SrI: SrImathE SatakOpAya nama: SrImathE rAmAnujAya nama: SrImath varavaramunayE nama:
SlOkam – Original
kshEthragyam chApi mAm vidhdhi sarvakshEthrEshu bhAratha |
kshEthrakshEthragyayOr gyAnaṁ yath tath gyAnam matham mama ||
word-by-word meaning (based on puththUr krishNamAchArya swAmy’s thamizh translation)
bhAratha – Oh descendant of bharatha clan!
sarva kshEthrEshu – in all bodies (such as celestial, human etc)
kshEthragyam cha api – (as the body which is known as kshEthra) the AthmA which is known as kshEthragya too
mAm vidhdhi – know as having me as the antharyAmi
kshEthra kshEthragyO: yath gyAnam – this knowledge which explains “the body and soul are different from each other, and both have me as their antharAthmA”
thath – that knowledge
gyAnam – knowledge (which is acceptable)
mama matham – this is my conclusion.
Simple Translation (based on puththUr krishNamAchArya swAmy’s thamizh translation)
Oh bhAratha! Know me as the anthatyAmi in all bodies (such as celestial, human etc which are known as kshEthra) and the AthmAs which are known as kshEthragyA; this knowledge which explains “the body and soul are different from each other, and both have me as their antharAthmA” is considered as true knowledge (which is acceptable) – this is my conclusion.
Rendering based on ALkoNdavilli gOvindhAchArya swAmy’s English translation of gIthA bhAshyam
‘Know Me, also, Bhārata! the Kshetrajña in all the Kshetras. I deem that is knowledge, —the knowledge of Kshetra and the Kshetrajña.’
From the adverb ‘also’ (api) in the expression, ‘know me also the Kshetrajña’, it is justly inferable that ‘Kshetra also is Mine’. The purport is that in the same manner as Kshetra (body) is apprehended solely as the inseparable adjunct of Kshetra-jña (soul), —by the, Law of the Correlation of Subject and Predicate— so are both Kshetra and Kshetrajña to be understood as inseparably adjectival to Me as relates, according to the same Law of subject-predicate co-inherence.
It will be pointed out further on that Para-brahm — Vāsudeva— is a distinct Postulate of existence, from Kshetrajña —whether the latter belong to the condition of bondage or emancipation— or Postulate defined by the terms Kshara (the perishable=matter-bound souls) and Akshara (the imperishable=matter-freed souls); for it is stated:
‘Two-fold are the Purushas (=souls) in the world, the Kshara and the Akshara; Kshara is the sum of all existences; the constant (kūtastha) is called the Akshara.’ (Gi: XV-16).
‘But the Best Purusha (Soul) is Another, Who is proclaimed as the Great Soul, Who, being Infinite and Sovereign, entering the triad of existences, sustains (it)’ (Gi: XV-17).
‘Since I surpass the Kshara, and even excel the Akshara, I am reputed as Purushottama both in the world and in the Veda’ (Gi: XV-18) etc.
That Kshetra, the composite of (the elements) earth etc., and Kshetrajña (souls) do qualitatively constitute the body of the Blessed Lord —the Blessed Lord being their Soul— the Śrutis such as the following declare:
‘Who seated in the earth; Who is the Interior of the earth; Whom earth knows not; to Whom earth is body; Who in the inside of the earth rules—, He is your Soul, Inner Ruler, Immortal’1.
‘Who seated in the soul; Who is the Interior of the soul; Whom the soul knows not; to Whom the soul is body; Who in the inside of the soul rules; He is your Soul, Inner Ruler, Immortal’.2
The reference to the Lord by the terms Kshetrajña and so on is justified in accordance with the Law of correlation of subject and predicate signifying the abidance of the Lord as the Soul of all Kshetrajñas, internally ruling them.
This Law of correlated reference was seen illustrated in all the stanzas, such as:—
‘Of the Ādityas, I am Vishṇu’ etc., (Gi: X-21), intervening between the general statement to that effect made in the commencement in the stanza:
‘I am Ātma, Gudākeśa! enshrined in the hearts of all beings.’ (Gi: X-20), and closing up as in such stanzas as:
‘Mutable or immutable, nothing exists that without Me can exist’ (Gi: X-39);
‘Abiding therein, I am in the Kosmos with but a fraction (of Me).’ (Gi: X-42).
I esteem that knowledge, then, as worth knowing viz, the knowledge concerning the distinction between Kshetra and Kshetrajña; and the knowledge that I am their Soul.
Now, some interpret the passage: ‘know the Kshetrajña also as Me,’ to establish unity (or identity) by the Rule of Common Reference. In that case, then, of having to postulate a unic existence, viz, Īśvara, the fact that through, ignorance, He is in the position of a Kshetrajña(=cognizer, implying duality, viz: cognizer and cognized), has to be acknowledged; and that the inculcation of identity is to dispel this ignorance. (The explanation is that) the ignorance due to the imagined (dual) condition as Kshetrajña is dispelled by the precepts of such highly trusty elders as the Blessed Lord, just as by the precept of a trusty elder, teaching ‘this is rope, not snake’, the fancied notion of snake disappears.
Such (interpreters) have to be questioned thus:
- Is this Teacher, the Blessed Lord Vāsudeva, the Supreme Īśvara, One whose ignorance has disappeared by the realization effected of soul-reality?, or is He not such an One?
- If He be One Whose ignorance has disappeared on the dawning of soul-illumination, then to imagine that which is adjunct-less (nirviśesha), and which is purely essentially chit (=consciousness) is to imagine a contrary reflection (i.e., imagining a duality in an essential monity) which is objectionable, such as the existence of a duality like Kaunteya (=Arjuna) etc. In that case where too, is there any occasion for such a procedure as the imparting of instruction to them (Arjuna and so on)?
- If He is not admitted as such an One (read 2), then no soul-illumination has dawned on him, and therefore ignorance remains undispelled! Then because He is Himself ignorant, whence his fitness to impart soul-knowledge?
Is it not indeed stated elsewhere that:—
‘The wise (jñanis) —the seers of truth— shall teach you wisdom., etc (an explicit declaration of the truth of duality)? (Gi: IV-34).
Hence, all polemics of this nature, opposed as they are to all Śrutis and Smṛitis, Itihāsas and Purāṇas, logic and their own averments, —so rife in order to impose on the world— deserve not to be entertained.
The real philosophy of existence lies in the assertions which the Śrutis make of the distinctive characteristics of (1) ‘the experienced,’ inherent in the nature of inert matter-stuff (achit), of (2) ‘the experiencer,’ inherent in the nature of soul-stuff (chit) and of (3) ‘the Dictator,’ inherent in the nature of Para-brahm (or the Supreme Spirit). Some of the Śrutis which so declare are :—
‘From this (matter), the Charmer (Māyī) creates this Kosmos; in which another (soul) is by (His) magic power confined’.3
‘Know the magic power (māyā) to be verily matter (prakṛiti)) as for the Charmer, He is the Great Lord’.4
‘The perishable (kshara) is matter (pradhāna), the imperishable (akshara) is the immortal enjoyer (the soul) and the Lord (God) alone, rules (both) matter and soul’.5
(Here, amrit-āksharam haraḥ, stands for the enjoyer viz: the soul. The soul is called haraḥ, because it is he who is capable of seizing (= harati) on matter —the enjoyed— as enjoyer thereof).
‘He (God) is the Cause, is the Lord of the lord of the (bodily) organs (= Lord of the soul); to Him there is no other Lord Progenitor above6; —He is the Master of matter (pradhāna) and soul (kshetrajña); He is the Lord of qualities.7
‘The Master of the Kosmos, the Lord of the soul, the Eternal, the Blessed, the Unfailing’.8
‘The Knower (God), the not-Knower (soul) are two; both are unborn; the One is Lord, the other is non-lord.’9
‘The eternal (God) of the eternals (souls), the Intelligent of the intelligsnts, the One above the many,—Who grants desires’.10
‘Knowing the experiencer (soul), the experienced (matter) and the Dictator (God) etc.’11
‘Knowing the soul and the Guide as distinct, and then by serving Him, he (the soul) reaps immortality from Him.’12
‘Of them, the other (soul) eats of the ripe fruit of karma (svādu pippalam), but the other (God) eats not and shines everywhere.’13
‘Verily one unborn (bound soul) lovingly tastes of the one unborn (matter)— red (=light=fluids), white(=water= liquids) and black (=food=solids), —and the latter (matter) begets, in answer to his wishes (sarūpām), manifold progeny; and one unborn (freed soul), discards her (matter) after tasting of her delights.’14
‘This earth (=matter =gauḥ) is beginningless, endless, is the mother having all creatures in its womb.’15
‘Dwelling on the same tree (with the Supreme Soul) the deluded soul (the individual soul), immersed (in the relations of the world) is grieved without having a Lord; but when it sees the other, the Lord —the Lovingly Worshippable, the Different (from all wordly relations)— and His glory, then does its (soul’s) grief cease’16 etc., ad libitum. Also Stanzas in the Gītā itself, such as those that follow, are ad rem. For example:—
‘………., and ahankāra; thus constituting My eight fold differentiated Nature (prakṛiti=matter)’ (Gi: VII-4).
‘But this is inferior; know My other Nature, superior —the Jīva (=soul)’ (Gi: VII-5)
‘All creatures, Kaunteya! go into My Nature (=matter), at the end of a Kalpa. Again do I emit them at the beginning of a Kalpa.’ (Gi: IX-7).
‘Again and again do I, resorting to My Nature, emit all this sum of beings, lying helpless in the power of Nature.’ (Gi: IX-8).
‘By Me, the Superintendent, (it) begets all mutables and immutables. Indeed is this the reason, Kaunteya! that the Kosmos turns.’ (Gi: IX-10).
‘Nature as well as Spirit, know, are both beginningless.’ (Gi: XIII-19).
‘The vast brahm (=matter! is My womb, into which I sow the germ (=soul). Thence comes, Bhārata! the birth of all beings.’ (Gi: XIV-3); and so on.
The meaning of the last quoted verse is :
‘The womb (or source or cause) of the Kosmos, this vast extended (=matter-stuff) is Mine, called prakṛiti (=substance), the subtle of the elements, the inert thing (achit). Into this, I unite the embryonic germ called the chetana (or chit=the conscious entity). Thereafter, from this compound alone of animate and inanimate substances —created by My will— all creatures, from deva down to a tree, confined in matter (achit), are produced.
The term brahma as signifying this primal rudiment of elements (= root-matter) is evident from the Śruti:
‘From Him (His will), this brahma (=unmanifested Kosmos) and the ‘name-form-food’ (=manifested Kosmos), are born.’17
Similarly, Śrutis asseverate that the Intelligents (chit) and non-Intelligents (achit), in all conditions and existing in the relation of ‘experiencer’ and ‘the experienced,’ constitute the body of the Supreme Spirit, and subject to His Will stand to him in indissoluble attributive relation; and that the Supreme Spirit is their Soul. (In other words, God is the Subject of the matter-and-soul Predicates). Some of the Śrutis are quoted below for reference:
‘Who seated in the earth, Who is the Interior of the earth; Whom earth knows not; to Whom earth is body; Who in the inside of the earth rules; He is your Soul, Inner Ruler, Immortal.’18. Commencing thus, the Śruti closes by saying:
‘Who seated in the soul; Who is the Interior of the soul; Whom the soul knows not; to Whom the soul is body; Who in the inside of the soul rules; He is your Soul, Inner Ruler, Immortal.’19
Another Upanishat, also commencing by declaring:
‘Who, moving in the interior of the earth; to Whom earth is body; Whom the earth knows not,’20
‘Who, moving in the interior of akshara (=soul), to Whom, akshara is body; whom akshara knows.not,’21
‘Who, moving in the interior of mṛityu (=root-matter) to whom mṛityu is body; whom mṛityu knows not,’22 etc., finishes up by saying:
‘He is the Inner Soul of all beings, the Sinless, the Divine, the only Lord, Nārāyaṇa.’23
(The term mṛityu in the above quoted Upanishat, connotes the subtle state of the inanimate (achit) substance, known by the appellation of tamas).
In the same Upanishat again, it is further stated:
‘The unmanifest (avyakta) merges into the imperishable (akshara) and akshara into tamas’24 and so on.
Elsewhere also it is asserted thus:—
‘Penetrating within, the Ruler of creatures, the all-Soul.’25
Similarly, there are Śrutis which undertake to explicitly impress the truth that the Supreme Spirit alone is the Subject, predicated by the compound body of sentient and insentient elements existing in all conditions; and that He alone is existent as the potential as well as the actual Kosmos. Some of them are cited here:
‘This Sat (=existence=God) alone, O Somya (= amiable disciple), was in the beginning, the One Only, the Secondless26……‘That willed: “May I be many!” “May I multiply.” It created light (=tejas).’27 So begins one Śruti, and closes thus:—
‘In Sat (=Existence) O Somya! has all this offspring (creation) its Root, Sat is its Support, and Sat is its Rest.’28
‘All this (=the real Kosmos) is ensouled by It (Sat): That is true; That is the Soul; That, O Śvetaketu! thou art.’29
In another place, similarly, beginning with:
“He willed: ‘May I be manifold!’, ‘May I procreate’ etc.” So did He meditate; meditating, He created all this,’30 closes by stating:
‘Both the constant (=satyam =soul) and the variant (=anṛitam=matter) became the Truth (=Satyam=God).’31
The above passage confirms what, in another Upanishat (Chhāndogya), is sung in the same strain viz:—
‘Hanta! with this life-soul (=jīvena ātmanā=jīvātmanā), do I interpenetrate these three devatas (=material principles: fire-water-earth), and manufacture names and forms;’32 showing the distinction in essence subsisting between the three substantia, viz: chit (=soul), achit (=matter) and Īśvara (=God).
The Taittirīya-Upanishat itself declares likewise:
‘After creating it (=the composite Kosmos of chit and achit), He (God) entered into it; and entering it, became both the non-mutatory (=Soul) and the mutatory (=matter) ………, the (‘one’) conscious, the (other) unconscious; the (one) constant, the (other) variable —became the Truth (=God).’33
From the agreement in sense between the Chhāndogya-text viz:
‘With this life-soul (=jīvātma) do I enter into (these three devatas)’34 etc. and the Taittirīya-text: viz.,
‘(He), entering it, became both the changeless (=soul) and the changeful (=matter) …….. the conscious and the unconscious35’ etc; as proving the ensoulment of jīva (soul) by Brahm (God), it is seen that the principle intended to be established throughout is the principle of Immanent Co-existence as in the relation of soul and body.
The manufacturing of names and forms is of this (the aforesaid) description; which is further confirmed by another Upanishat also:
‘Whereas this verily was (before) unfashioned (avyākṛitam), and which (He now) fashioned into names and forms’36
Hence, since the Supreme Spirit alone, with chit and achit correlated to Him as body, is the One Principle, the Cause, —when chit and achit are in subtle condition,— and the Effect, —when chit and achit are in manifested condition. Hence, admitting the identity of Cause and Effect, our position ‘that knowledge of Cause is knowledge of Effect’ ergo, ‘that knowledge of the One is the knowledge of all,’ is tenable.
In the text: ‘Hanta! with this life-soul (=jīvātma), do I enter into these three devatas, and make names and forms,’37 the expression ‘three devatas’ indicate all achit-substance en masse, and that fashioning ‘names and forms’ is by the medium of life (jiva=soul), the soul of the latter being God Himself. From this it is evident that all names which are sound-symbols do all have reference to the Supreme-Soul, adjectivated by matter and soul. Hence the Rule of the identity of substance with its adjuncts finds its primary application in that terms signifying the Supreme Spirit in His causal mode, have reference to terms signifying his mode as effect.
Hence since Brahm Itself is the Cause, with soul and matter as Its modes in subtle state, and Brahm Itself the Effect with soul and matter as Its modes in gross state, Brahm may be said to be the Material Cause of the Kosmos. Though Brahm is the Material Cause, that Cause is the Compound (Brahm), and hence no intermingling in their essences, of the triune elements: soul, matter and Brahm, need be supposed. Our assertion therefore that Brahm is the Material Cause of the Kosmos is most tenable.
As in the case of a colored cloth, the material cause of which, say, is the combination of white, black and red threads, —though the cloth is a single substance considered as a whole, yet the qualities, whiteness etc., are confined to just those parts of the whole, where white threads etc., may happen to occur, so, when the compound of matter, soul and God is declared to be the Material Cause, yet in the Effect of that Cause, viz: the Kosmos, there is no confusion of the distinctive characteristics of ‘the experiencer,’ ‘the experienced’ and ‘ Director’ which severally pertain to the three distinctive principles, —combining to produce a kosmic effect— of matter, soul and God. But there is a difference, that in the case of the cloth —cited as analogy— the several (colored) threads are capable of being separated, whereas since matter and soul in every and any condition, ever constitute the body of the Supreme Spirit, it is a case where with the indiscerptible attributive character of matter and soul and substantive character of God, it is a Compound Unity. Hence the Supreme Purusha alone so adjectivated by matter and soul, is both the Cause and the Effect; and Supreme Purusha alone is thus He, Whom every verbal symbol ultimately connotes.
As for the differences in the components of this compound, and their non-interchangeable character, the analogy (of the cloth) holds good.
When the case stands thus, it is evident that though Parabrahm enters into the effect, —since there is no transformation of His essential nature therein, there is no transmutation of His substantial character.
That He is Effect is tenable by reason of His being the Soul of the effect, for what is effect but a change of mode?
The contention of ‘Brahm devoid of qualities’ (=nirguṇa-vāda), is justified when it is taken to mean that Brahm is devoid of sinful qualities. (It means that when for example Brahm is said to be sin-less it does not necessarily follow that He has no virtues or no attributes whatever). For, certain Śruti passages declare:-
‘(He is) the Fulfilled of desires (=All-sufficient or Self-sufficient), the Possessed of Infallible will’39 etc., thus ascribing virtues (or good qualities) to Brahm; and establishes affirmatively here what elsewhere (in the Śrutis) was generally negatively established that ‘devoid of qualities’ means the ‘negation of evil qualities’.
Next, the controversy ‘that Brahm’s nature is mere consciousness (not conscious entity)’ becomes intelligible on the ground that Brahm Who is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Opposed to vices and Endowed with Virtues etc., can be aptly defined by the fact of his being endowed with the primary attribute of consciousness, chiefly characterizing Him, the Self-Illuminated.
Śrutis such as: ‘Who is Omniscient and All-wise’40;
‘It is heard that His Transcendant Power is manifold, and His natural (attributes of) Wisdom, Energy, Work etc.’41 ‘Oh (disciple)! By what is the All Knower to be Known?’42 etc., proclaim Him as the Wise or the Conscious (Being); etc.
Śrutis such as:
‘(He is) Truth, Wisdom’ etc.43, proclaim His being essentially Wise (etc), inasmuch as He is definable as permeated by Wisdom (or Knowledge or Consciousness), and as being essentially Self-Effulgent.
Śrutis such as:
“He willed: ‘May I be manifold,’”44
“He contemplated: ‘May I be many,’”45
‘He fashioned it into names and forms;’46
‘Oh (disciple)! When, indeed, the Spirit is seen, is heard, is meditated, is understood, all this becomes known;’47
‘All that is to be rejected where all is seen save Ātma;’48
‘What is Rig-veda but verily the breathings of this Great Being;’49
show that Brahm alone is, by His Self-will, existent in the forms of movable and immovable (Objects).
Again, that manifold existence without Brahm as Soul is an unreality, —(i.e. in other words, any Multeity that could be supposed to exist without the Unity (Brahm) is a non-entity, or that anything could have a self-existence independent of Brahm),— is the declaration of such Śrutis as:
‘Who perceives Here (in Brahm) the least diversity, deserves the death of death (=doom of samsāra)’;50
‘Not Here (in Brahm) is the least diversity,’51
‘Where it may appear to be duality;’52
‘That as other, the other sees; but where to him all is Soul, who (else) is by what (else) seen ?’53; etc.
Nor is the multiplicity of modes of Brahm, asserted by such Śrutis, as: ‘May I be many!, may I procreate!’54 —showing the assumption by Brahm, by His own will of many names and forms,- denied; for that such is the case has been established at the commencement itself of the Śruti passages, in the midst of which occurs the apparent contrary statement : ‘But where to him all is Soul,’ etc,55 those passages being: ‘All that is to be rejected where all is seen save Ātma’56 ‘What is Rig-Veda but verily the breathings of this Great Being’57 etc. Thus by the Śrutis themselves we see established (1) the essential (or substantial) differences amongst the Categories of chit, achit and Īśvara (or the soul, matter and God); (2) the attributive (or qualitative) differences amongst them; (3) the Law of Cause and Effect; (4) the Relativity of Cause and Effect, etc, and thus a harmony is established amongst all the Śrutis by the Śrutis themselves. Hence there is not the least room for entertaining such doctrines as those of ‘Brahm-nescience’58, (Brahm-ajñāna-vāda) ‘Brahm-difference due to limitations’,59 (Aupādhika-brahma-bheda-vāda) and other similar tenets based on fallacy and opposed to the spirit of the Śrutis; and hence let us take leave of further controversy.
archived in http://githa.koyil.org
- Bṛi Up°: V-7-3: ‘Yaḥ pṛithi-vyām tishṭhan &c’. ↩
- Bṛi: Up°: V-7-22: ‘Ya ātmani tishṭhan &c.’ ↩
- Śvet. Up: IV-9: ‘Asmān Māyī sṛijate viśvam etat tasmimś-chh-ānyo māyayā sanniruddhaḥ’. ↩
- Śvet. Up: IV-10 ‘Māyāntu prakṛitim vidyān Māyinam tu Maheśvaram’. ↩
- Śvet. Up: I-10: ‘Ksharam pradhānam amṛitaksharam harḥ, ksharātmānāv īśāte Deva Ekaḥ’. ↩
- Śvet. Up: VI-2: ‘Sa kāraṇam karaṇādhipādhipo, na ch-āsya kaśchit janitā, na ch-ādhipaḥ’. ↩
- Śvet. Up: ‘Pradhāna-kshetrajña-patir guṇeśaḥ.’ ↩
- Tait: Nāra: Up: XI-I; ‘Patimviśvas-ātmeśvara śāśvatam śivam achyutam.’ ↩
- Śvet. Up: I-9: ‘Jñā`jnau dvāv-ajāv-iśanīśau.’ ↩
- Śvet. Up: VI-13: and Kaṭh Up: V-13; nityonityānām etc.’ ↩
- Śvet. Up: i-12: ‘Bhoktā bhogyam Preritāram etc.’ ↩
- Śvet. Up: i-6: ‘Pṛithag ātmānam Preritāram etc.’ ↩
- Śvet. Up: IV-6, and Muṇḍ Up: iii-I-I; ‘Tayor anyaḥ pippalam svādvatti etc.’ ↩
- Śvet. Up: Tait: Nārā: x-5. ‘Ajām ekām lohita-śukla-kṛishnām etc.’ ↩
- Mantra or Māntrika: Up: I ‘Gaur anādyantavatī sā etc.’ ↩
- Śvet. Up: IV-7: Muṇd: Up: ‘Samāne vṛishe purusho nimagno etc.’ ↩
- Muṇḍ: Up: I-I-9: ‘Tasmād etat brahma’, etc. ↩
- Bṛi: Up: v-7-3: ‘Yaḥ pṛithivyām tishṭhan etc.’ ↩
- Bṛi: Up: v-7-22: ‘Ya ātmani tishthan etc.’ ↩
- Subā: Up: vii. ‘Yaḥ pṛithivīm antare sañcharan etc.’ ↩
- Subā: Up: vii. ‘Yo`kharam antare sañcharan etc.’ ↩
- Subā: Up: vii. ‘Yo mṛityum antare sañcharan etc.’ ↩
- Subā: Up: vii. ‘Esha sarva-bhūt-āntar-ātma Divyo Deva Eko Nārāyaṇaḥ.’ ↩
- Subā: Up: ii. ‘Avyaktam akshara etc.’ ↩
- Tait: Āraṇ: iii-10. ‘Antaḥ pravishtaś śāstā janānām etc.’ ↩
- Chh: Up: vi-2-1. ‘Sad eva Somya etc.’ ↩
- Chh: Up: vi-2-3. ‘Tad aikshata bahu syām etc.’ ↩
- Chh: Up: vi-8-6. ‘San-mūlās Somy emās sarvāḥ etc.’ ↩
- Chh: Up: vi-8-7. ‘Aitad ātmyam idam sarvam etc.’ ↩
- Tait: Āraṇ: ii-6-2. ‘So`kāmayata bahusyām etc.’ ↩
- Tait: Āraṇ: ii-6-3. ‘Satyañ chānṛitañ cha.’ ↩
- Chh: Up: vi-3-2. ‘Hanta`ham imās tisro devatā etc.’ ↩
- Tait: Up: II-6-2. ‘Tat sṛishtvā etc.’ ↩
- Chh: Up: vi-3-2. ‘Hanta`ham imās tisro devatā etc.’ ↩
- Tait: Up: II-6-2. ‘Tat sṛishtvā etc.’ ↩
- Bṛi: Up: iii-4-7 ‘Taddhedam taṛhi etc.’ ↩
- Chh: Up: vi-3-2. ‘Hanta`ham imās tisro devatā etc.’ ↩
- Chh: Up: VIII-I-5. ‘Apahata-pāpmā etc.’ ↩
- Chh: Up: VIII-1-5. ‘Satya kāmās satya-saṇkalpaḥ etc.’ ↩
- Mund: Up: II-2-7. ‘Yas sarvajñas etc.’ ↩
- Śvet: Up: IV-8. ‘Parā`sya śaktiḥ etc.’ ↩
- Bri: Up: IV-4-14. ‘Vijṇātāramare etc.’ ↩
- Tait: Up: II-I-1. ‘Satyam jñānam etc.’ ↩
- Tait: Up: II-6-2. ‘So`kāmayata etc.’ ↩
- Chh: Up: VI-2-3. ‘Tad-aikshata etc.’ ↩
- Bṛi: Up: III-4-7. ‘Tannāma-rūpābhyām etc.’ ↩
- Bṛi: Up: VI-5-6. ‘Ātmani khalv-are etc.’ ↩
- Bṛi: Up: VI-5-6. ‘Sarvam tam parādāt etc.’ ↩
- Bṛi: Up: VI-5-11. ‘Tasya havā etc.’ ↩
- Bṛi: Up: IV-4-19 and Kaṭh Up: IV-10-11. ‘Mṛityos sa mṛityum etc.’ ↩
- Bṛi: Up: VI-4-19 and Kaṭh Up: IV-10-11. ‘Neha nānā`sti etc.’ ↩
- Bṛi: Up: VI-5-15. ‘Yatra hi dvaitam etc.’ ↩
- Bṛi: Up: VI-5-15. ‘Tad itara itaram etc.’ ↩
- Chh. Up: VI-2-3. ‘Bahu syām prajāyeya etc.’ ↩
- Bṛi. Up: VI-5-15. ‘Yatra tvasya etc.’ ↩
- Bṛi. Up: VI-5-7. ‘Sarvam tam parādāt etc.’ ↩
- Bṛi. Up: VI-5-11. ‘Tasya havā etasya etc.’ ↩
- This is what is called the Brahm-ājñāna-vāda; or Brahm seeming dual through ignorance. This is Śankara’s doctrine (Vide commentary: II.12. Bh: Gī: ↩
- This is what is called Aupādhika-brahma-bheda-vāda; or Brahm become dual on account of limiting conditions. This is Yādava-bhaskara doctrine (vide commentary to II.12). ↩