What is Brahman and Its implication to Covid Virus

Who is Brahman? Veda says someone who is సత్యం (truth) and అనంతం(infinite). These two adjectives, among others, establish the identity of Brahman to some extent. Why so? No matter which కల్పము (recreation of universe) we are in, those two words among others, will persist. To generalize this, any meta concept will prevail in all creations. To give another concrete example, we can say a "red rose is beautiful". The word "rose" is a flower which is everlasting. In other words, a flower is capable of reproduction of some living things (called జాతి or species) that is required in every recreation. One can ask what if a universe is created without trees? True, it can happen but the concept of reproduction remains the same because even the Brahman has to create a universe with reproduction without having to create every being with his hands. Take another word "DNA". Can a universe exist without DNA? When one analyzes it, DNA is a fundamental unit of all living things. Therefore it has to exist in all universes.

For us mortals, only Vedas are meant as ప్రమాణం (standard). We take every sentence in Veda as a standard. The ancient rishis used a language that is meant as a universal standard that applies to every universe. Hence it is in Sanskrit which few people can understand and interpret in a colloquial language (example తెలుగు (Telugu)). We are limited to some words and rules of grammar. This is called వాఙ్మయం (the sum total of a language). We cannot escape from it.

Brahman is the creator. In one particular universe he provides self-sustaining beings. They can be trees or rocks that have ప్రాణం (life). Since he has infinite knowledge, it can be the kind of beings that we cannot conceive at this time (Star Trek series can be used for reference but it too will fall short by humanizing (anthropomorphism) the strange beings encountered on a different planet).

My favorite definition of Brahman is that which surrounds the visible universe and goes beyond. Astronomers could map the visible universe and even find out that the universe is expanding. My question, what is the universe expanding into? For example, when you blow a balloon it is expanding into the space surrounding it. We can cognize it as a physical process. What about the space surrounding the visible universe?

I would like to hint that the fundamental particles physicists have found out like quarks are also the building blocks of any universe Brahman would create. There have to be atoms, of which quarks are resident, in every universe the Brahman would do. They may not be called atoms and quarks but their epistemology stays the same.

Going into Hinduism where the 3 murtis: Brahma, Vishnu, Maheswara are considered as the creator, ruler and destroyer respectively. They were assigned those roles by Brahman based on a దేశ (spatial coordinates) and కాల (time coordinate). Every universe Brahma could create must have these Gods who attained that status by పుణ్యం (good deeds). If they fail to do their jobs, Brahman would demote them and replace them with another set of Gods. I also have this revelation that when we pray to these Gods, we are given knowledge that applies to their character and personality. For example, when Lord Rama went to the forest, he was ordered to do so by his father Dasaratha. Since Rama is an obedient son he obeyed the order. Brahman could have wished that everyone should learn this principle.

I would like to elaborate on ధర్మ (duty) and the purpose of creation. Dharma is considered as the fundamental principle whereby the veracity of things and actions are adjudged. Every universe must have this to balance good and bad deeds. In the current universe, on Earth, some people either don't understand or don't follow this resulting in considerable unhappiness. The Brahman created this universe so that his dharma would prevail.

Apparently there is no goal for the universe except to entertain the Brahman. Our puny bodies are subjected to Karma, which is an eternal law that all universes should have, whereby we are forced to have multiple births.

Finally, I would like to mention the Covid virus that is ravaging the earth. Why should an ordinary and tiny virus dispatch so many humans, some of them innocent of any crime or sin, to the nether world? Also the virus mutates making it tough or impossible to eliminate it entirely. Perhaps this is an aberration in the Brahman's creation where he could not anticipate the universe going astray. Some Hindus said the virus was discharging the duty of Eeswara by punishing the sinners and in the process affecting the good people whose only sin is befriending them.

Brahma-Sutra-Sankara-Bhashyam-2-2-Tarka(Logic)Paadam

Credit

In Second Chapter's 2nd Paadam of Brahma Sutraas, Sankara analyzed various religious sects within Hinduism that were prevalent like Saankya, Dwaita, Visishtaadvaita, Budhism, Jainism, etc. Since he is a follower of Advaita, he was also trying to disprove the religious sects and establish advaita as the most superior among the various sects. First he begins with Saankya. He says Saankya-vadis use the scripture to justify their spurious claims. So a debate ensued that is purely based on 'tarka' or 'hEtu vaada' or logic. These are some of the metaphors acceptable to all. For a pot, clay is the upaadaana (material) cause and the pot-maker is the nimitta (sentient) cause. In other words clay is the swaroopa (aatma) and pot is the visEsha (particular). According to Saankya, the reason we experience sukha (joy), dukha (sadness) and mOham (attachment) can be explained as because of the 3 gunas: sattva (calm), rajas (active) and tamas (inactive). Viewed differently sukha and dukha are experienced in jaagrat (wakeful) and swapna(dream). mOham is experienced in sushupti (deep sleep). Similarly manas (mind) is sattva, praanam (breathing) is rajas and body is tamas. In this manner Brahmaandam (universe) and Pindaandam (life) are manifest from tri-gunas. Before creation happened the tri-gunas existed in quiescence. After srushti (creation) they manifested as space or 3-dimensions (sattva), time (rajas) and objects (tamas).

Given all these, the followers of Kapila, the proponent of Saankya, were asked how can Prakriti that is achEtana (insentient) produce chEtana or sentient beings? Also the chEtana jeevas (living forms) experience sukha/dukha/mOham, but not achEtana. Only with knowledge we experience anything. Mountains, rivers, etc. don't experience them because they are achEtana and don't possess knowledge. For instance, cyclone gives dukha and food gives sukha. Why? According to Saankya, it is because of swabhaava (inherent nature). They were further queried, can one see any movement in achEtana without a sentient cause (chEtana)? How can achEtana Prakriti give the sukha/dukha/moha experience? The world is orderly and well designed. This suggests that an intelligent being (chEtana) gave rise to the world. AchEtana Prakriti could not have done it without the help of a sentient being. Clay becomes pot, no doubt. But not by itself. It requires the skill of a pot-maker for the transformation to take place. Therefore, there is a samishti (macro) chaitanya that made the universe and vyashti (micro) chaitanya that encompasses jeeva (life forms). Brahman, believed by Sankara, is both the nimitta (sentient) and upaadaana (material) cause for the universe. As it can be inferred, sukha and dukha are in one's mind.

Sankara says, how can a limited number of gunas give rise to an infinite universe? Only a nirguna (devoid of gunas) can be infinite. He claims all objects with limits must come from somewhere. Where does the limited Prakriti come from? According to him Prakriti is aabhaasa (illusion). There is no achEtana Prakriti. He once again cites the example of a pot-maker as a person who carries out a procedure (pravrutti). The procedure can be thus: collect clay, place it on a wheel, mold the clay, etc. In the same vein, there has to be a pravrutti for the creation. The Saankya assumption that at the time of equipoise for the 3-gunas, there is no creation and the creation took place when one of the gunas dominated and the other 2 were expressed in different quantities was questioned. The Prakriti is not capable of all these because it is achEtana.

The Saankya followers question Sankara's reasoning by asking can pure chaitanya, without a upaadhi (body), exist? A pure achEtana cannot create change in a pure chEtana. The pravrutti is present when chEtana wills. achEtana has no pravrutti. So when a vehicle moves is it because of achEtana (the vehicle) or chEtana (the driver)? Sankara's reply was there is a sentient being behind the motion of a vehicle in the form of a driver who is chEtana. The chEtana of the driver is niraakaara (invisible). In sum, chEtana can cause motion in the achEtana vehicle. And chEtana cannot move the vehicle by itself!

A chaaruvaaka (atheist) asks Sankara can chEtana exist independently? Because without upaadhi (body) that is achEtana, there is no chEtana; Without clay there is no pot; gnaana(knowledge) is evidenced with body only;therefore gnaana and chaitanya cannot exist independently. Sankara responds by asking can fire exist independently? Whenever we see fire it is burning an object. Devoid of an object or fuel, fire is not visible. He then says the object/fuel is like body (achEtana) and fire is like chEtana. They both exist together. And that's because of paramaatma's maaya. The fire is brought from avyakta (unmanifest) to vyakta (manifest) in the presence of fuel. Such is also chaitanya that is in a state of avyakta until a upaadhi (medium) is found. Thus, jeeva chaitanya is inter-mingled with upaadhi. Manas (mind) is like a mirror that captures paramaatma's chaitanya and passes it on to the jeeva. Without chaitanya the body is lifeless.

The next questions to Sankara were asked thus. What is the swaroopa (form/shape) of chaitanya? What is consciousness? Is there mutation in pure chaitanya? Is there motion in the niraakaara (formless) chaitanya? Isn't it true that chaitanya can't perform action (kriya) all by itself? Sankara refers to a magnet and says a magnet can induce motion in iron filings without performing any kriya. That is its potential or Sakti. Paramaatma is like a huge magnet who can induce action in all beings. In other words, Iswara is like a magnet who induces pravrutti and that is his vibhooti (illusion). Iswara has manifested in all the objects found in the universe by dividing himself. It is like both the wave and the ocean are water.

This raises another question: isn't paramaatma in all things? Who is inducing motion in paramaatma because there is nothing else other than paramaatma? Sankara's response is both movement and mover are fallacies. Because of ignorance world seems to be nama-roopa (name-form). He invokes Saankya, and says the Prakriti that is achEtana can't perform srishti (creation). Just as sky, the entire universe is an illusion.

The chaaruvaaka's questioning continues. Milk is achEtana. It comes from the udder of the cow like an involuntary action. Rivers flow and their water helps sustain life. Indirectly they are benefiting one and all without taking the help of chEtana. Such is the swabhaava (inherent nature) of Prakriti. Sankara's response is chaitanya is universal. Wherever there is kriya it is because of paramaatma. In the case of the cow because of paramaatma's chaitanya, albeit in the presence of her calf, the milk is generated in her body and flows to the udder. Without chaitanya a tree won't live. The cycle of birth and death is because of chaitanya. The universe comprising stars and planets that are set in motion in fixed path is because they obey paramaatma's command out of fear. In a vehicle there is no pravrutti (process). It is only found in chaitanya (the driver).

The atheists ask: a cow eats grass and generates milk without nimitta (sentient) cause. What is the reason? To which Sankara replies, the nimitta (sentient) cause is avyakta (unmanifest). By the same token an ox cannot generate milk. One can also increase the output of milk by increasing the fodder to the cow. So it is all possible because of chaitanya. The atheist persists and asks, why does the paramaatma create the universe and then devolve (layam) it? Sankara brings Saankya into his argument and says pradhaana (Prakriti) has no volition. It doesn't have free will (ichchaa sakti). Paramaatma has maaya. That's why.

Sankara asks what is the use of the srishti (creation) by the Prakriti? Prakriti is achEtana and independent. So long as its tri-gunas are in quiescence (saamyam) there is no creation. A perturbation among the tri-gunas is necessary to start creation. Who is responsible for the perturbation? He further asks is the use of such creation: bhOgam (experiencing sukha/dukha or pleasure/pain) or apavarga (salvation)? Saankya's response is if the problem is bhOgam, then the solution is apavarga. But as per Saankya, a jeeva/Purusha is nissanga (unattached), nirvikaara (unchanging), etc. How can a jeeva that is unattached to prathama (Prakriti) experience pleasure/pain in such a situation? Sankara answers by claiming the gnaana (knowledge) that has no shape or form can't be subjected to pleasure or pain. It is only in the mind/manas of the Purusha. When Purusha is overwhelmed with pain and pleasure, where is the opportunity to attain mOksha? The Prakriti is unendingly foisting pleasure/pain on the jeeva. So there is no liberation. And most importantly why does Prakriti cause pain or pleasure? To which Saankya responds, it is its play. Sankara says play is for some thing that has gnaana/consciousness/intelligence which Prakriti doesn't have. Jeeva has dhruk sakti (vision) and Prakriti has the sakti to create. As it keeps on creating new things, the jeeva is perennially trapped in enjoying pleasure and pain of the creation with his dhruk sakti. He then provides a metaphor where a lame person with vision sits on the shoulders of a blind person and guides him.

Chaitanya = praana (breathing) + gnaana (knowledge). Without praana there is neither chaitanya nor gnaana. Without life or mind, where is the consciousness? The Saankya follower responds, Prakriti is like a magnet. Sankara argues if the magnetism is obstructed there is no movement in the iron filings . So magnetism can be present or absent. Hence Prakriti cannot be like a magnet. Sankara says: if Purusha is unattached and Prakriti is achEtana where is the relationship between the two? How can Prakriti cause pleasure or pain in the Purusha? It is maaya/aabhaasa/illusion. The Saankya follower replies: there is no actual relationship between Purusha and Prakriti, but they have the potential to affect each other. Still there is no answer as to why creation happened and pleasure/pain is thrust on Purusha.

The Saankya disciple asks why do you assume there is a paramaatma? Sankara's response is Paramaatma is a witness and creates by maayaa sakti. Sankara persists who is responsible for vaishamyam (imbalance) in the tri-gunas when there is no paramaatma or a nimitta (sentient) cause? What if we supply gnaana to Prakriti? In other words, what if there is a 3rd entity to mediate between Purusha and Prakriti? Matter with consciousness is almighty and Sankara's Brahma vaada (theory) will win. But Saankya won't accept there is a Brahman. The Saankya philosophy is confusing by claiming there are 5 or 11 indriyas (senses), mahat and ahamkaara (ego) are the same, and so on. There is no consensus among Saankya followers. Thus, Sankara debunks Saankya theory of creation.

The Kapila's follower responds: there are two universal things for transaction: arthi (seeker) and artha (thing desired). Sukha (pleasure) is artha and the person experiencing it is arthi. Similarly dukha (pain). There is anartha (thing not desired). Sukha is artha and dukha is anartha. But in this world, dukha is in majority so much so that sukha is the interval wrapped between dukha. Hence the world experiences taapatraya (aadi daivika [hindrance by devas], aadi bhouthika [ hindrance by physical entitites], aadhyaatmika [ hindrances by spirituality]). The tapya (one who experience taapaka) is always suffering and moving further away from liberation (mOksha). If he is a nirguna (without gunas) as Saankya says, then he can attain mOksha.

Sankara says, it is samsara (bondage) that causes pain. One has to unify both tapya and taapaka. When pleasure and pain are combined there is no experience. Such unified entity is not different from one's gnaana (knowledge). He once again gives the example of fire (agni) that has the properties of heat and light. The two properties are unified in the agni. The heat and light don't affect agni. They have an inseparable contact (avinaabhaava sambandha) with agni. Since gnaana (knowledge) is niraakaara (formless) how can it experience tapya and taapaka?

The unconvinced Saankya follower says such a theory doesn't stand before actual experience. In reality one suffers taapatraya. Can Sankara give an example for his theory? Sankara responds a live body (dEha) is walking under a hot sun. The body is the tapya and hot sun is the taapaka. The Kapila follower asks: who experiences pain? One needs chaitanya/gnaana/consciousness to experience pain. So the body devoid of chaitanya can't experience taapaka. Sankara replies if not body, is the pain to the chaitanya or gnaana? Or to the entity that thinks it is the body? A dead body has no pain because it has no gnaana. Pure consciousness apart from its body cannot experience pain. In Saankya theory, the Purusha is devoid of gunas (nirguna) and is unattached (nissanga). So there is no taapatraya to him. Are the body and gnaana (knowledge) unified? It is not possible. Body is asudha (impure) and gnaana is sudha (pure). They can't mix with each other. Then he gives 4 possibilities to ponder over:

• (1) a dead or comatose or in sushupti or when anesthetized the body has no pain;
• (2) without body gnaana has no pain
• (3) without gnaana body can't experience pain and
• (4) pain can't cause pain to itself.

The Kapila's follower replies, sattva guna experiences pain and rajo guna creates pain. Sankara asks: isn't the Purusha nirguna (without gunas)? So how can he experience pain? The follower says: gnaana is niraakaara (formless). So where is the pain of bondage manifesting? It is in the gnaana that is attached to sattva guna. Chaitanya by way of attachment to sattva is experiencing pain. And then it descends to the level of manas (mind). Since manas has tri-gunas, it feels the pain.

Sankara's response is: there is no experience in reality, but there is experience notionally. When you mistake a venomous snake to be a water snake (non-venomous), and touch it, you will experience pain that is relative. It all depends on what you assume. That there is taapaka in bondage, one has to accept as an axiom or truism. It can only be removed with gnaana (knowledge). Since Prakriti always creates taapa and jeeva constantly experiences taapaka, there is no mOksha in Saankya theory.

The Saankya follower responds thus: if taapatraya is unmanifest (avyakta) then it is possible to attain liberation. The block is created by avivEka (ignorance) or tamO guna (laziness). When it vanishes it is possible to attain mOksha. Sankara responds by saying there are no gunas in reality. It is all aabhaasa or illusion. If sattva is experiencing pain and rajas is causing pain, then what about tamas? The follower questions, what if tamas lasts for ever? Sankara replies, when the Purusha is in jaagrat (awake) or swapna (dream), then tamas will be driven out. If gnaana drives out agnaana then one experiences the 4th avastha (state) tureeyam.

Summarizing thus far:

• a) it is not possible to attain salvation with gunas
• b)there is no bondage without Purusha who experiences and world that creates objects to experience
• c)the relationship between pain and pleasure is uncertain

The Saankya follower asks if we accept your philosophy

• (a) can you show us a way to escape bondage (samsaara)?
• (b) since upanishads are based on aatma, where does the subject-object difference come from such as Brahman gives pain and experiences pain, etc.?

Sankara agrees with the follower with the caveats:

• (a)when everything is Brahman are pain and pleasure real? Are waves of an ocean real? Is all that is visible real or all that is real visible?
• (b)you don't experience the pain of your neighbor; so what makes you think you experience your own pain?
• (c)anubhava is only possible in jaagrat avastha (while awake) and all such anubhava are pseudo experiences
• (d)aatma is swaroopa and everything else is aabhaasa such as a pot's real swaroopa is clay; it only exists as a name and form but not real
• (e)there is really only paramaatma and whatever you see is unreal.

The follower asks is it all possible in real life? Sankara's reply:

• a)people have different ways to function in the world and no two people are alike
• b)when one gets closer to the vaividhyam(diversification) of the world, one will be distant from paramaatma; vice-versa
• c)the world appears as per the volition of the observer; thus tapya and taapaka are relative
• d)one needs vairagya (detachment) to fully understand advaita

Therefore, Sankara concludes vis-a-vis Saankya, all of the objections to the advaita or Brahma vaada have been resolved.

Sankara then turns his attention to Kanaadaa's theory which has been summarized as follows:

• a)atoms are the fundamental elements
• b)as a substance is divided, sub-divided and so on, when it is no longer possible to divide, then one has arrived at the atom of that substance
• c)Sankara gives the example of a cloth that is woven from cotton thread; as one recognizes the strands of threads woven into cloth and goes on dividing the strands what results is as an atom. What is that atom?
• d)the 4 bhootas: prithvi (earth), aapas (water), vaayu (air), tejas (fire) have such atoms. But not for space
• e) at the time of creation the atoms of vaayu combine; it is enabled by a karma
• f)Sankara's questions who performed the Karma
• g)Kanaadaa's answer is adrishtam or invisible entity
• h)How can Kanaadaa see it? He just inferred.
• i)the karma binds one atom to another, thus amalgamating many atoms to form compounds
• j)the end result is the formation of planets, stars, oceans, etc.
• k)Sankara asks who created the karma?
• l)Kanaadaa's answer is the "thing" called aatma has samyOgam with the "thing" called manas (mind) l1)Sankara says it is like the atom of aatma (which is a "thing" for Kanaadaa) gives the impetus for non-aatma atoms to combine which is specious
• m)Sankara also objects to it as aatma needs a upaadhi (body) to have chaitanya.
• k)Then Sankara says that the perturbation can only be either prayatna (sentient) or abhigaata (force). Also there has to be a nimitta kaarana (sentient cause) for it.
• l)Then Sankara raises his main objection as: what is the force behind the joining of atoms to form compounds? Is it internal in atoms or external?
• m)the theory also claims it is adrishta (unseen) Purusha (divine person) that causes creation. So Sankara asks is the Purusha doing this
• n) Sankara asks what kind of relationship (sambandha) exists between atoms? If it is a total merger, then 2 atoms cannot occupy the same space. On the other hand, a partial merger means an atom can be divided into parts and it is no longer an atom. And without relationship between atoms there is no creation.
• o)Kanaadaa claims nimitta (sentient) is karma and the nimitta of karma is samyOga
• p)Sankara says: after atoms combine, evolve into a body, acquire mind, then it is possible to perform karma; there is no karma before srishti
• q)Nor the atoms have karma inherently; so srishti never happens
• r)Sankara then says: there are 4 possibilities
  • nivrutti
  • pravrutti
  • a combination of the nivrutti/pravrutti
  • nothing happens

  In nivrutti atoms don't combine. So there is no srishti. In pravrutti since atoms combine always there is no pralaya (devolution) and there will be perennial samsaara (bondage) which is not possible. Then a combination of nivrutti and pravrutti is not possible.

• s)Sankara says if there is no form (roopa) in the atoms, then there is no scope for form to appear in the world. Since an atom is indivisible there is no scope for roopa to co-exist – occupy the same space -- with the atom .
• t)each of the pancha bhootas have attributes: prithvi (earth) has gandha (smell) + sparsa (touch) + rasa (taste) + roopa (form); aapa (water) has sparsa + roopa + rasa; tejas (fire) has roopa + sparsa; vaayu (air) has sparsa and so on. Since atoms don't have these attributes, there is no way the bhootas could originate from them.
• u)as gunas become subtle-subtler-subtlest, the moorti (shape) has to change. Since atoms can't have attributes, there is no way for them to form binary, triads, etc.
• v)In the final analysis Sankara refutes the creation of the world as per Kanaadaa's theory.

In the next Sutra, Sankara defends his advaita philosophy by arguing with vaisEshikas or taarkikas who are logicians. The vaisEshikas postulate that there are 6 categories behind creation:

• dravya (thing)
• guna (attribute/quality/form),
• karma (function),
• saamaanya (jaati or genus),
• visEsha (particular or specie) and
• samavaayaa (sambandha or relationship).

These are called bhaava vibhaaga (division). They also have abhaava vibhagaas whereby they argue there is no pot before molding the clay and there is no pot after it breaks; anyOya or mutually exclusive, atyanta or exists only in imagination, etc. Sankara asks if the 6 categories exist together (Eka) or apart (bhinna)? The taarkikas answer is they reside in the same object. Sankara questions how can they all exist in the same space. The proper example given by him is the relationship between cloth and strands of thread. He asks where is the cloth apart from threads that are interwoven? Besides, both cloth and strands occupy the same space. So there are no 2 categories but just one.

For aadhaara (dependence), Sankara defines it as if one thing depends on the other and cannot exist without it. Hence the thread is not apart from the cloth. There is only one dravya. The logician asks if there are no 6 categories in the real world. Sankara coins a new word samsthaana (pose or position or role) in answering the question. Just as paramaatma exists as moon, sun, planets, etc. because of his vibhooti, clay appears as pot, vase, etc.;a person can be in different poses, sleeping, walking, playing, etc. at different times. Thus, the 6 categories are different samsthaana. To which the logician asks: from fire comes smoke; aren't they the same then? Sankara's reply is you must accept fire and smoke are different entities. Whereas the redness of a red carpet cannot exist by itself. The carpet can exist all by itself but not redness. Then Sankara asks are redness and carpet super-imposed on each other in space? Does it happen at the same time?

Then he says advaita has a concept called taadaatmya which means two or more things seem like a single substance. But the padaartha/swaroopa (aatma) is one only. For example the digit 1 can be in the 10's, 100's, 1000's, etc. place in a number. It is still the digit 1 that has multiple roles. Then Sankara asks why do you stop at 6 categories? There can be many more categories. He reminds us the world won't look as you expect; one has to adapt to the world. There are only 2 things really that are nirakaaras (without form). One is gnaana (knowledge) which is subjective and the other is aakaasa (space) that is objective. The place where they meet is called chidaakaasa. They are not dependent on anything for their existence. Therefore, visEsha (particular) will die and won't last for ever. If you stick to gnaana which is niraakaara, then it is immortality.

Sankara now turns to Buddhism. His main objective is to condemn the Budhist faith that jagat (world) doesn't exist. In that light the following has to be understood:

• 1. parinaama vaada (the theory of evolution) says Purusha=aatma
• 2. a bhOkta is one experiencing sukha (happiness) or dukha (sadness)
• 3. The aatma is bhOkta (experiencer); in advaita aatma is neither karta (doer) nor bhOkta – only saakshi (witness)
• 4. parinaama vaada says in each body there is a unique aatma
• 5. Kapila says in multiple bodies there is a multiplicity of aatmas
• 6. According to Saankya and Patanjali yOga there is no experience of pure aatma swaroopa (form)
• 7. Now, he turns to the aarambha vaada (the theory of creation) There are two philosophies: naiyayaka and vaishEka
• 8. They say there are 9 categories: panchabhootas (earth, water, fire, air and space), kaala (time), dikk (direction), manas (mind) and aatma
• 9. Together naiyayakas and vaisEshikas are called taarkikas
• 10. They say the chaitanya of aatma is not ready made or ever present; when it combines with manas then the gnaana (knowledge) arises; otherwise aatma is inert (jadam)
• 11. They say the atoms of pancha bhootas, and the four qualities kaala (time), dikk (direction), manas (mind) and aatma are nitya (ever present)
• 12. Besides these there are arthavainaasikas who claim world looks like real but it undergoes destruction (vinaasa) constantly. They say an atom will never die but the compounds made of atoms will die.
• 13. There are others called sarva-vainaasikas: who claim everything dies including kaarya(effect), kaarana (cause); the world and thought change constantly. Nothing is permanent. These are also called Budhists.
• 14. There are 3 saakhas (divisions) among Budhists; Besides the above 2 there are vaisEshikas who carry out pseudo reasoning that goes against the vEdas, baahyartha and soonya vadis.
• 15. An aarambha vaadi is arthavainaasika
• 16. But Budhists are sarva-vainaasikas
• 17. One kind of Budhist accepts pratyaksha pramaana (object by recognition) and the other kind only accepts anumaana pramaana (from properties to object)
• 18. They claim everything is sadness and fleeting. Their solution is sarvam soonyam (everything is null and void)
• 19. Then there is sarvaastat: everything materialistic is going to die and prapancha (world) + budhi is for ever
• 20. The bhoota (prithvi (earth) + rasa(taste) /roopa(form) /gandha(smell) /sparsa(touch) /sabda(sound), etc.) + bouthika (rasa-tongue, roopa-eye, gandha-nose, sparsa-skin, sabda-ear and prithivi (earth) are skandas
• 21. Skanda according to Buddhist thought, is the five elements that sum up the whole of an individual’s mental and physical existence. The self (or soul) cannot be identified with any one of the parts, nor is it the total of the parts. They are: (1) matter, or body (rūpa), the manifest form of the four elements—earth, air, fire, and water; (2) sensations, or feelings (vedanā); (3) perceptions of sense objects (Sanskrit: saṃjñā; Pāli: saññā); (4) mental formations (saṃskāras/sankhāras); and (5) awareness, or consciousness, of the other three mental aggregates (vijñāna/viññāṇa). All individuals are subject to constant change, as the elements of consciousness are never the same, and man may be compared to a river, which retains an identity, though the drops of water that make it up are different from one moment to the next.
• 22. According to Buddhists sankalpa (wish) is because of budhi
• 23. Sankara asks how does budhi originate?
• 24. He says Budhists don't accept jeevaatma (life forms) or paramaatma and claim aatma is not present
• 25. They don't accept self can be either bhOkta (jeeva) or prasaasita (paramaatma)
• 26. There is no standard (pramaana) to Budhist philosophy
• 27. The sanghaata (combination ) and samhanta (combiner or coordinator) is because of the chaitanya of jeeva or paramaatma
• 28. Because of paramaatma's sankalpa (wish) atoms combine
• 29. Since Budhists believe aatma is based on manas they don't accept bhOkta or saasitam (paramaatma)
• 30. Their 5 fold principle assumes: gnaana (knowledge) + ichcha (wish) + kriya (karma) + phala (result of karma) + anubhava (experience)
• 31. gnaana (budhi is an instrument); gnaana is niraakaara (formless), nirguna(devoid of qualities), etc.; Because of budhi there is individual consciousness, ichcha sakti, gnaana sakti, pancha gnaanEndriyas (5 senses) and pancha karmEndriyaas (hands, legs, speech, anus and genitals). And the gnaanEndriyas control karmEndriyaas and then come kriya (karma) and phala (fruit of karma)
• 32. Then Sankara talks about vignanamaasta (idealists) who claim there is only vignaana (knowledge) and nothing else
• 33. The other kind is sarva soonyaka who says the world is zero.
• 34. Sankara's advaitam posits Brahma nirvaana (liberation) that is based on positive thinking. Therefore there is dharma Purushaartha (dharma + artha [wealth] + kaama [desire] + mOksha)
• 35. Whereas Budhists don't believe in mOksha (liberation) even though they believe in dharma

Sankara continues:

• 1. Budhists believe the bhaava prapancha (world) is kshanikam (fleeting); even inner world is kshanikam
• 2. They say everything changes because of the kaala (time dimension)
• 3. Sankara asks: what is observing all the changing things?
• 4. Who is observing the thoughts within and sanghaata – combination of atoms-- and without?
• 5. He says a kaarana (cause) leads to kaarya (effect); A kaarana must exist for kaarya; The poorva kshana (anterior time instance) transits into uttara kshana (posterior time instance); therefore he asks who is bridging the two instances of time?
• 6. The Boudha's reply is one generates another to which Sankara disagrees: the generation of one from the other is not possible. What is observing this entire process? Without nimitta (sentient cause) nothing ever manifests; vaastava (real) or avaastava (unreal) doesn't matter; a nimitta is the witness that must exist for both
• 7. There are only two things that are nitya (ever present): paramaanu (atom) and bhOkta (one who experiences pain or pleasure or jeeva aatma); whereas a taarkika (logician) argues the atoms are anitya (impermanent) and there is no bhOkta
• 8. So Sankara asks is there a thing that is permanent? A bhOkta is such a standard entity. One must accept the existence of bhOkta and an end result of liberation/salvation from samsaara (bondage) ; everyone aspires for freedom from bondage.
• 9. Sankara then asks for whose anubhava (experience) does the world exist?
• 10. Sankara argues thoughts cannot experience. One's thoughts are not fleeting until there is anubhava. So it has to last for a few moments of time. To which the Budhist responds bhOga pertains to time dimension and there is no jeeva for anubhava
• 11. Sankara wonders who will experience since without a bhOkta a bhOga can't experience itself? Do pleasure and pain experience by themselves?
• 12. Who is the witness at the time of bhOga and mOksha?
• 13. The witness (self) has to stay between the time of bhOga and the time of mOksha. Therefore the concept of kshanika kaala (minuscule time unit) is not tenable.
• 14. A cause (kaarana) will end when an effect (kaarya) is produced. It is not possible for both of them to exist together. In other words, there is only one thought at a time
• 15. If effect changes every kshana (unit of time), where does the cause reside? When kaarana (cause) waits for the kaarya (effect), then we can say time is continuous.
• 16. Then the debate turns to anusmruti or recapitulation. For a vainaasika (a believer in everything is going to die) every thing lasts for kshanika. Who is causing this awareness? Is it aatma? For a Boudha there is no aatma. Then what about gnaana (knowledge/consciousness). Is gnaana kshanika? The Buddhist answers affirmative. Then the question is what is it that tells you the intervals of time? If you don't accept a witness there is no one to show intelligence
• 17. For all people first there is experience and then the recapitulation. That which is based on and follows anubhava is anusmriti (recap); Who is the experiencer? Is he the same person before and after? If so the self is not for just kshanika.
• 18. For anubhava and recapitulation it is the same self. This is called pratyabhigna (re-cognition);
• 19. One forgets self during deep sleep. However when he wakes up all the thoughts associated with self re-emerge from avyakta (unknown). Only the existing things give rise to consciousness. Otherwise there is nothing else to cognize.
• 20. Without anubhava there is no recall; Who is the witness for the 3 states of existence (wakeful or jaagrat, dream sleep or swapna and deep sleep or sushupti)? Only one's self.
• 21. Who is the witness or judge of this debate between Sankara and Boudha? Common sense.
• 22. One has to follow a philosophy that withstands close scrutiny and satisfies all pramaana (standard)
• 23. One can have doubts about external things as to their attributes, existence, etc. But not about one's self.
• 24. He introduces the word upalabhda as one who experiences without a doubt.
• 25. The Budhist will accept everything except permanence; and the effect that is found in the world
• 26. Take for example a pot made from clay. Clay is permanent (that which cannot be destroyed) whereas a pot is impermanent. So is a producer who is permanent.
• 27. World is impermanent and paramaatma is permanent (sthira)
• 28. Similarly saakshi(self) is sthira and body is impermanent
• 29. For a Budhist all things come from soonya or nothingness (according to Boudha). He gives the example of a seed from which a tree grows and there is no more seed. Milk ferments into curd and milk is no longer there.
• 30. Sankara lauds him if he agrees bhaava comes from abhaava; but it won't happen. The abhaava is present even before bhaava. When you see an effect why do you see its cause? If there is nothingness, why do you get a pumpkin from a pumpkin vine but not a grape? If anything can manifest from nothingness then this world will be topsy turvy; matter can be neither created nor destroyed.
• 31. Why only curd comes out of milk? Why not a tree? How can a single cause arise from a single effect? If abhaava is not visEsha (particular) there is no kaarana (cause).

Sankara argues with the Baahyaartha and Vignaana Sakas (divisions) of Buddhism

In Baahyartha

• 1. world and gnaana (knowledge) are kshanika (fleeting)
• 2. they are only apparent via pratyaksha (object by recognition) and anumaana pramaana (from properties to object)
• 3. satya (truth) is that which satisfies either pratyaksha or anumaana pramaana or both
• 4. gnaana (knowledge) precedes gnEyam (the observed)
• 5. sarvam asthiram (every thing is impermanent)
• 6. Sankara says who is the witness to tell that everything is impermanent? This is called anavastaa dOsha because a witness has to have a witness and so on recursively.

In Vignaana

• 1. Buddhism says there is observer but not observed or the observed is unreal
• 2. for vignaana or budhi (intellect) there is a saakshi (witness) called vignEyam
• 3. budhi chaitanya is vignaana as per Budhists; saakshi chaitanya is vignanam as per upanishads; jeeva chaitanya is always present
• 4. gnaana is limited; paripoorna gnaana is paramaatma
• 5. jeevaatma is tangible with pratyaksha pramaana (by recognition); Brahman is perceived with anumaana pramaana (inference from property)
• 6. when both jeeva/paramaatma are not present, is there jagat (pure matter)?
• 7. If jagat is gnaana swaroopa it is not visible; because gnaana is nirakaara (formless)
• 8. Budha mentioned the 5 kosas: annamaya, praanamaya, manOmaya, gnaanamaya and aanandamaya and stopped at aanandamaya kOsam
• 9. vignaana vaada is like advaitam
• 10. anything that is cognized has to first appear in manas (mind). It is initiated with material or concrete objects; and at the end it appears abstract as sukha/dukha (pleasure and pain); so both thought and karma require manas
• 11. jagat can be present in the manas or may not
• 12. pramaana (the instrument to perceive ), pramEya (the one perceived) and phala (result) are universal
• 13. the presence of the jagat or world is uncertain; if there is no jagat, it can't be perceived with manas (mind)
• 14. how can we reconcile the two statements by Budhists: jagat is not there outside manas and it is only found in manas?
• 15. Budhists answer as the jagat is either a heap of atoms or a combination of atoms.
• 16. To which Sankara says a pillar, for example, is not just a heap of atoms. Atoms are invisible in a pillar. Is pillar apart from atoms? If you remove the atoms there is no pillar. The one perceived with eyes is a pillar but in actuality it is made of atoms. What is the truth? It is midhya or maya or abhaasa or illusion.
• 17. In gnaana forms viSesha (particular) like the knowledge of pillar; knowledge is not changing; the subjects are changing
• 18. gnaana and vishaya (idea) are sajaateeya (same kind). There is no pot in the world but it is in manas
• 19. Gnaana unifies with vishaya; vice versa
• 20. so it is meaningless to say an object is outside gnaana
• 21. so vishaya and gnaana have simultaneous existence; same place and same time;
• 22. They are abEdha, i.e. without one the other can't exist
• 23. Budhists preach one has to view the jagat as a dream
• 24. In dream the creation is done in gnaana. The observer creates the observed
• 25. Similarly in jaagrat (wakeful) avastha the observed is asatya (untrue)
• 26. Sankara asks if the world doesn't exist, how can one form ideas? Where do ideas come from? Aren't material objects existing before ideas can emerge?
• 27. The Budhist says it is because of vaasanaas. And vaisishyam (variety) is from vrutti (genes, genetic); where do vaasanas come from? From earlier births.
• 28. Due to cause – effect vaisishyam (variety) is created . How many different shapes can be made with clay? From vaasanaas, vaisishyam is formed
• 29. when vaasanas are present thoughts are formed; otherwise no thoughts emerge; hence both are the same
• 30. actually there is no jagat; it is an idea
• 31. Advaita contradicts the Boudha belief that there is no world but there is vignaana.
• 32. Advaitins says world is visible and tangible
• 33. The example given by Sankara is when one is satisfied after a sumptuous meal, can he deny it?
• 34. It is wrong to deny the reality of the world when one is experiencing it
• 35. A further proof is one contacts with the world with senses
• 36. How can we believe in Boudha who denies the world?
• 37. Boudha says there is no world apart from gnaana. Matter is present as gnaana swaroopa
• 38. Because an object is not different from gnaana, it can be internalized. Is the object now gnaana? How can object be apart from gnaana?
• 39. Sankara asks: “Can you say Vishnumitra is a son of an infertile woman?” As a sentence is looks fine but it is not a logical statement or self-contradictory.
• 40. Is paramaatma the way he is or like you have imagined (as in idol worship)?
• 41. Boudha argues: an object cannot exist in baahya (world). Only with gnaana can one perceive an object
• 42. Sankara says an object has to satisfy one of the 6 pramaanaas to have existence. And that is done through consciousness. The 6 pramaanaas are
  • arthaapatii (when one is proven, another is proven as side-effect)
  • anupalabdi (we can infer but not experience)
  • sabda (sound)
  • Veda
  • upamaana (the knowledge of A’s similarity to B is gained from the perception of B’s similarity to A)
  • anumaana; (from properties to object)
• 43. Sankara asks what is the relationship between the idea and an object? Only idea stays in mind;
• 44. The Budhist asks: So how can we grasp the two?
• 45. Sankara says by upaaya (aid, helper, aadhaara) / upEyam. Omkaara is upaaya and paramaatma is upEyam; journey is upaaya and destination is upEyam; you can't see journey once destination is reached; one can see difference in the color of a cow but not in the cow itself or its milk;
• 46. Boudha says: abEdha (indifference) when there are 2 things; you are seeing gnaana and object as 2 different things
• 47. Sankara says: you need a saakshi (witness) to the idea and object. That is vignaana; your vignaana is changing fleetingly, by multiplicity, by swalakshana (intrinsic property), etc.; jagat is not indifferent from vignaana. But which vignaana ?
• 48. When you accept yourself, why don't you accept that a pillar exists?
• 49. Boudha says: Vignaana is self luminous like a lamp.
• 50. Sankara: how is it possible that your vignaana exists? Are you experiencing your own vignaana without a pramaana? It is self-contradiction to say witness is witnessing himself and fire burns itself. Will gnaana witness itself
• 51. it is correct to say gnaana witnesses the world; it is incorrect to say gnaana observes itself
• 52. before creation paramaatma must be looking at himself; so self-witnessing is only possible when jagat is not there
• 53. Boudha says: you say the world is different from vignaana. I am saying only vignaana exists. It is not necessary for an observer to have observed;otherwise anavastaa dOsha will happen (recursively ask who is witnessing gnaana?)
• 54. Boudha says: our vignaana is swayam prakaasa (self luminous); it doesn't need separate gnaana; your (advaita) aatma is the same
• 55. Sankara says: mine is also vignaana. Who has won this debate? Your vignaana is fleeting and based on vrutti. My vignaana is saakshi roopa (witness); there is no anavasta dosha to the witness
• 56. Sankara says: you are catching the form of a wave (roopa) in the ocean and calling it vignaana; we are saying the ocean is the vignaana

From this debate thus far we see that Boudha Vignaana Saaka is almost like advaitam. They both talk about vignaana. However, Sankara points out that Boudha's vignaana has utpatti. Observed is born and will disappear after some time; creator is not born; creation is born and will end after some time; therefore if vignaana is born (utpatti) then it must have vinaasa (death).

In the end, Sankara gives an advice to the soonya vaadi (debater) who claims at the time of pralaya (devolution) everything will vanish: when you eliminate the objects (nEti, nEti...) you had better hold on to one before eliminating one. That way you don't have to reject all material objects without an anchor including self.

Thus, Sankara debates with the 3 main saakaas of Buddhism: Baahyaartha , Vignaana and Soonya.

Turning to Jainism:

• 1. There are 2 saakaas: swEthaambara and digambara (unclothed or naked)
• 2. Jainism has 7 categories: jeeva, bandha, ajeeva, mOksha, etc.
• 3. It has 5 kaayas:
  • jeevaastha,
  • udgalaaya,
  • dharmaasta,
  • adharmaasti,
  • aakaashstati
• 4. Sankara says it is a sidhaanta (doctrine) without reason or rhyme; it is not possible to have so many categories and kaayas in one thing; also at some time they are present and at other times they are absent because the 7 categories can change
• 5. So the Jain asks can't a single thing appear in multiple forms?
• 6. Sankara says the sootra on which you base your logic can also undergo change. If everything changes then there is no sidhaanta
• 7. If you claim the same thing exists or not exists, then what is the truth?
• 8. According to Sankara, Jainism does not stand for the scrutiny of : Pramaana (manas or mind), pramaata (self), prameya (world), pramiti (fruit of karma) = prame (paramaatma swaroopa). If you look at all the 4 separately then it is called vichaara; if you think all the 4 are the same then it is phalasruti (fruit of karma); if you deny all 4 of them then it is called loukika.
• 9. What is jeeva according to jainism? The Jain response is it is the aatma limited by the body. Jeeva is of the size of his body; jeevachaitanya is not sarva vyaapaka (present everywhere); like a pot it is limited; body undergoes change from infancy to adulthood; so the aatma varies by size of the body?
• 10. What happens if aatma of a human enters an elephant by rebirth? How can it fit in a small insect after rebirth?
• 11. Jain says: the anuvu (atoms) grow in large bodies and shrink in small bodies.
• 12. Sankara says if the size of aatma changes, then the chaitanya changes and it becomes limited
• 13. what ever you see is abhoutika (chaitanya/gnaana) and what is seen is bhoutika (jadam)
• 14. manas is felt because of aatma
• 15. when one thinks he is the karta (doer) of a kriya (karma) then it is called ahamakaara or ego; whereas aatma is a witness without karma
• 16. Thus, Sankara reasons and rejects Jainism as a true path to mOksha or salvation

To Recap:

A summary of the shatdarsanaas (6 religious systems)

• poorva meemaamsa – vEda is pramaana; there is no Iswara; karma only leads to mOksha or liberation

• saankya + yoga- believe in parinaama vaada (evolution); jeeva and jagat are accepted; Patanjali's Yoga philosophy accepted Iswara; but jeeva-jagat-Iswara are separate rather than as a unified aatma swaroopa

• naiyayakas (Gautama) + vaisEshikas (Kaanaadi); together are called taarkikas; they believe in aarambha vaada (creation happened); aatma doesn't have gnaana; aatma is dravya (thing); aatma needs to interact with manas or mind to be useful; there is Iswara but he has no relationship with jeeva

• Sudha naastika darsanaas: boudha + jainism believe there is no Iswara; there are only jeeva and jagat according to baahyartha vaadis; the two are absent as per the soonya vaadis; only one is present as per the vaignaanika vaadis

• Jains believe sareera (body) is aatma; there is nothing that is eternal like aatma or Iswara

• Uttara meemaamsa
  • dvaita
  • visishtaadvaita
  • advaita
• They accept Iswara; however they differ in terms of Iswara's role in the world; some of them believe there is no relationship between Iswara and jeeva; using Prakriti Iswara created jagat and jeeva; they all believe in the law of karma.

• 1. Both dwaita/visishtaadvaita accepted Iswara; they however believe there is no connection with jeeva; Iswara joined hands with Prakriti to create the world; the liberation or mOksha is through Karma (dvaita) and bhakti (visishtaadvaita);
• 2. Advaita says there is no kaarana vaada Iswara; 2 types of Iswara: nimitta kaarana or upaadaana kaarana ; he is not just nimitta; he is both upaadaana and nimitta kaarana
• 3. According to Saankya Iswara is fictitious; pradhaana (Prakriti) + Purusha (jeeva) + Iswara are different; Saivaites believe in kaarya, kaarana, vidhi, dukha, mOksha, etc.;
• 4. Tarkikaas (Gautama's nyaya saastra) and Kanaadi (vaisEshika) also believe in Iswara; Iswara is always nimitta kaarana (sentient cause) but not upaadaana (material cause); jeeva is separate from Iswara
• 5. Sankara says: it is foolish to think that Iswara created the world and rules over Prakriti and Purusha. Iswara isn't just nimitta kaarana for the world but is also upaadaana kaarana; Iswara created the differences among men and their lives; men are classified as adhama (lowest), madhya (middle ground), superior, etc Who made them that way? It is based on one's karma in the previous births.
• 6. Who made you do the karma? Iswara himself! Self-contradiction
• 7. Who gave pleasure and pain? If you have the power to decide why do you need Iswara? Because of inter-dependence
• 8. Jeeva + jagat = Brahman; hence he became upaadaana kaarana
• 9. Samsaara is anaadi (beginning less) ; why is Iswara forcing us to make sins and rebirths?
• 10. According to Gautama maharshi's nyaaya sootra: dosha (flaw) pravartana (behavior) lakshana (attribute); dosha=raaga (love) + dvEshaa (ill feeling) ; without the 2 you are choiceless or purposeless
• 11. Sankara says: Because Iswara has raaga dvesha he created the universe
• 12. Without dosha one won't go near swaartha (selfish) or paaramaarthika (spirituality)
• 13. Why are there cruel men? Because Iswara created them that way
• 14. Iswara is selfish; we inherited selfishness from him
• 15. Saankhya: Prakriti + Purusha; so Iswara is different from them; why did he develop relationship with both of them? The relationship is of two types: inseparable (both are the same) + separable (both are different but need each other)
• 16. According to Sankara: separable is not possible; jeeva + jagat + Iswara are inseparable ; all three are equal; how can it be advaita? If inseparable then they must be one not 3. Sankara says it is taadaatmya – if one thinks there is a relationship it will be so, otherwise it won't
• 17. The Iswara described by taarkikas is not present; if he exists what will he do? If he is like a pot-maker, then where is the clay? Nature is the clay, Paramaatma is the pot maker. The pot maker (sentient cause) has one form and the clay (material cause) has a different form; together they create pots (world) of various forms; does Iswara have form? Does the Prakriti have form? Iswara is form less. So does Prakriti. So how can objects with form in this world are created by the two?
• 18. The gnaana without form and the vision without form as well, can see an object with form
• 19. Does Iswara have desires? Does he experience pleasure and pain? Are his senses like ours? Is the Prakriti performing its acts for the sake of Iswara so that he fulfills his desires through Prakriti?
• 20. For taarkikas Iswara as a creator is not possible; those who are embodied can supervise others with bodies; Iswara has no form. So how can he supervise embodied creatures?
• 21. Iswara is formless before creation; he doesn't have a body; he has substance; without being embodied he cannot create; in that case like a jeeva he will experience samsaara (bondage) that causes pleasure and pain.

Miscellaneous

• 1. Vastusidha (prapancha [world] and jeeva are Brahma swaroopa)/ budhi sidha (prapancha [world] as well as jeeva don't exist)
• 2. pratyaksha anubhooti: jeeva + jagat
• 3. Because of jeeva Iswara came into existence; jeeva can never create the world himself; the world has no beginning or an end
• 4. Because jeeva is powerless before the universe he imagined an omni-scient and omni-potent paramaatma
• 5. Only when jeeva + paramaatma exist there is jagat (world)
• 6. Only when jeeva exists, paramaatma exists;without jeeva there is no paramaatma
• 7. For a jeeva samsaaara (bondage) is one concern and paramaatma is the other concern
• 8. taarkikas: imagined Iswara with 2 gunas: sarvagna (omni-scient) and ananta (infinite): they both cancel each other; man-made god
• 9. If Iswara is alone it is alright to call him ananta (infinite); with Prakriti/jeeva being ananta – mutually different- there will be 3 anantas; since ananta = sarva vyaapaka (omni-present); can there be 3 that are sarva vyaapaka / ananta?
• 10. Is Iswara sarvagna (capable of all things)? Can he measure all 3? Measurer and the thing he is measuring are to be different. From where does he start the measurement of jeeva and jagat? There has to be a place. Since there are 3 that are sarva vyaapaka, there is no further space for him to stand
• 11. Suppose he succeeds in measuring: then it is finite; jeeva's life span, etc. are measured; where would the measurer reside? One doesn't want to really be in the proximity of Iswara; so they imagined vaikhuntha/kailaasa as his abodes
• 12. A measured object is finite not sarvavyaapaka (omni-present)
• 13. The three limit one another
• 14. Suppose Iswara is trying to measure how many human beings are there in the world. Muktas (previous beings who attained mOksha) were freed from bondage. If everyone obtains liberation, eventually after many rebirths, there will no more be any jeevas; without jeevas there is no bondage; Prakriti is karta, jeeva is bhOkta (experiencer) ; when all bhOktas are gone there is no jagat/jeeva. Only Iswara is left
• 15. Whom does the Iswara control without jeeva-jagat? He becomes a dummy figure
• 16. That which is born must have an expiration date. Without beginning or end how can Iswara come in the middle? Only Brahman is ever present
• 17. If there is no measurement one can set aside Iswara and claim equal rights as Iswara
• 18. Iswara can be compared to CEO of a company and workers as jeevas. If every worker is promtoed to CEO then CEO (Iswara) will be eliminated
• 19. Therefore, the Iswara vaada by taarkikas is refuted

Vaishnavas:

• 1. Saandilya is the moola Purusha (founder) for Vaishnavas
• 2. Sankara had refuted the Iswara (pot-maker) without upadaana (clay or material cause) but only nimitta kaarana (sentient cause)
• 3. upaadaana + nimitta + Iswara is also not possible – according to Vaishnavas
• 4. The Vaishnavas state what is in sruti (vEdas)
• 5. According to Sankara: Vaishnavas are true to some extent
• 6. According to Vaishnavas vaasudEva is gnaana swaroopa; paramaatma tattva; he divided himself into 4 parts (also called vyoohas):
  • vaasudEva (paramaatma)
  • sankarshana (jeeva)
  • pradyumna (manas) and
  • anirudda (ahamkaara)
• 7.One has to worship vaasuDeva and gain his favor. If VaasudEva or Naaraayana or Siva are maayaa sakti, omni-scient; omni-present; etc. then Sankara is willing to accept Siva and VaasudEva are the same
• 8. But the Vaishnavas are saying: from VaasudEva came sankarshana, from sankarshana came pradyumna, from pradyumna came anirudha. Etc. Is it aarambha or parinaama vaada? One has to say vivarta. Anything that is born must be dead one day. So the vyoohas are anitya
• 9. Does kaarana come from karta (doer) ? How about tools? Can tools come from a carpenter? They say from jeeva manas is born? How is it possible? How can ahamkaara (ego) be born from manas?
• 10. VaasudEva + 4 vyoohas—they are all Iswara; they have equal amounts of shatgunas
• 11. Being niraakaara + nirguna, even if they are born from one another, they are all equal
• 12. If they all are equal, how is it possible to say they are born from one another?
• 13. When they all are equal won't one of Iswara/vaasudEva/pradyumna, etc. be enough? Why do we need multiplicity?
• 14. When paramaatma is satya (truth); how can there be 4 satyaas?
• 15. Admit that the same paramaatma has many avatars or forms. And there is no utpatti (one born from another)
• 16. When there is kaarya + kaarana there is no utpatti
• 17. how many paramaatmas are there when there is no difference in gnaana and sakti?
• 18. There can be multiple vyoohaas; why only 4?
• 19. Thus Sankara declares Vaishnava is antithetical to sruti and the founder Saandilya figured out a way to undermine sruti.

Om Tat-Sat

The content on this page was translated from a pravachanam delivered by Late Sri. Yellamraju Srinivasa Rao garu based on Adi Sankara's baashyam for Chapter 2, Pada 2 (Tarkapaadam) of Brahma Sutras. The translation itself was based on several hours of his speech.