Chapter X: The S'a@nkara School of Vedânta (1)

Comprehension of the philosophical Issues more essential than the Dialectic of controversy.

_Pramâ@na_ in Sanskrit signifies the means and the movement by which knowledge is acquired, _pramâtâ_ means the subject or the knower who cognizes, _pramâ_ the result of pramâ@na--right knowledge, _prameya_ the object of knowledge, and _prâmâ@nya_ the validity of knowledge acquired. The validity of knowledge is sometimes used in the sense of the faithfulness of knowledge to its object, and sometimes in the sense of an inner notion of validity in the mind of the subject--the knower (that his perceptions are true), which moves him to work in accordance with his perceptions to adapt himself to his environment for the attainment of pleasurable and the avoidance of painful things. The question wherein consists the prâmâ@nya of knowledge has not only an epistemological and psychological bearing but a metaphysical one also. It contains on one side a theory of knowledge based on an analysis of psychological experience, and on the other indicates a metaphysical situation consistent with the theory of knowledge. All the different schools tried to justify a theory of knowledge by an appeal to the analysis and interpretation of experience which the others sometimes ignored or sometimes regarded as unimportant. The thinkers of different schools were accustomed often to meet together and defeat one another in actual debates, and the result of these debates was frequently very important in determining the prestige of any school of thought. If a Buddhist for example could defeat a great Nyâya or Mîmâ@msâ thinker in a great public debate attended by many learned scholars from different parts of the country, his fame at once spread all over the country and he could probably secure a large number of followers on the spot. Extensive tours of disputation were often undertaken by great masters all over the country for the purpose of defeating the teachers of the opposite schools and of securing adherents to their own. These debates were therefore not generally conducted merely in a passionless philosophical

407

mood with the object of arriving at the truth but in order to inflict a defeat on opponents and to establish the ascendency of some particular school of thought. It was often a sense of personal victory and of the victory of the school of thought to which the debater adhered that led him to pursue the debate. Advanced Sanskrit philosophical works give us a picture of the attitude of mind of these debaters and we find that most of these debates attempt to criticize the different schools of thinkers by exposing their inconsistencies and self-contradictions by close dialectical reasoning, anticipating the answers of the opponent, asking him to define his statements, and ultimately proving that his theory was inconsistent, led to contradictions, and was opposed to the testimony of experience. In reading an advanced work on Indian philosophy in the original, a student has to pass through an interminable series of dialectic arguments, and negative criticisms (to thwart opponents) sometimes called _vita@n@dâ_, before he can come to the root of the quarrel, the real philosophical divergence. All the resources of the arts of controversy find full play for silencing the opponent before the final philosophical answer is given. But to a modern student of philosophy, who belongs to no party and is consequently indifferent to the respective victory of either side, the most important thing is the comprehension of the different aspects from which the problem of the theory of knowledge and its associated metaphysical theory was looked at by the philosophers, and also a clear understanding of the deficiency of each view, the value of the mutual criticisms, the speculations on the experience of each school, their analysis, and their net contribution to philosophy. With Vedânta we come to an end of the present volume, and it may not be out of place here to make a brief survey of the main conflicting theories from the point of view of the theory of knowledge, in order to indicate the position of the Vedânta of the S'a@nkara school in the field of Indian philosophy so far as we have traversed it. I shall therefore now try to lay before my readers the solution of the theory of knowledge (_pramâ@navâda_) reached by some of the main schools of thought. Their relations to the solution offered by the S'a@nkara Vedânta will also be dealt with, as we shall attempt to sketch the views of the Vedanta later on in this chapter.

408

The philosophical situation. A Review.

Before dealing with the Vedânta system it seems advisable to review the general attitude of the schools already discussed to the main philosophical and epistemological questions which determine the position of the Vedânta as taught by S'a@nkara and his school.

The Sautrântika Buddhist says that in all his affairs man is concerned with the fulfilment of his ends and desires (_puru@sâdrtka_). This however cannot be done without right knowledge (_samyagjñâna_) which rightly represents things to men. Knowledge is said to be right when we can get things just as we perceived them. So far as mere representation or illumination of objects is concerned, it is a patent fact that we all have knowledge, and therefore this does not deserve criticism or examination. Our enquiry about knowledge is thus restricted to its aspect of later verification or contradiction in experience, for we are all concerned to know how far our perceptions of things which invariably precede all our actions can be trusted as rightly indicating what we want to get in our practical experience (_arthaprâdpakatva_). The perception is right (_abhrânta_ non-illusory) when following its representation we can get in the external world such things as were represented by it (_sa@mvâdakatva_). That perception alone can be right which is generated by the object and not merely supplied by our imagination. When I say "this is the cow I had seen," what I see is the object with the brown colour, horns, feet, etc., but the fact that this is called cow, or that this is existing from a past time, is not perceived by the visual sense, as this is not generated by the visual object. For all things are momentary, and that which I see now never existed before so as to be invested with this or that permanent name. This association of name and permanence to objects perceived is called _kaipanâ_ or _abhilâpa_. Our perception is correct only so far as it is without the abhilâpa association (_kalpanâpo@dha_), for though this is taken as a part of our perceptual experience it is not derived from the object, and hence its association with the object is an evident error. The object as unassociated with name--the nirvikalpa--is thus what is perceived. As a result of the pratyak@sa the manovijñâna or thought and mental perception of pleasure and pain is also determined. At one moment perception reveals the object as an

409

object of knowledge (_grâhya_), and by the fact of the rise of such a percept, at another moment it appears as a thing realizable or attainable in the external world. The special features of the object undefinable in themselves as being what they are in themselves (_svalak@sa@na_) are what is actually perceived (_pratyak@savi@saya_) [Footnote ref 1]. The _pramâ@naphala_ (result of perception) is the

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: There is a difference of opinion about the meaning of the word "svalak@sa@na" of Dharmakîrtti between ray esteemed friend Professor Stcherbatsky of Petrograd and myself. He maintains that Dharmakîrtti held that the content of the presentative element at the moment of perception was almost totally empty. Thus he writes to me, "According to your interpretation svalak@sa@na mean,--the object (or idea with Vijñânavâdin) _from which everything past and everything future has been eliminated_, this I do not deny at all. But I maintain that if everything past and future has been taken away, what remains? _The present_ and the present is a _k@sa@na_ i.e. nothing.... The reverse of k@sa@na is a k@sa@nasamtâna or simply sa@mtâna and in every sa@mtâna there is a synthesis ekîbhâva of moments past and future, produced by the intellect (buddhi = nis'caya = kalpana = adhyavasâya)...There is in the perception of a jug _something_ (a k@sa@na of sense knowledge) which we must distinguish from the _idea_ of a jug (which is always a sa@mtâna, always vikalpita), and if you take the idea away in a strict unconditional sense, no knowledge remains: k@sanasya jñânena prâpayitumas'akyatvât. This is absolutely the Kantian teaching about _Synthesis of Apprehension_. Accordingly pratyak@sa is a _transcendental_ source of knowledge, because practically speaking it gives no knowledge at all. This _pramâ@na_ is _asatkalpa_. Kant says that without the elements of intuition (= sense-knowledge = pratyak@sa = kalpanâpo@dha) our cognitions would be empty and without the elements of intellect (kalpanâ = buddhi = synthesis = ekîbhâva) they would be blind. Empirically both are always combined. This is exactly the theory of Dharmakîrtti. He is a Vijñânavâdî as I understand, because he maintains the cognizability of ideas (vijñâna) alone, but the reality is an incognizable foundation of our knowledge; he admits, it is bâhya, it is artha, it is arthakriyâk@sa@na = svalak@sa@na; that is the reason for which he sometimes is called Sautrântika and this school is sometimes called Sautranta-vijñânavâda, as opposed to the Vijñânavâda of As'vagho@sa and Âryâsanga, which had no elaborate theory of cognition. If the jug as it exists in our representation were the svalak@sa@na and paramârthasat, what would remain of Vijñânavâda? But there is the perception of the jug as opposed to the _pure idea_ of a jug (s'uddhâ kalpanâ), an element of reality, the sensational k@sa@na, which is communicated to us by sense knowledge. Kant's 'thing in itself' is also a k@sa@na and also an element of sense knowledge of pure sense as opposed to pure reason, Dharmakîrtti has also _s'uddhâ kalpanâ_ and _s'uddham pratyak@sam_. ...And very interesting is the opposition between pratyak@sa and anumâna, the first moves from k@sa@na to sa@mtâna and the second from sa@mtâna to k@sa@na, that is the reason that although bhrânta the anumâna is nevertheless pramâ@na because through it we indirectly also reach k@sa@na, the arthakriyâk@sa@na. It is bhrânta directly and pramâ@na indirectly; pratyak@sa is pramâ@na directly and bhrânta (asatkalpa) indirectly... ." So far as the passages to which Professor Stcherbatsky refers are concerned, I am in full agreement with him. But I think that he pushes the interpretation too far on Kantian lines. When I perceive "this is blue," the perception consists of two parts, the actual presentative element of sense-knowledge (_svalak@sa@na_) and the affirmation (_nis'caya_). So far we are in complete agreement. But Professor Stcherbatsky says that this sense-knowledge is a k@sa@na (moment) and is nothing. I also hold that it is a k@sa@na, but it is nothing only in the sense that it is not the same as the notion involving affirmation such as "this is blue." The affirmative process occurring at the succeeding moments is determined by the presentative element of the first moment (_pratyak@sabalotpanna_ N.T., p. 20) but this presentative element divested from the product of the affirmative process of the succeeding moments is not characterless, though we cannot express its character; as soon as we try to express it, names and other ideas consisting of affirmation are associated and these did not form a part of the presentative element. Its own character is said to be its own specific nature (_svalak@sa@na_). But what is this specific nature? Dharmakîrtti's answer on this point is that by specific nature he means those specific characteristics of the object which appear clear when the object is near and hazy when it is at a distance (_yasyârthasya sannidhânâsannidhânâbkyâm jñânapratibhâsabhedastat svalak@sa@nam_ N., p. 1 and N.T., p. 16). Sense-knowledge thus gives us the specific characteristics of the object, and this has the same form as the object itself; it is the appearance of the "blue" in its specific character in the mind and when this is associated by the affirmative or ideational process, the result is the concept or idea "this is blue" (_nîlasarûpa@m pratyak@samanubhûyamâna@m nîlabodharûpamavasthâpyate ... nîlasârûpyamasya pramâ@nam nîlavikalpanarûpa@m tvasya pramâ@naphalam_, N.T.p. 22). At the first moment there is the appearance of the blue (_nîlanirbhâsa@m hi vijñânam_, N.T. 19) and this is direct acquaintance (_yatkiñcit arthasya sâk@sâtkârijñânam tatpratyak@samucyate_, N.T. 7) and this is real (_paramârthasat_) and valid. This blue sensation is different from the idea "this is blue" (_nîlabodha_, N.T. 22) which is the result of the former (_pramâ@naphala_) through the association of the affirmative process (_adhyavasâya_) and is regarded as invalid for it contains elements other than what were presented to the sense and is a _vikalpapratyaya_. In my opinion _svalak@sa@na_ therefore means pure sensation of the moment presenting the specific features of the object and with Dharmakîrtti this is the only thing which is valid in perception and vikalpapratyaya or pramânaphala is the idea or concept which follows it. But though the latter is a product of the former, yet, being the construction of succeeding moments, it cannot give us the pure stage of the first moment of sensation-presentation (_k@sa@nasya prâpayitumas'akyatvât_, N.T. 16). N.T. = _Nyâyabindu@tîkâ_, N = _Nyâyabindu (Peterson's edition).]

410

ideational concept and power that such knowledge has of showing the means which being followed the thing can be got (_yena k@rtena artha@h prâpito bhavati_). Pramâ@na then is the similarity of the knowledge with the object by which it is generated, by which we assure ourselves that this is our knowledge of the object as it is perceived, and are thus led to attain it by practical experience. Yet this later stage is pramâ@naphala and not pramâ@na which consists merely in the vision of the thing (devoid of other associations), and which determines the attitude of the perceiver towards the perceived object. The pramâ@na therefore only refers to the newly-acquired knowledge (_anadhigatâdhigant@r_) as this is of use to the perceiver in determining his relations with the objective world. This account of perception leaves out the real epistemological question as to how the knowledge is generated by the external world, or what it is in itself. It only looks to the correctness or faithfulness of the perception to the object and its value for us in the practical realization of our ends. The question of the relation of the external world with knowledge as determining the latter is regarded as unimportant.

411

The Yogâcâras or idealistic Buddhists take their cue from the above-mentioned Sautrântika Buddhists, and say that since we can come into touch with knowledge and knowledge alone, what is the use of admitting an external world of objects as the data of sensation determining our knowledge? You say that sensations are copies of the external world, but why should you say that they copy, and not that they alone exist? We never come into touch with objects in themselves; these can only be grasped by us simultaneously with knowledge of them, they must therefore be the same as knowledge (_sahopalambhaniyamât abhedo nîlataddhiyo@h_); for it is in and through knowledge that external objects can appear to us, and without knowledge we are not in touch with the so-called external objects. So it is knowledge which is self-apparent in itself, that projects itself in such a manner as to appear as referring to other external objects. We all acknowledge that in dreams there are no external objects, but even there we have knowledge. The question why then if there are no external objects, there should be so much diversity in the forms of knowledge, is not better solved by the assumption of an external world; for in such an assumption, the external objects have to be admitted as possessing the infinitely diverse powers of diversely affecting and determining our knowledge; that being so, it may rather be said that in the beginningless series of flowing knowledge, preceding knowledge-moments by virtue of their inherent specific qualities determine the succeeding knowledge-moments. Thus knowledge alone exists; the projection of an external word is an illusion of knowledge brought about by beginningless potencies of desire (_vâsanâ_) associated with it. The preceding knowledge determines the succeeding one and that another and so on. Knowledge, pleasure, pain, etc. are not qualities requiring a permanent entity as soul in which they may inhere, but are the various forms in which knowledge appears. Even the cognition, "I perceive a blue thing," is but a form of knowledge, and this is often erroneously interpreted as referring to a permanent knower. Though the cognitions are all passing and momentary, yet so long as the series continues to be the same, as in the case of one person, say Devadatta, the phenomena of memory, recognition, etc. can happen in the succeeding moments, for these are evidently illusory cognitions, so far as they refer to the permanence of the objects

412

believed to have been perceived before, for things or knowledge-moments, whatever they may be, are destroyed the next moment after their birth. There is no permanent entity as perceiver or knower, but the knowledge-moments are at once the knowledge, the knower and the known. This thoroughgoing idealism brushes off all references to an objective field of experience, interprets the verdict of knowledge as involving a knower and the known as mere illusory appearance, and considers the flow of knowledge as a self-determining series in successive objective forms as the only truth. The Hindu schools of thought, Nyâya, Sâ@mkhya, and the Mîmâ@msâ, accept the duality of soul and matter, and attempt to explain the relation between the two. With the Hindu writers it was not the practical utility of knowledge that was the only important thing, but the nature of knowledge and the manner in which it came into being were also enquired after and considered important.

Pramâ@na is defined by Nyâya as the collocation of instruments by which unerring and indubitable knowledge comes into being. The collocation of instruments which brings about definite knowledge consists partly of consciousness (_bodha_) and partly of material factors (_bodhâbodhasvabhâva_). Thus in perception the proper contact of the visual sense with the object (e.g. jug) first brings about a non-intelligent, non-apprehensible indeterminate consciousness (nirvikalpa) as the jugness (gha@tatva) and this later on combining with the remaining other collocations of sense-contact etc. produces the determinate consciousness: this is a jug. The existence of this indeterminate state of consciousness as a factor in bringing about the determinate consciousness, cannot of course be perceived, but its existence can be inferred from the fact that if the perceiver were not already in possession of the qualifying factor (_vis'e@sanajñâna_ as jugness) he could not have comprehended the qualified object (_vis'i@s@tabuddhi_} the jug (i.e. the object which possesses jugness). In inference (_anumâ@na_) knowledge of the li@nga takes part, and in upamâna the sight of similarity with other material conglomerations. In the case of the Buddhists knowledge itself was regarded as pramâ@na; even by those who admitted the existence of the objective world, right knowledge was called pramâ@na, because it was of the same form as the external objects it represented, and it was by the form of the knowledge (e.g. blue) that we could apprehend that the

413

external object was also blue. Knowledge does not determine the external world but simply enforces our convictions about the external world. So far as knowledge leads us to form our convictions of the external world it is pramâ@na, and so far as it determines our attitude towards the external world it is pramâ@naphala. The question how knowledge is generated had little importance with them, but how with knowledge we could form convictions of the external world was the most important thing. Knowledge was called pramâ@na, because it was the means by which we could form convictions (_adhyavasâya_) about the external world. Nyâya sought to answer the question how knowledge was generated in us, but could not understand that knowledge was not a mere phenomenon like any other objective phenomenon, but thought that though as a gu@na (quality) it was external like other gu@nas, yet it was associated with our self as a result of collocations like any other happening in the material world. Pramâ@na does not necessarily bring to us new knowledge (_anadhigatâdhi-gant@r_) as the Buddhists demanded, but whensoever there were collocations of pramâ@na, knowledge was produced, no matter whether the object was previously unknown or known. Even the knowledge of known things may be repeated if there be suitable collocations. Knowledge like any other physical effect is produced whenever the cause of it namely the pramâ@na collocation is present. Categories which are merely mental such as class (_sâmânya_), inherence (_samavâya_), etc., were considered as having as much independent existence as the atoms of the four elements. The phenomenon of the rise of knowledge in the soul was thus conceived to be as much a phenomenon as the turning of the colour of the jug by fire from black to red. The element of indeterminate consciousness was believed to be combining with the sense contact, the object, etc. to produce the determinate consciousness. There was no other subtler form of movement than the molecular. Such a movement brought about by a certain collocation of things ended in a certain result (_phala_). Jñâna (knowledge) was thus the result of certain united collocations (_sâmagrî_) and their movements (e.g. contact of manas with soul, of manas with the senses, of the senses with the object, etc.). This confusion renders it impossible to understand the real philosophical distinction between knowledge and an external event of the objective world. Nyâya thus fails to explain the cause

414

of the origin of knowledge, and its true relations with the objective world. Pleasure, pain, willing, etc. were regarded as qualities which belonged to the soul, and the soul itself was regarded as a qualitiless entity which could not be apprehended directly but was inferred as that in which the qualities of jñâna, sukha (pleasure), etc. inhered. Qualities had independent existence as much as substances, but when any new substances were produced, the qualities rushed forward and inhered in them. It is very probable that in Nyâya the cultivation of the art of inference was originally pre-eminent and metaphysics was deduced later by an application of the inferential method which gave the introspective method but little scope for its application, so that inference came in to explain even perception (e.g. this is a jug since it has jugness) and the testimony of personal psychological experience was taken only as a supplement to corroborate the results arrived at by inference and was not used to criticize it [Footnote ref 1].

Sâ@mkhya understood the difference between knowledge and material events. But so far as knowledge consisted in being the copy of external things, it could not be absolutely different from the objects themselves; it was even then an invisible translucent sort of thing, devoid of weight and grossness such as the external objects possessed. But the fact that it copies those gross objects makes it evident that knowledge had essentially the same substances though in a subtler form as that of which the objects were made. But though the matter of knowledge, which assumed the form of the objects with which it came in touch, was probably thus a subtler combination of the same elementary substances of which matter was made up, yet there was in it another element, viz. intelligence, which at once distinguished it as utterly different from material combinations. This element of intelligence is indeed different from the substances or content of the knowledge itself, for the element of intelligence is like a stationary light, "the self," which illuminates the crowding, bustling knowledge which is incessantly changing its form in accordance with the objects with which it comes in touch. This light of intelligence is the same that finds its manifestation in consciousness as the "I," the changeless entity amidst all the fluctuations of the changeful procession of knowledge. How this element of light which is foreign to the substance of knowledge

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Nyâyamañjarî_ on pramâ@na.]

415

relates itself to knowledge, and how knowledge itself takes it up into itself and appears as conscious, is the most difficult point of the Sâ@mkhya epistemology and metaphysics. The substance of knowledge copies the external world, and this copy-shape of knowledge is again intelligized by the pure intelligence (_puru@sa_) when it appears as conscious. The forming of the buddhi-shape of knowledge is thus the pramâ@na (instrument and process of knowledge) and the validity or invalidity of any of these shapes is criticized by the later shapes of knowledge and not by the external objects (_svata@h-prâmâ@nya_ and _svata@h-aprâmâ@nya_). The pramâ@na however can lead to a pramâ or right knowledge only when it is intelligized by the puru@sa. The puru@sa comes in touch with buddhi not by the ordinary means of physical contact but by what may be called an inexplicable transcendental contact. It is the transcendental influence of puru@sa that sets in motion the original prak@rti in Sâ@mkhya metaphysics, and it is the same transcendent touch (call it yogyatâ according to Vâcaspati or samyoga according to Bhik@su) of the transcendent entity of puru@sa that transforms the non-intelligent states of buddhi into consciousness. The Vijñânavâdin Buddhist did not make any distinction between the pure consciousness and its forms (_âkâra_) and did not therefore agree that the âkâra of knowledge was due to its copying the objects. Sâ@mkhya was however a realist who admitted the external world and regarded the forms as all due to copying, all stamped as such upon a translucent substance (_sattva_) which could assume the shape of the objects. But Sâ@mkhya was also transcendentalist in this, that it did not think like Nyâya that the âkâra of knowledge was all that knowledge had to show; it held that there was a transcendent element which shone forth in knowledge and made it conscious. With Nyâya there was no distinction between the shaped buddhi and the intelligence, and that being so consciousness was almost like a physical event. With Sâ@mkhya however so far as the content and the shape manifested in consciousness were concerned it was indeed a physical event, but so far as the pure intelligizing element of consciousness was concerned it was a wholly transcendent affair beyond the scope and province of physics. The rise of consciousness was thus at once both transcendent and physical.

The Mîmâ@msist Prabhâkara agreed with Nyâya in general as regards the way in which the objective world and sense contact

416

induced knowledge in us. But it regarded knowledge as a unique phenomenon which at once revealed itself, the knower and the known. We are not concerned with physical collocations, for whatever these may be it is knowledge which reveals things--the direct apprehension that should be called the pramâ@na. Pramâ@na in this sense is the same as pramiti or pramâ, the phenomenon of apprehension. Pramâ@na may also indeed mean the collocations so far as they induce the pramâ. For pramâ or right knowledge is never produced, it always exists, but it manifests itself differently under different circumstances. The validity of knowledge means the conviction or the specific attitude that is generated in us with reference to the objective world. This validity is manifested with the rise of knowledge, and it does not await the verdict of any later experience in the objective field (_sa@mvâdin_). Knowledge as nirvikalpa (indeterminate) means the whole knowledge of the object and not merely a non-sensible hypothetical indeterminate class-notion as Nyâya holds. The savikalpa (determinate) knowledge only re-establishes the knowledge thus formed by relating it with other objects as represented by memory [Footnote ref 1].

Prabhâkara rejected the Sâ@mkhya conception of a dual element in consciousness as involving a transcendent intelligence (_cit_) and a material part, the buddhi; but it regarded consciousness as an unique thing which by itself in one flash represented both the knower and the known. The validity of knowledge did not depend upon its faithfulness in reproducing or indicating (_pradars'akatva_) external objects, but upon the force that all direct apprehension (_anubhûti_) has of prompting us to action in the external world; knowledge is thus a complete and independent unit in all its self-revealing aspects. But what the knowledge was in itself apart from its self-revealing character Prabhâkara did not enquire.

Kumârila declared that jñâna (knowledge) was a movement brought about by the activity of the self which resulted in producing consciousness (_jñâtatâ_) of objective things. Jñâna itself cannot be perceived, but can only be inferred as the movement necessary for producing the jñâtatâ or consciousness of things. Movement with Kumârila was not a mere atomic vibration, but was a non-sensuous transcendent operation of which vibration

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Sâ@mkhya considered nirvikalpa as the dim knowledge of the first moment of consciousness, which, when it became clear at the next moment, was called savikalpa.]

417

was sometimes the result. Jñâna was a movement and not the result of causal operation as Nyâya supposed. Nyâya would not also admit any movement on the part of the self, but it would hold that when the self is possessed of certain qualities, such as desire, etc., it becomes an instrument for the accomplishment of a physical movement. Kumârila accords the same self-validity to knowledge that Prabhâkara gives. Later knowledge by experience is not endowed with any special quality which should decide as to the validity of the knowledge of the previous movement. For what is called sa@mvâdi or later testimony of experience is but later knowledge and nothing more [Footnote ref 1]. The self is not revealed in the knowledge of external objects, but we can know it by a mental perception of self-consciousness. It is the movement of this self in presence of certain collocating circumstances leading to cognition of things that is called jñâna [Footnote ref 2]. Here Kumârila distinguishes knowledge as movement from knowledge as objective consciousness. Knowledge as movement was beyond sense perception and could only be inferred.

The idealistic tendency of Vijñânavâda Buddhism, Sâ@mkhya, and Mîmâ@msâ was manifest in its attempt at establishing the unique character of knowledge as being that with which alone we are in touch. But Vijñânavâda denied the external world, and thereby did violence to the testimony of knowledge. Sâ@mkhya admitted the external world but created a gulf between the content of knowledge and pure intelligence; Prabhâkara ignored this difference, and was satisfied with the introspective assertion that knowledge was such a unique thing that it revealed with itself, the knower and the known, Kumârila however admitted a transcendent element of movement as being the cause of our objective consciousness, but regarded this as being separate from self. But the question remained unsolved as to why, in spite of the unique character of knowledge, knowledge could relate itself to the world of objects, how far the world of external objects or of knowledge could be regarded as absolutely true. Hitherto judgments were only relative, either referring to one's being prompted to the objective world, to the faithfulness of the representation of objects, the suitability of fulfilling our requirements, or to verification by later

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Nyâyaratnamâla_, svata@h-prâmâ@nya-nir@naya.]

[Footnote 2: See _Nyâyamañjari_ on Pramâ@na, _S'lokavârttika_ on Pratyak@sa, and Gâgâ Bha@t@ta's _Bha@t@tâcintama@ni_ on Pratyak@sa.]

418

uncontradicted experience. But no enquiry was made whether any absolute judgments about the ultimate truth of knowledge and matter could be made at all. That which appeared was regarded as the real. But the question was not asked, whether there was anything which could be regarded as absolute truth, the basis of all appearance, and the unchangeable, reality. This philosophical enquiry had the most wonderful charm for the Hindu mind.

Vedânta Literature.

It is difficult to ascertain the time when the _Brahma-sûtras_ were written, but since they contain a refutation of almost all the other Indian systems, even of the S'ûnyavâda Buddhism (of course according to S'a@nkara's interpretation), they cannot have been written very early. I think it may not be far from the truth in supposing that they were written some time in the second century B.C. About the period 780 A.D. Gau@dapâda revived the monistic teaching of the Upani@sads by his commentary on the Mâ@n@dûkya Upani@sad in verse called _Mâ@n@dûkyakârikâ_. His disciple Govinda was the teacher of S'a@nkara (788--820 A.D.). S'a@nkara's commentary on the _Brahma-sûtras_ is the root from which sprang forth a host of commentaries and studies on Vedântism of great originality, vigour, and philosophic insight. Thus Ânandagiri, a disciple of S'a@nkara, wrote a commentary called _Nyâyanir@naya_, and Govindânanda wrote another commentary named _Ratna-prabhâ_. Vâcaspati Mis'ra, who flourished about 841 A.D., wrote another commentary on it called the _Bhâmati._ Amalânanda (1247--1260 A.D.) wrote his _Kalpataru_ on it, and Apyayadik@sita (1550 A.D.) son of Ra@ngarâjadhvarîndra of Kâñcî wrote his _Kalpataruparimala_ on the _Kalpataru._ Another disciple of S'a@nkara, Padmapâda, also called Sanandana, wrote a commentary on it known as _Pañcapâdikâ_. From the manner in which the book is begun one would expect that it was to be a running commentary on the whole of S'a@nkara's bhâsya, but it ends abruptly at the end of the fourth sûtra. Mâdhava (1350), in his _S'a@nkaravijaya,_ recites an interesting story about it. He says that Sures'vara received S'a@nkara's permission to write a vârttika on the bhâsya. But other pupils objected to S'a@nkara that since Sures'vara was formerly a great Mîmâ@msist (Ma@n@dana Misra was called Sures'vara after his conversion to Vedântism) he was not competent to write

419

a good _vârttika_ on the bhâ@sya. Sures'vara, disappointed, wrote a treatise called _Nai@skarmyasiddhi._ Padmapâda wrote a @tîkâ but this was burnt in his uncle's house. S'a@nkara, who had once seen it, recited it from memory and Padmapâda wrote it down. Prakâs'âtman (1200) wrote a commentary on Padmapâda's _Pañcapâdikâ_ known as _Pañcapâdikâvivara@na. _Akha@n@dânanda wrote his _Tattvadîpana,_ and the famous N@rsi@mhâs'rama Muni (1500) wrote his _Vivara@nabhâvaprakâs'ikâ_ on it. Amalânanda and Vidyasâgara also wrote commentaries on _Pañcapâdikâ,_ named _Pañcapâdikâdarpa@na_ and _Pañcapâdikâ@tîkâ_ respectively, but the _Pañcapâdikâvivara@na_ had by far the greatest reputation. Vidyâra@nya who is generally identified by some with Mâdhava (1350) wrote his famous work _Vivara@naprameyasa@mgraha_ [Footnote ref 1], elaborating the ideas of _Pañcapâdikâvivara@na_; Vidyâra@nya wrote also another excellent work named _Jîvanmuktiviveka_ on the Vedânta doctrine of emancipation. Sures'vara's (800 A.D.) excellent work _Nai@skarmyasiddhi_ is probably the earliest independent treatise on S'a@nkara's philosophy as expressed in his bhâ@sya. It has been commented upon by Jñânottama Mis'ra. Vidyâra@nya also wrote another work of great merit known as _Pañcadas'î,_ which is a very popular and illuminating treatise in verse on Vedânta. Another important work written in verse on the main teachings of S'a@nkara's bhâ@sya is _Sa@mk@sepas'arîraka_, written by Sarvajñâtma Muni (900 A.D.). This has also been commented upon by Râmatîrtha. S'rîhar@sa (1190 A.D.) wrote his _Kha@n@danakha@n@dakhâdya_, the most celebrated work on the Vedânta dialectic. Citsukha, who probably flourished shortly after S'rîhar@sa, wrote a commentary on it, and also wrote an independent work on Vedânta dialectic known as _Tattvadîpikâ_ which has also a commentary called _Nayanaprasâdinî_ written by Pratyagrûpa. S'a@nkara Mis'ra and Raghunâtha also wrote commentaries on _Kha@n@danakha@n@dakhâdya._ A work on Vedânta epistemology and the principal topics of Vedânta of great originality and merit known as _Vedântaparibhâ@sâ_ was written by Dharmarâjâdhvarîndra (about 155OA.D.). His son Râmak@r@snâdhvarin wrote his _S'ikhâma@ni_ on it and Amaradâsa his _Ma@niprabhâ._ The _Vedântaparibhâ@sâ_ with these two commentaries forms an excellent exposition of some of the fundamental principles of Vedânta. Another work of supreme importance

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Narasi@mhâcârya's article in the _Indian Antiquary_, 1916.]

420

(though probably the last great work on Vedânta) is the _Advaitasiddhi_ of Madhusûdana Sarasvatî who followed Dharmarâjâdhvarîndra. This has three commentaries known as _Gau@dabrahmânandî_, _Vi@t@thales'opadhyâyî_ and _Siddhivyâkhyâ_. Sadânanda Vyâsa wrote also a summary of it known as _Advaitasiddhisiddhântasâra_. Sadânanda wrote also an excellent elementary work named _Vedântasâra_ which has also two commentaries _Subodhinî_ and _Vidvanmanorañjinî_. The _Advaitabrahmasiddhi_ of Sadânanda Yati though much inferior to _Advaitasiddhi_ is important, as it touches on many points of Vedânta interest which are not dealt with in other Vedânta works. The _Nyâyamakaranda_ of Ânandabodha Bha@t@târakâcâryya treats of the doctrines of illusion very well, as also some other important points of Vedânta interest. _Vedântasiddhântamuktâvalî_ of Prakâs'ânanda discusses many of the subtle points regarding the nature of ajñâna and its relations to cit, the doctrine of _d@r@stis@r@stivâda_, etc., with great clearness. _Siddhântales'a by Apyayadîk@sita is very important as a summary of the divergent views of different writers on many points of interest. _Vedântatattvadîpikâ_ and _Siddhântatattva_ are also good as well as deep in their general summary of the Vedânta system. _Bhedadhikkâra_ of Nrsi@mhâs'rama Muni also is to be regarded as an important work on the Vedânta dialectic.

The above is only a list of some of the most important Vedânta works on which the present chapter has been based.

Vedânta in Gau@dapâda.

It is useless I think to attempt to bring out the meaning of the Vedânta thought as contained in the _Brahma-sûtras_ without making any reference to the commentary of S'a@nkara or any other commentator. There is reason to believe that the _Brahma-sûtras_ were first commented upon by some Vai@s@nava writers who held some form of modified dualism [Footnote ref 1]. There have been more than a half dozen Vai@s@nava commentators of the _Brahma-sûtras_ who not only differed from S'a@nkara's interpretation, but also differed largely amongst themselves in accordance with the different degrees of stress they laid on the different aspects of their dualistic creeds. Every one of them claimed that his interpretation was the only one that was faithful to the sûtras and to

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: This point will be dealt with in the 2nd volume, when I shall deal with the systems expounded by the Vai@s@nava commentators of the _Brahma-sûtras_.]

421

the Upani@sads. Should I attempt to give an interpretation myself and claim that to be the right one, it would be only just one additional view. But however that may be, I am myself inclined to believe that the dualistic interpretations of the _Brahma-sûtras_ were probably more faithful to the sûtras than the interpretations of S'añkara.

The _S'rîmadbhagavadgîtâ_, which itself was a work of the Ekânti (singularistic) Vai@s@navas, mentions the _Brahma-sûtras_ as having the same purport as its own, giving cogent reasons [Footnote ref 1]. Professor Jacobi in discussing the date of the philosophical sûtras of the Hindus has shown that the references to Buddhism found in the _Brahma-sûtras_ are not with regard to the Vijñâna-vada of Vasubandhu, but with regard to the S'ûnyavâda, but he regards the composition of the _Brahma-sûtras_ to be later than Nâgârjuna. I agree with the late Dr S.C. Vidyâbhû@shana in holding that both the Yogâcâra system and the system of Nâgârjuna evolved from the _Prajñâpâramitâ_ [Footnote ref 2]. Nâgârjuna's merit consisted in the dialectical form of his arguments in support of S'unyavâda; but so far as the essentials of S'unyavâda are concerned I believe that the Tathatâ philosophy of As'vagho@sa and the philosophy of the _Prajñâpâramitâ_ contained no less. There is no reason to suppose that the works of Nâgârjuna were better known to the Hindu writers than the _Mahâyâna sûtras_. Even in such later times as that of Vâcaspati Mis'ra, we find him quoting a passage of the _S'âlistambha sûtra_ to give an account of the Buddhist doctrine of pratîtyasamutpâda [Footnote ref 3]. We could interpret any reference to S'ûnyavâda as pointing to Nâgârjuna only if his special phraseology or dialectical methods were referred to in any way. On the other hand, the reference in the _Bhagavadgîtâ_ to the _Brahma-sûtras_ clearly points out a date prior to that of Nâgârjuna; though we may be slow to believe such an early date as has been assigned to the _Bhagavadgîtâ_ by Telang, yet I suppose that its date could safely be placed so far back as the first half of the first century B.C. or the last part of the second century B.C. The _Brahma-sûtras_ could thus be placed slightly earlier than the date of the _Bhagavadgîtâ_.

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: "Brahmasûtrapadais'caiva hetumadbhirvinis'cita@h" _Bhagavadgîtâ_. The proofs in support of the view that the _Bhagavadgîtâ_ is a Vai@s@nava work will be discussed in the 2nd volume of the present work in the section on _Bhagavadgîtâ_ and its philosophy.]

[Footnote 2: _Indian Antiquary_, 1915.]

[Footnote 3: See Vâcaspati Mis'ra's _Bhâmatî_ on S'a@nkara's bhâsya on _Brahma-sûtra_, II. ii.]

422

I do not know of any evidence that would come in conflict with this supposition. The fact that we do not know of any Hindu writer who held such monistic views as Gau@dapâda or S'a@nkara, and who interpreted the _Brahma-sûtras_ in accordance with those monistic ideas, when combined with the fact that the dualists had been writing commentaries on the _Brahma-sûtras_, goes to show that the _Brahma-sûtras_ were originally regarded as an authoritative work of the dualists. This also explains the fact that the _Bhagavadgîtâ_, the canonical work of the Ekânti Vai@s@navas, should refer to it. I do not know of any Hindu writer previous to Gau@dapâda who attempted to give an exposition of the monistic doctrine (apart from the Upani@sads), either by writing a commentary as did S'a@nkara, or by writing an independent work as did Gau@dapâda. I am inclined to think therefore that as the pure monism of the Upani@sads was not worked out in a coherent manner for the formation of a monistic system, it was dealt with by people who had sympathies with some form of dualism which was already developing in the later days of the Upani@sads, as evidenced by the dualistic tendencies of such Upani@sads as the S'vetâs'vatara, and the like. The epic S'a@mkhya was also the result of this dualistic development.

It seems that Bâdarâya@na, the writer of the _Brahma-sûtras_, was probably more a theist, than an absolutist like his commentator S'a@nkara. Gau@dapâda seems to be the most important man, after the Upani@sad sages, who revived the monistic tendencies of the Upani@sads in a bold and clear form and tried to formulate them in a systematic manner. It seems very significant that no other kârikâs on the Upani@sads were interpreted, except the _Mân@dûkyakârikâ_ by Gau@dapâda, who did not himself make any reference to any other writer of the monistic school, not even Bâdarâya@na. S'a@nkara himself makes the confession that the absolutist (_advaita_) creed was recovered from the Vedas by Gau@dapâda. Thus at the conclusion of his commentary on Gau@dapâda's kârikâ, he says that "he adores by falling at the feet of that great guru (teacher) the adored of his adored, who on finding all the people sinking in the ocean made dreadful by the crocodiles of rebirth, out of kindness for all people, by churning the great ocean of the Veda by his great churning rod of wisdom recovered what lay deep in the heart of the Veda, and is hardly attainable even by the immortal

423

gods [Footnote ref l]." It seems particularly significant that S'a@nkara should credit Gau@dapâda and not Bâdarâya@na with recovering the Upani@sad creed. Gau@dapâda was the teacher of Govinda, the teacher of S'a@nkara; but he was probably living when S'a@nkara was a student, for S'a@nkara says that he was directly influenced by his great wisdom, and also speaks of the learning, self-control and modesty of the other pupils of Gau@dapâda [Footnote ref 2]. There is some dispute about the date of S'a@nkara, but accepting the date proposed by Bha@n@darkar, Pa@thak and Deussen, we may consider it to be 788 A.D. [Footnote ref 3], and suppose that in order to be able to teach S'a@nkara, Gau@dapâda must have been living till at least 800 A.D.

Gau@dapâda thus flourished after all the great Buddhist teachers As'vagho@sa, Nâgârjuna, Asa@nga and Vasubandhu; and I believe that there is sufficient evidence in his kârikâs for thinking that he was possibly himself a Buddhist, and considered that the teachings of the Upani@sads tallied with those of Buddha. Thus at the beginning of the fourth chapter of his kârikâs he says that he adores that great man (_dvipadâm varam_) who by knowledge as wide as the sky realized (_sambuddha_) that all appearances (_dharma_) were like the vacuous sky (_gaganopamam_ [Footnote ref 4]. He then goes on to say that he adores him who has dictated (_des'ita_) that the touch of untouch (_aspars'ayoga_--probably referring to Nirvâ@na) was the good that produced happiness to all beings, and that he was neither in disagreement with this doctrine nor found any contradiction in it (_avivâda@h aviruddhas'ca_). Some disputants hold that coming into being is of existents, whereas others quarrelling with them hold that being (_jâta_) is of non-existents (_abhûtasya_); there are others who quarrel with them and say that neither the existents nor non-existents are liable to being and there is one non-coming-into-being (_advayamajâtim_). He agrees with those who hold that there is no coming into being [Footnote ref 5]. In IV. 19 of his kârikâ he again says that the Buddhas have shown that there was no coming into being in any way (_sarvathâ Buddhairajâti@h paridîpita@h_).

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: S'a@nkara's bhâ@sya on Gau@dapâda's kârikâ, Anandâs'rama edition, p. 214.]

[Footnote 2: Anandâs'rama edition of S'a@nkara's bhâ@sya on Gau@dapâda's kârikâ, p. 21.]

[Footnote 3: Telang wishes to put S'a@nkara's date somewhere in the 8th century, and Ve@nkates'vara would have him in 805 A.D.-897 A.D., as he did not believe that S'a@nkara could have lived only for 32 years. _J.R.A.S._ 1916.]

[Footnote 4: Compare _Lankâvatâra_, p. 29, _Katha@m ca gaganopamam_.]

[Footnote 5: Gau@dapâda's kârikâ, IV. 2, 4.]

424

Again, in IV. 42 he says that it was for those realists (_vastuvâdi_), who since they found things and could deal with them and were afraid of non-being, that the Buddhas had spoken of origination (_jâti_). In IV. 90 he refers to _agrayâna_ which we know to be a name of _Mahâyâna_. Again, in IV. 98 and 99 he says that all appearances are pure and vacuous by nature. These the Buddhas, the emancipated one (_mukta_) and the leaders know first. It was not said by the Buddha that all appearances (_dharma_) were knowledge. He then closes the kârikâs with an adoration which in all probability also refers to the Buddha [Footnote ref 1].

Gau@dapâda's work is divided into four chapters: (i) Âgama (scripture), (2) Vaitathya (unreality), (3) Advaita (unity), (4) Alâtas'ânti (the extinction of the burning coal). The first chapter is more in the way of explaining the Mâ@n@dûkya Upani@sad by virtue of which the entire work is known as _Mâ@n@dûkyakârikâ_. The second, third, and fourth chapters are the constructive parts of Gau@dapâda's work, not particularly connected with the Mâ@n@dûkya Upani@sad.

In the first chapter Gau@dapâda begins with the three apparent manifestations of the self: (1) as the experiencer of the external world while we are awake (_vis'va_ or _vais'vânara âtmâ_), (2) as the experiencer in the dream state (_taijasa âtmâ_), (3) as the experiencer in deep sleep (_su@supti_), called the _prâjña_ when there is no determinate knowledge, but pure consciousness and pure bliss (_ânanda_). He who knows these three as one is never attached to his experiences. Gau@dapâda then enumerates some theories of creation: some think that the world has proceeded as a creation from the prâ@na (vital activity), others consider creation as an expansion (_vibhûti_) of that cause from which it has proceeded; others imagine that creation is like dream (_svapna_) and magic (_mâyâ_); others, that creation proceeds simply by the will of the Lord; others that it proceeds from time; others that it is for the enjoyment of the Lord (_bhogârtham_) or for his play only (_kri@dârtham_), for such is the nature (_svabhâva_) of the Lord, that he creates, but he cannot have any longing, as all his desires are in a state of fulfilment.

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Gau@dapâda's kârikâ IV. 100. In my translation I have not followed S'a@nkara, for he has I think tried his level best to explain away even the most obvious references to Buddha and Buddhism in Gau@dapâda's kârikâ. I have, therefore, drawn my meaning directly as Gau@dapâda's kârikâs seemed to indicate. I have followed the same principle in giving the short exposition of Gau@dapâda's philosophy below.]

425

Gau@dapâda does not indicate his preference one way or the other, but describes the fourth state of the self as unseen (_ad@r@s@ta_), unrelationable (_avyavahâryam_), ungraspable (_agrâhyam_), indefinable (_alak@sa@na_), unthinkable (_acintyam_), unspeakable (_avyapades'ya_), the essence as oneness with the self (_ekâtmapratyayasâra_), as the extinction of the appearance (_prapañcopas'ama_), the quiescent (_s'ântam_), the good (_s'ivam_), the one (_advaita_) [Footnote ref 1]. The world-appearance (_prapañca_) would have ceased if it had existed, but all this duality is mere mâyâ (magic or illusion), the one is the ultimately real (_paramârthata@h_). In the second chapter Gau@dapâda says that what is meant by calling the world a dream is that all existence is unreal. That which neither exists in the beginning nor in the end cannot be said to exist in the present. Being like unreal it appears as real. The appearance has a beginning and an end and is therefore false. In dreams things are imagined internally, and in the experience that we have when we are awake things are imagined as if existing outside, but both of them are but illusory creations of the self. What is perceived in the mind is perceived as existing at the moment of perception only; external objects are supposed to have two moments of existence (namely before they are perceived, and when they begin to be perceived), but this is all mere imagination. That which is unmanifested in the mind and that which appears as distinct and manifest outside are all imaginary productions in association with the sense faculties. There is first the imagination of a perceiver or soul (_jîva_) and then along with it the imaginary creations of diverse inner states and the external world. Just as in darkness the rope is imagined to be a snake, so the self is also imagined by its own illusion in diverse forms. There is neither any production nor any destruction (_na nirodho, na cotpatti@h_), there is no one who is enchained, no one who is striving, no one who wants to be released [Footnote ref 2]. Imagination finds itself realized in the non-existent existents and also in the sense

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Compare in Nâgârjuna's first kârikâ the idea of _prapañcopas'amam s'ivam. Anirodhamanutpâdamanucchedamas'âs'vatam anekârthamanânârthamanâgamamanirgamam ya@h pratîtyasamutpâdam prapañcopas'amam s'ivam des'ayâmâva sambuddhastam vande vadatâmvaram_. Compare also Nâgârjuna's Chapter on _Nirvâ@naparîk@sâ, Pûrvopalambhopas'ama@h prapañcopas'ama@h s'iva@h na kvacit kasyacit kas'cit dharmmo buddhenades'ita@h_. So far as I know the Buddhists were the first to use the words _prapañcopas'aman s'ivam_.]

[Footnote 2: Compare Nâgârjuna's k@arikâ, "anirodhamanutpâdam" in _Mâdhyamikav@rtti, B.T.S._, p. 3.]

426

of unity; all imagination either as the many or the one (_advaya_) is false; it is only the oneness (_advayatâ_) that is good. There is no many, nor are things different or non-different (_na nânedam ...na p@rthag nâp@rthak_) [Footnote ref 1]. The sages who have transcended attachment, fear, and anger and have gone beyond the depths of the Vedas have perceived it as the imaginationless cessation of all appearance (nirvikalpa@h prapañcopas'ama@h_), the one [Footnote ref 2].

In the third chapter Gau@dapâda says that truth is like the void(_âkâs'a_) which is falsely concieved as taking part in birth and death, coming and going and as existing in all bodies; but howsoever it be conceived, it is all the while not different from âkâs'a. All things that appear as compounded are but dreams (_svapna_) and mâyâ (magic). Duality is a distinction imposed upon the one (_advaita_) by mâyâ. The truth is immortal, it cannot therefore by its own nature suffer change. It has no birth. All birth and death, all this manifold is but the result of an imposition of mâyâ upon it [Footnote ref 3]. One mind appears as many in the dream, as also in the waking state one appears as many, but when the mind activity of the Togins (sages) is stopped arises this fearless state, the extinction of all sorrow, final ceasation. Thinking everything to be misery (_du@hkham sarvam anusm@rtya_) one should stop all desires and enjoyments, and thinking that nothing has any birth he should not see any production at all. He should awaken the mind (_citta_) into its final dissolution (_laya_) and pacify it when distracted; he should not move it towards diverse objects when it stops. He should not taste any pleasure (_sukham_) and by wisdom remain unattached, by strong effort making it motionless and still. When he neither passes into dissolution nor into distraction; when there is no sign, no appearance that is the perfect Brahman. When there is no object of knowledge to come into being, the unproduced is then called the omniscent (_sarvajña_).

In the fourth chapter, called the Alats'ânti, Gau@dapâda further

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Compare _Mâdhyamikakârikâ, _B.T.S._, p.3 _anekârtham anânârtham_, etc.]

[Footnote 2: Compare _Lankâvatârasûtra_, p.78, _Advayâsamsâraparinirvâ@nvatsarvadharmâ@h tasmât tarhi mahâmate S'unyatânutpâdâdvayani@hsvabhâvalak@sa@ne yoga@h kara@niya@h_; also 8,46, _Yaduta svacittavi@sayavikalpad@r@s@tyânavabodhanât vijñânânâm svacittad@r@s@tyamâtrânavatâre@na mahâmate vâlaprthagjanâ@h bhâvâbhâvasvabhâvaparamârthad@r@s@tidvayvâdino bhavanti_.]

[Footnote 3: Compare Nâgârjuna's kârikâ, _B.T.S._ p. 196, _Âkâs'am s'as'as'@r@ngañca bandhyâyâ@h putra eva ca asantas'câbhivyajyante tathâbhâvena kalpanâ_, with Gau@dapâda's kârikâ, III. 28, _Asato mâyayâ janma tatvato naiva jâyate bandhyâputro na tattvena mâyâya vâpi jâyate_.]

427