaikuntha) is attained. Thus Yamuna says : Attainable

by the final and absolute devotion of faith in one internally

purified by both (works and knowledge) ; that is, in one

whose internal organ is rectified by the devotion of works

and knowledge,

In anticipation of the inquiry, But what absolute is to

THE RAMANUJA SYSTEM. 85

be desired to be known ? the definition is given (in the

second aphorism). From which the genesis, and so forth,

of this. The genesis, and so forth, the creation (emanation),

sustentation, and retractation (of the universe).

She purport of the aphorism is that the emanation, sustentation,

and retractation of this universe, inconceivably

multiform in its structure, and interspersed with souls,

from Brahma to a tuft of grass, of determinate place,

time, and fruition, is from this same universal Lord, whose

essence is contrary to all qualities which should be escaped

from, of illimitable excellences, such as indefeasible volition,

and of innumerable auspicious attributes, omniscient,

and omnipotent.

In anticipation of the further inquiry, What proof is

there of an absolute of this nature ? It is stated that the

system of institutes itself is the evidence (in the third

aphorism): Because it has its source from the system.

To have its source from the system is to be that whereof

the cause or evidence is the system. The system, then, is

the source (or evidence) of the absolute, as being the cause

of knowing the self, which is the cause of knowing the

absolute. Nor is the suspicion possible that the absolute

may be reached by some other form of evidence. For

perception can have no conversancy about the absolute

since it is supersensible. Nor can inference, for -the

illation, the ocean, and the rest, must have a maker, because

it is an effect like a water-pot, is worth about as

much as a rotten pumpkin. It is evinced that it is such

texts as, Whence also these elements, that prove the

existence of the absolute thus described.

Though the absolute (it may be objected) be unsusceptible

of any other kind of proof, the system, did it not

refer to activity and cessation of activity, could not posit

the absolute aforesaid. To avoid by anticipation any

queries on this point, it is stated (in the fourth aphorism) :

But that is from the construction. This is intended to

exclude the doubt anticipated. The evidence, then, of the

36 THE SARVA-DARSANA-SANGRAHA.

System is the only evidence that can be given' of the

absolute. Why ? Because of the construction, that is

because the absolute, that is, the highest end for man, is

construed as the subject (of the first aphorism, viz., Then

tiience the absolute is to be desired to be known). Mor3-

over, a sentence which has nothing to do either with activity

or with cessation of activity is not therefore void of

purpose, for we observe that sentences merely declaratory

of the nature of things, such as, A son is born to you, This

is not a snake, convey a purpose, viz., the cessation of joy

or of fear. Thus there is nothing unaccounted for. We

have here given only a general indication. The details

may be learnt from the original (viz., Eamanuja's Bhashya

on the Vedanta aphorisms) ; we therefore decline a further

treatment, apprehensive of prolixity; and thus all is

clear.1 A. E. G.

1 For "further details respecting tra-muJctdvalt was printed in the

Riiintlnuja and his system, see Wil- Pandit for September 1871; but the

son's Works, vol. i. pp. 34-46 ; and lines quoted in p. 73 are not found

Banerjea's Dialogues, ix. The Tat- there.

CHAPTER V.

THE SYSTEM OF PUHNA-PKAJNA.

(Piirna-prajna, or Madhva) rejected this

same Kamanuja system, because, though like his own

views, it teaches the atomic size of the soul, the servitude

of the soul, the existence of the Veda without any personal

author, the authenticity of the Veda, the self-evidence

of the instruments of knowledge, the triad of evidences,

dependency upon the Pancha-ratra, the reality of plurality

in the universe, and so forth, yet, in accepting three

hypotheses as to reciprocally contradictory divisions, &c.,

it coincides with the tenets of the Jainas. Showing that

He is soul, That art thou, and a number of other texts of

the Upanishads bear a different import under a different

explanation, he set up a new system under the guise of a

new explication of the Brahma-Mimansa (or Vedanta).

For in his doctrine ultimate principles are dichotomised

into independent and dependent; as it is stated in the

Tattva-viveka :

"Independent and dependent, two principles are received

;

" The independent is Vishnu the Lord, Exempt from

imperfections, and of inexhaustible excellences."

Here it will be urged (by the Advaita-vadins) : Why

predicate of the absolute these inexhaustible excellences

in the teeth of the Upanishads, which lay down that the

absolute principle is void of homogeneity and heterogeneity,

and of all plurality in itself? To this be it

88 THE SARVA-DARSANA-SANGRAHA.

replied: Not so, for these texts of the Upanishads, as

contradictory of many proofs positive of duality, cannot

afford proof of universal unity ; perception, for example,

in the consciousness, This is different from that, pronounces

a difference between things, blue and yellow, and so fort&

The opponent will rejoin : Do you hold that perception is

cognisant of a perceptional difference, or of a difference

constituted by the thing and its opposite? The former

alternative will not hold : for without a cognition of the

thing and its opposite, the recognition of the difference,

which presupposes such a cognition, will be impossible.

On the latter alternative it must be asked, Is the apprehension

of the difference preceded by an apprehension of

the thing and its contrary, or are all the three (the thing,

its contrary, and the contrariety) simultaneously apprehended

? It cannot be thus preceded, for the operation

of the intellect is without delay (or without successive

steps), and there would also result a logical seesaw (apprehension

of the difference presupposing apprehension of

the thing and its contrary, and apprehension of the thing

,and its contrary presupposing apprehension of the difference).

Nor can there be a simultaneous apprehension (of

the thing, ita contrary, and the difference) ; for cognitions

related as cause and effect cannot be simultaneous, and

the cognition of the thing is the cause of the recognition

of the difference; the causal relation between the two

being recognised by a concomitance and non-concomitance

(mutual exclusion), the difference not being cognised even

when the thing is present, without a cognition of its absent

contrary. The perception of difference, therefore (the

opponent concludes), is not easily admissible. To this let

the reply be as follows : Are these objections proclaimed

against one who maintains a difference identical with the

things themselves, or against one who maintains a difference

between things as the subjects of attributes ? In the

former case, you will be, as the saying runs, punishing a

.respectable Brahman for the offence of a thief, the objecTHE

SYSTEM OF PURNA-PRAJNA* 89

tions you adduce being irrelevant. If it be urged that if

it is the essence of the thing that is the difference, then

it will no longer require a contrary counterpart; but if

difference presuppose a contrary counterpart, it will exist

Everywhere ; this statement must be disallowed, for while

the essence of a thing is first known as different from

everything else, the determinate usage (name and notion)

may be shown to depend upon a contrary counterpart;

for example, the essence of a thing so far as constituted

by its dimensions is first cognised, and afterwards it becomes

the object of some determinate judgment, as long or

short in relation to some particular counterpart (or contrasted

object). Accordingly, it is said in the Vishnutattva-

nirnaya :

" Difference is not proved to exist by the

relation of determinant and determinate ; for this relation

of determinant and determinate (or predicate and subject)

presupposes difference; and if difference were proved to

depend upon the thing and its counterpart, and the thing

and its counterpart to presuppose difference, difference as

involving a logical circle could not be accounted for ; but

difference is itself a real predicament (or ultimate entity).

For this reason (viz., because difference is a thing) it is

that men in quest of a cow do not act (as if they had

found her) when they see a gayal, and do not recall the

word cow. Nor let it be objected that (if difference be a

real entity and as such perceived) on seeing a mixture of

milk and water, there would be a presentation of difference

; for the absence of any manifestation of, and judgment

about, the difference, may be accounted for by the

force of (the same) obstructives (as hinder the perception

of other things), viz., aggregation of similars and the rest.

Thus it has been said (in the Sa&khya-karika, v. vil)

"From too great remoteness, from too great nearness,

from defect in the organs, from instability of the

common sensory,

"From subtilty, from interposition, from being overpowered,

and from aggregation of similars/'

90 THE SARVA-DARSANA-SANGRAHA.

There is no perception respectively of a tree and the

like on the peak of a mountain, because of its too great

remoteness ; of collyrium applied to the eyes, and so forth,

because of too great proximity ; of lightning and the like,

because of a defect in the organs ; of a jar or the like

in broad daylight, by one whose common sensory is bewildered

by lust and other passions, because of instability

of the common sensory ; of an atom and the like, because

of their subtility ; of things behind a wall, and so forth,

because of interposition ; of the light of a lamp and the

like, in the day-time, because of its being overpowered ;

of milk and water, because of the aggregation of similars.

Or let the hypothesis of difference in qualities be

granted, and no harm is done ; for given the apprehension

of a subject of attributes and of its contrary, the presentation

of difference in their modes is possible. Nor let it be

supposed that on the hypothesis of difference in the modes

of things, as each difference must be different from some

ulterior difference, there will result an embarrassing progression

to infinity, there being no occasion for the

occurrence of the said ulterior difference, inasmuch as we

do not observe that men think and say that two things are

different as differenced from the different. Nor can an

ulterior difference be inferred from the first difference, for

there being no difference to serve as the example in such

. inference, there cannot but be a non-occurrence of inference.

And thus it must be allowed that in raising the

objection you have begged for a little oil-cake, and have

had to give us gallons of oil. If there be no difference for

the example the inference cannot emerge. The bride is

not married for the destruction of the bridegroom. There

being, then, no fundamental difficulty, this infinite progression

presents no trouble.

Difference (duality) is also ascertained by inference.

Thus the Supreme Lord differs from the individual soul

as the object of its obedience ; and he who is to be obeyed

by any person differs from that person, a king, for inTHE

SYSTEM OF PURNA-PRAJNA* 91

stance, from his attendant. For men, desiring as they do

the end of man, Let me have pleasure, let me not have

the slightest pain, if they covet the position of their lord,

do not hecome objects of his favour, nay, rather, they become

recipients of all kinds of evil. He who asserts his

own inferiority and the excellence of his superior, he it

is who is to be commended; and the gratified superior

grants his eulogist his desire. Therefore it has been

said :

"Kings destroy those who assert themselves to be

kings,

"And grant to those who proclaim their kingly preeminence

all that they desire."

Thus the statement of those (Advaita-vadins) in their

thirst to be one with the Supreme Lord, that the supreme

excellence of Vishnu is like a mirage, is as if they were to

cut off their tongues in trying to get a fine plantain, since

it results that through offending this supreme Vishnu they

must enter into the hell of blind darkness (andha-tamasa).

The same thing is laid down by Madhya-mandira in the

Mahabharata-tatparya-nirnaya :

"

Daityas, enemies of the eternal, Vishnu's anger is

waxed great ;

" He hurls the Daityas into the blind darkness, because

they decide blindly."

This service (or obedience of which we have spoken) is

trichotomised into (i.) stigmatisation, (2.) imposition of

names, (3.) worship.

Of these, (i.) stigmatisation is (the branding upon oneself)

of the weapons of Narayana (or Vishnu) as a memorial

of him, and as a means of attaining the end which is

needful (emancipation). Thus the sequel of the Sakalyasamhita

:

"The man who bears branded in him the discus of

the immortal Vishnu, which is the might of the

gods,

"He, shaking off his guilt, goes to the heaven (Vaikuii4

pz THE SARVA-DARSANA-SANGRAHA.

tha) which ascetics, whose desires are passed away,

enter into :

" The discus SudarSana by which, uplifted in his arm,

the gods entered that heaven ;

" Marked wherewith the Manus projected the emanation

of the world, that weapon Brahmans wear

(stamped upon them) ;

"

Stigmatised wherewith they go to the supreme sphere

of Vishnu ;

" Marked with the stigmas of the wide-striding (Vishnu),

let us become beatified."

Again, the Taittiriyaka Upanishad says: "He whose

body is not branded, is raw, and tastes it not : votaries

bearing it attain thereto." The particular parts to be

branded are specified in the Agneya-purana :

" On his right hand let the Brahman wear SudanSana,

"On his left the conch-shell: thus have those who

know the Veda declared."

In another passage is given the invocation to be recited

on being branded with the discus :

"

SudarSana, brightly blazing, effulgent as ten million

suns,

" Show unto me, blind with ignorance, the everlasting

way of Vishnu.

" Thou aforetime sprangest from the sea, brandished in

the hand of Vishnu,

"Adored by all the gods; PaAchajanya, to thee be

adoration."

(2.) Imposition of names is the appellation of sons and

others by such names as Keava, as a continual memorial

of the name of the Supreme Lord.

(3.) Worship is of ten kinds, viz., with the voice, (i.)

veracity, (2.) usefulness, (3.) kindliness, (4.) sacred study ;

with the body, (5.) almsgiving, (6.) defence, (7.) protection ;

with the common sensory, (8.) mercy, (9.) longing, and

(10.) faith. Worship is the dedication to Narayana of

each of these as it is realised. Thus it has been said :

THE SYSTEM OF PURNA-PRAJNA. 93

"

Stigmatisation, imposition of names, worship ; the last

is of ten kinds."

Difference (or duality between the Supreme Being and

the universe) may also be inferred from cognisability and

Aher marks. So also difference (or duality) may be

understood from revelation, from texts setting out duality

in emancipation and beatitude, such as :

" All rejoice over

truth attained; truthful, and celebrating the gift of the

divine Indra, they recount his glory ;

" "

Sarva, among those

that know the truth, Brahman, is in the universe, true

spirit; true is individual spirit; truth is duality, truth

is duality, in me is illusion, in me illusion, in me

illusion."

Again :

"After attaining this knowledge, becoming like unto

me,

% "In creation they are not born again, in retractation

they perish not" (Bhagavad-gita, xiv. 2).

According also to such aphorisms as,

"

Excepting cosmical

operation because of occasion, and because of nonproximity."

Nor should suggestion be made that individual spirit

is God in virtue of the text, He that knows the absolute

becomes the absolute; for this text is hyperbolically

eulogistic, like the text, Worshipping a Brdhman devoutly

a $iidra becomes a Brahman, i.e., becomes exalted.

If any one urge that according to the text :

" If the universe existed it would doubtless come to an

end," ,

this duality is merely illusory, and in reality a unity,

and that duality is learnt to be illusorily imagined ; it may

be replied : What you say is true, but you do not understand

its meaning ; for the real meaning is, If this world

had been produced, it would, without doubt, come to an

end; therefore this universe is from everlasting, a fivefold

dual universe; and it is not non-existent, because

it is mere illusion. Illusion is defined to be the will of

94 THE SARVA-DARSANA-SANGRAHA.

the Lord, in virtue of the testimony of majiy such passages

as :

" The great illusion, ignorance, necessity, the bewilderment,

"The originant, ideation, thus is thy will called, G

Infinite.

" The originant, because it originates greatly ; ideation,

because it produces ideas ;

" The illusion of Hari, who is called at is termed (a-wdyd)

ignorance :

"

Styled (mdyd) illusion, because it is pre-eminent, for

the name mdyd is used of the pre-eminent ;

" The excellent knowledge of Vishnu is called, though

one only, by these names ;

" For Hari is excellent knowledge, and this is characterised

by spontaneous beatitude."

That in which this excellent knowledge produces knowledge

and effects sustentation thereof, that is pure illusion,

as known and sustained, therefore by the Supreme Lord

duality is not illusorily imagined. For in the Lord illusory

imagination of the universe is not possible, illusory

imagination arising from non-perception of differences

(which as an imperfection is inconsistent with the divine

nature).

If it be asked how then that (illusory duality) is predicated,

the answer is that in reality there is a non-duality,

that is in reality, Vishnu being better than all else, has

no equal and no superior. Accordingly, the grand revelation

:

" A difference between soul and the Lord, a difference

between the unsentient and the Lord,

"A difference among souls, and a difference of the

unsentient and the soul each from the other.

"Also the difference of unsentient things from one

another, the world with its five divisions.

"This same is real and from all eternity; if it had had

a beginning it would have an end ;

THE SYSTEM OF PURNA-PRAJNA. 95

" Whereas it does not come to an end ; and it is not

illusorily imagined :

" For if it were imagined it would cease, but it never

ceases.

" That there is no duality is therefore the doctrine of

those that lack knowledge ;

" For this the doctrine of those that have knowledge is

known and sustained by Vishnu."

The purpose, then, of all revelations is to set out the

supreme excellence of Vishnu. With this in view the

Lord declared :

"Two are these persons in the universe, the perishable

and the imperishable ;

" The perishable is all the elements, the imperishable is

the unmodified.

"The other, the most excellent person, called the

Supreme Spirit,

"

Is the undecaying Lord, who pervading sustains the

three worlds.

" Since transcending the perishable, I am more excellent

than the imperishable (soul),

" Hence I am celebrated among men and in the Veda

as the best of persons (Purushottama) ;

"He who uninfatuated knows me thus the best of

persons, he all-knowing worships me in every wise.

" Thus this most mysterious institute is declared, blameless

(Arjuna) :

"Knowing this a man may be wise, and may have done

what he has to do, Bharata" (Bhagavad-gita,

xv. 1 6-20).

So in the Maha-varaha

'Mhe primary purport of all the Vedas relates to the

supreme spouse of Sri ;

"

Its purport regarding the excellence of any other deity

must be subordinate."

It is reasonable that the primary purport should regard

the supreme excellence of Vishn.u. For emancipation is

Om Tat Sat

(Continued ..)

(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of Madhavacharya and my humble greatfulness to

Sreeman K B Cowell  for the collection)